The Daily Caller has cracked the case! 16 international scientists claim climate change is good for life and it's all a conspiracy because scientists love money and not science. And the people who knew it all along through, um, intuition suddenly can trust in science?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/27/1...gument-for-drastic-actions-on-global-warming/
Courtesy of Google news,....
Some well-known names there. Lindzen, Harrison Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Roger Cohen I recognise straight out. (Not Christy nor Spencer, surprisingly.) A not-unexpected number of engineers. And, of course, the usual garbage. See the whole thing at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html. (I heard about it from a comment on
http://www.realclimate.org/ ; I don't normally cruise pseudo-economics websites myself.)
This is classic :
"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. "
Heard it before, not only from conservative white males into climate denial, but also from creationists. The number of "dissenting scientists" is always growin, even though they're not young. The young ones, we are told, are silently protesting - we just have to take these old guys' word for that.
They've at last identified a martyr - Chris de Freitas, which is presumably why he's not on the signatuere list.
"They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. "
Of course he lost his editorial position because he was using it to get his cronies' rubbish past peer review, and they concede that he didn't lose his job as he must have feared he would. The de Freitas
et cronies paper in question didn't show anything of the sort but he (and his cronies, such as McIntyre) made a great noise lying that it did. So are we likely to believe them about the downtrodden young scientists who fear to speak truth to power? I don't myself.
The deniers need to get as much out there as they can at the moment about "no warming in the last 10 years" (by which they mean up to 2008/9, believe it or not, but heck, a lot of them are still fighting the Cold War). As is well-known, a decade of little or no warming is perfectly compatible with AGW and with climate models, and the deniers were lucky enough that the 2000's was one such. The likelihood of that continuing is very small.
2010 was one of the warmest years ever and 2011 was the warmest La Nina year ever. This La Nina won't last for ever, or if it does then
something peculiar is going on and would appear to be a problem in, say, Texas (deniers willingly point to La Nina to explain the drought there, but ignore it when the question turns to global temperatures). Even if the next decade sees as much La Nina conditions as the 2000's did they'll be warmer ones.
Meanwhile solar activity is cranking up and will continue to do so for a few years at least - again, unless something peculiar is going on in the Sun.
Things aren't looking good for the deniers so they're shouting louder while they can still get heard over the laughing.
).
.
