• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

Lucifuge Rofocale said:
UPDATE : Thanks to millions and millions of dollars from Exxon and evil corporations, www.climateaudit.org is on line again spreading their missinformation and false science.
:D
Click to expand...

You'd think they'd spend some of that money on real scientists... except all the real climate scientists(who aren't close to retirement) agree with the general scientific consensus, so they have to hire economists and oil executives to pretend to be climate scientists instead.

Luckily, they don't have to pay the rest of the cult... they work for free!:jaw-dropp
 
Funny, you are saying that there are real climate scientists that don't agree with the settled science of AGW? That's a good way to not look at their findings. I guess that being close to retirement is a guarantee that their work is driven by money from evil corporations.

Also, the fact that McIntyre is neither a meteorologist nor a climate scientist is a valid reason to dump it's findings. Maybe NASA has commited a tremendous error acknowledging the work of that oil businessman.

(I feel a strange deja vu about the way of science was treated in Stalin's USSR, the "capitalist science" was banned in favour of "proletarian science")

PS. I'm missinforming me right now reading http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1929#comments)

JoeEllison said:
You'd think they'd spend some of that money on real scientists... except all the real climate scientists(who aren't close to retirement) agree with the general scientific consensus, so they have to hire economists and oil executives to pretend to be climate scientists instead.

Luckily, they don't have to pay the rest of the cult... they work for free!:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
 
For those interested in the anti-science spreaded by McIntyre, go to
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885
It seems that Hansen'ss error has a global effect and could be in fact a discovery of lots of fabrications (http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm, among others ) wich have effect on the global picture.
I guess the next months (with revised datasets from Europe and Asia) cand bring interesting conclussions.

Just one more thing: Until now no AGW'r here has acknowledged the fact that the IPCC report has been invalidated by Loockwood.......interesting
 
Pipirr said:
That one got a smile out of me :)
Click to expand...

Linking through to Townhall.com's article (balanced) to NASA's press releases, hey, Houston, we gotta problem!

HANSEN'S DOING WHAT? Just making this stuff up?
2007

2007-05-30: Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point
2007-05-09: NASA Study Suggests Extreme Summer Warming in the Future
2007-03-15: Global 'Sunscreen' Has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists
2007-02-12: NASA Study Finds Warmer Future Could Bring Droughts
2007-02-08: 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year

2006

2006-10-24: NASA Looks at Sea Level Rise, Hurricane Risks to New York City
2006-09-25: NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels
2006-03-14: NASA Study Links "Smog" to Arctic Warming
2006-03-09: NASA Finds Stronger Storms Change Heat and Rainfall Worldwide
2006-02-28: Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood in Climate Change
2006-01-30: Keeping New York City "Cool" is the Job of NASA's "Heat Seekers"
2006-01-24: 2005 Was Warmest Year in Over a Century
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
There are interesting ways to maintain "consensus":

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA553_GlobalWarming_Intolerance.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070123a.html
Click to expand...

Your first example is of someone who works for the a right wing propaganda "think tank" being called out for working for a right wing propaganda "think tank".

The other three come from people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".

None of those people strike me as some sort of oppressed scientist. But more as people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".
 
BlackKat said:
Your first example is of someone who works for the a right wing propaganda "think tank" being called out for working for a right wing propaganda "think tank".

The other three come from people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".

None of those people strike me as some sort of oppressed scientist. But more as people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to politicise a scientific issue. Shame on you :cool: .
 
Let's suppose what you say is true (but I didn't know that MIT - Where Linzend works- was a Right wing propaganda think tank) . How does it change the way "consensus" is made?

I guess you missed some examples:

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
(February 8, 2007)
Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html
(May 2, 2007)
Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?


Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528
(January 17, 2007)
Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


Have you read Lindzen's article?
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

Apparently, those "right wing think tanks" are everywhere......


BlackKat said:
Your first example is of someone who works for the a right wing propaganda "think tank" being called out for working for a right wing propaganda "think tank".

The other three come from people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".

None of those people strike me as some sort of oppressed scientist. But more as people who work in right wing propaganda "think tanks".
Click to expand...
 
CapelDodger said:
Now you're trying to politicise a scientific issue. Shame on you :cool: .
Click to expand...

Oh I don't really care what wing they're from. It was more that they were from think tanks that I found funny. Opressed scientists? Try highly paid political writers.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Let's suppose what you say is true (but I didn't know that MIT - Where Linzend works- was a Right wing propaganda think tank) . How does it change the way "consensus" is made?
...
Have you read Lindzen's article?
...

Apparently, those "right wing think tanks" are everywhere......
Click to expand...

As prestigeous as Lindzen's institution and some of his work there has been... he is not writing for MIT. Nor do his views that smoking is not likely to give you lung cancer make him exactly one to rely on for sound judgement. He has pretty much given himself a serious credibility issue.

And the rest of your examples were people who were contradicting state or organization policy positions, thus being asked to stop or leave their positions. Guess how quickly I'd get fired if I (in front of some clients) started contradicting my boss about a major issue?
 
BeAChooser said:
This specific enough for you?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/08/dingells_tax_plan_targeting_gas_mansions/6309/ " ANN ARBOR, Mich., Aug. 8 (UPI) -- U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., unveiled his plan to fight global warming this week through additional taxes on both gasoline and large U.S. homes. The Detroit Free Press said Wednesday the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman wants to end a mortgage tax deduction given to estates larger than 3,000 square feet and create a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax under his environmental plan."

You realize, don't you, that Dingell is the House Energy Chairman?
Click to expand...

Call me parochial, but no, I was not aware of Dingell's stellar status. Fifty cents a gallon, that's what, 25p? I wasn't aware modern Democrats were so combative.

But isn't that exactly what the global warlarmists are insisting we must do? Act now to save the earth for future generations?
Click to expand...

"Global warlarmist" is cute. Is that yours? Kudos if it is. Combining "war", which is alarming, with "alarmist", which defines the enemy, and "global", which implies both the enemy's alarming potency and its foreigness. That scores a lot of points in your local context.

Screw future generations, none of them are my fault. (People with offspring often feel differently, for obvious reasons.) Serious and prompt action for their benefit is no doubt required but my concern is with pay-backs I actually experience. Thus the five-year bet.
 
I think the W in Walarmist stands for Warming, not war.

CapelDodger said:
"Global warlarmist" is cute. Is that yours? Kudos if it is. Combining "war", which is alarming, with "alarmist", which defines the enemy, and "global", which implies both the enemy's alarming potency and its foreigness. That scores a lot of points in your local context.
Click to expand...
 
BlackKat said:
Oh I don't really care what wing they're from. It was more that they were from think tanks that I found funny. Opressed scientists? Try highly paid political writers.
Click to expand...

Your post was spot-on, I was making one of my irony attempts :o . It's a release mechanism. A breath of fresh rational air is most welcome in the self-referential tangle that's just washed in.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I think the W in Walarmist stands for Warming, not war.
Click to expand...

Well, whoopy-do to you for thinking, but my post was about the propagandist effect. Where thinking isn't an issue. You yourself, no doubt unconsciously and you think accidentally, have misspelled "warlarmist", leaving out the "war". That's the combination of letters that triggers an emotional response in the target audience. That's the point. Jeebus, have you never worked in Advertising or related industries?

We here aren't the target audience, propaganda gets short shrift on the JREF Forums, so your explication ain't really necessary.
 
mhaze said:
Linking through to Townhall.com's article (balanced) to NASA's press releases, hey, Houston, we gotta problem!

HANSEN'S DOING WHAT? Just making this stuff up?
2007

2007-05-30: Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point
2007-05-09: NASA Study Suggests Extreme Summer Warming in the Future
2007-03-15: Global 'Sunscreen' Has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists
2007-02-12: NASA Study Finds Warmer Future Could Bring Droughts
2007-02-08: 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year

2006

2006-10-24: NASA Looks at Sea Level Rise, Hurricane Risks to New York City
2006-09-25: NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels
2006-03-14: NASA Study Links "Smog" to Arctic Warming
2006-03-09: NASA Finds Stronger Storms Change Heat and Rainfall Worldwide
2006-02-28: Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood in Climate Change
2006-01-30: Keeping New York City "Cool" is the Job of NASA's "Heat Seekers"
2006-01-24: 2005 Was Warmest Year in Over a Century
Click to expand...


It's all very alarming, isn't it?

With luck we can discuss how it all turns out ten years up the line. Care to make a bet? I'll bet on current alarm being justified. You could bet in it not being justified.
 
JoeEllison said:
except all the real climate scientists(who aren't close to retirement) agree with the general scientific consensus
Click to expand...

You, of course, can prove that?

I tell you what, let's see if I can prove you wrong with just one source ...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

"Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming
Alarmist 'consensus' does not exist
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1, 2005

A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.

... snip ...

The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes’ “unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.”

The newspaper reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, “decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly.”

The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.

With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating “strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

“The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong,” Bray reported in his findings. “Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes’ conclusion is not as obvious as stated.”
Click to expand...

Oh my ... looks like you are completely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom