Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

In your mind maybe.....:rolleyes:

Klaus-Martin Schulte, MD, FRCS
Consultant in Endocrine and General Surgery, Department of Endocrine Surgery,
King’s College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom
Honorary Senior Lecturer of Surgery, King’s College London
E-Mail: Klaus-Martin.Schulte@kch.nhs.uk
Click to expand...

such qualifications for a climate science discussion.....

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be

On the other hand

Consensus census
In addition to the IPCC, the world’s scientific societies have overwhelmingly endorsed the science of anthropogenic global warming.

Among them:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)[6] The largest general scientific society in the world, servicing 10 million individuals. It publishes the journal Science.

The American Chemical Society (ACS)[7] Founded in 1876. Currently has 160,000 members.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU)[8] Established in 1919 and currently made up of 50,000 earth scientists. Their parent organization, the American Institute of Physics (AIP), also endorses their statement

The American Meteorological Society (AMS)[9] Founded in 1919 and currently has more than 11,000 members.

The Geological Society of America (GSA)[10] Founded in 1888 and has over 20,000 members

The science academies of the G8 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and US) and Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa[11]

Endorse the conclusions of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report
Click to expand...

http://cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/

:garfield:
 
DeSmogBlog

$$$ Funded by James Hogan (James Hoggan & Associates) and John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)

- Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)

So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.

There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.

But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.

That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
- Multi-billion-dollar charges for B.C. man (The Vancouver Sun, Canada)

Lefebvre, 55, was arrested by FBI agents at his Malibu home and charged with conspiring to promote illegal gambling by transferring billions of dollars of cyberspace bets placed by U.S. citizens with offshore gaming companies.
Click to expand...
Mac I asked for the vote from the association's membership(s) in support of those position statement(s). Dishonesty listing the membership size when no vote was ever taken by them is guilt by association of the lowest order. The only thing the position statement(s) prove is a majority of those group's board members agreed to that statement (which is a handful).
 
Last edited:
What "association" would that be?? :con2:
Vague as usual...up a bit early are you....coffee not kicked in yet....:garfield:
I thought New Jersey had lots of 24 hour truck stops.....

••

Aside from the diversion....have you come up with the 5 AGW contrarian papers from credible sources akin to Nature??? and told us why they support your position?

That was a clear and direct request which you have continually dodged :popcorn1

Running out of popcorn waiting.....
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
What "association" would that be?? :con2:
Vague as usual...up a bit early are you....coffee not kicked in yet....:garfield:
I thought New Jersey had lots of 24 hour truck stops.....
Click to expand...
The AGU - I am running out of popcorn waiting.

your ignorance of NJ is just further evidence proving my point.

macdoc said:
Aside from the diversion....have you come up with the 5 AGW contrarian papers from credible sources akin to Nature???
Click to expand...
I've already provided over 100. Maybe you have an inability to read?
 
You seem to be confused about where (non-truck drivers) buy coffee in NJ.

So Mac can you show me the AGU membership vote in favor of the position statement or not?
 
I've already provided over 100. Maybe you have an inability to read?
Click to expand...

Major sources like Nature not junk and you have yet to detail how even one supports your nonsense.....

AGU members are hardly up in arms about the policy statement by the leadership are they???.....:garfield:

You are just regurgitating garbage PopTech and you don't care anyways - it's another of your infamous spamming campaigns.....

Let's have a reminder for your Nobel pursuit....courtesy Myriad..

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

Number 1 appears to be contradicted by direct measurements. Number 2 appears to be contradicted by basic rules of optics. Number 3 requires a complete description of the mechanism, and strong evidence confirming that it exists. Number 4 appears to be contradicted by basic laws of thermodynamics. Number 5 requires addressing each of the obvious expected consequences of a temperature increase including melting ice, shifting climate zones, redistribution of fresh water supplies, and threats to locally adapted flora and fauna, in a quantitative way.

Number 5 is the only one that requires looking in detail inside the gray box. So, the best chance for making a convincing argument for #5 would be to work with and build upon the expertise and tools developed within the field of climatology.

The problem for most "AGW skeptics" is that they dismiss climatology in the mistaken belief that climatologists being wrong about aspects of climatology would somehow argue in favor of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, or 4. This is futile because nothing we don't know (or might be wrong about) concerning what happens inside the gray box can refute "Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up."

Abandoning the discipline of climatology leaves them with only handwaving of the "maybe the heat only heats up things whose temperature doesn't matter" or "maybe the temperature increase will be so slow that we won't notice" variety to bring to hypothesis 5.

So, back to the "AGW skeptics": what don't I know about climate change that supports hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Now it is passing strange PT that you claim to have supplied 100 contrarian papers from major sources- I just re-read this entire totally inane thread and have yet to see ONE - you normally lie so casually???
Now about that 5 from major sources and your comments on how they support your position....
:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
Any discussion about a moderation issue needs to be taken to the Forum Management section. I have removed a selection of posts that were involved a discussion about moderation to the Forum Management section.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
BenBurch said:
This many;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14457&d=1246579074
Click to expand...

Poptech said:
You mean this many?
Click to expand...

Poptech said:
Wait, wait, wait, you mean this many...
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
A PREFECT example of one of the techniques discussed in this book;

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

You scale the graph such that a trend that is in the data appears to be flat.

A very effective way to lie to people who don't know the carny trick involved.
Click to expand...

Poptech said:
What as opposed to scaling it near vertical? Unbelievable. Your graph shows a 0.4 degree change in temperature scaled like a thermometer that is ready to burst.


EXACTLY! Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Sorry for joining in late here, but there is, in my opinion, some justification to arguing about the scaling of multi-variable graphs when they're used to show a correlation (or lack thereof) between two phenomena. For instance, here's an approximation of the original graph that Ben linked:

AGWgraph1.gif


And here are several examples of how the exact same data might be plotted to paint a different picture:

AGWgraph2.gif

AGWgraph3.gif

AGWgraph4.gif
 
I am not saying that the original graph you posted was dishonest.

What do you mean, to use one linear and one log scale? Because your graph seemed to scale linearly for both the CO2 and Temp variables. I used it to make my graphs, without changing any of the data. It's all linear also. I think that Poptech's graph also scaled linearly.

But, the scale used for one variable could be chosen to make its curve fit more exactly with the curve for the other data, could it not? Or, vice versa? Otherwise, why object to how 'flat' one of his graphs looked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom