SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Archie Meeties who wrote (118909)3/11/2009 10:44:47 PM
From: Broken_Clock
6 Recommendations   of 198654
 
"For the 99% of people who study climate for a living, it's a done deal."
===
Maybe...

scrippsnews.com Even left now laughing at Global Warming
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:24.
By DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion

So-called "global warming" has shrunk from problem to punch line. And now, Leftists are laughing, too. It's hard not to chuckle at the idea of Earth boiling in a carbon cauldron when the news won't cooperate:

-- Nearly four inches of snow blanketed the United Arab Emirates' Jebel Jais region for just the second time in recorded history on January 24. Citizens were speechless. The local dialect has no word for snowfall.

-- Dutchmen on ice skates sped past windmills as canals in Holland froze in mid-January for the first time since 1997. Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop, who inhabits a renovated 17th Century windmill, stumbled on the ice and fractured his wrist.

-- January saw northern Minnesota's temperatures plunge to 38 below zero, forcing ski-resort closures. A Frazee, Minnesota dog-sled race was cancelled, due to excessive snow. Snow whitened Surf City, North Carolina's beaches. Days ago, ice glazed Florida's citrus groves.

As Earth faces global cooling, both troglodyte Right-wingers and lachrymose Left-wingers find Albert Gore's simmering-planet hypothesis increasingly hilarious:

-- "In terms of (global warming's) capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chairman of University of Pennsylvania's Earth and Environmental Sciences Department, told the Pennsylvania Gazette. Giegengack voted for Gore in 2000, and says he likely would again.

-- Commentator Harold Ambler declared January 3 on HuffingtonPost.com that he voted for Barack Obama "for a thousand times a thousand reasons." He added that Gore "owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming." He called Gore's assertion that "the science is in" on this issue "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of mankind."

-- "Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over," retired Navy meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg wrote on carbon-sense.com. The physical chemist and self-described "scientist and life-long liberal Democrat" added: "The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years. From the El Nino Year of 1998 until Jan. 2007, it dropped a quarter of a degree Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit). From Jan 2007 to the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping three-quarters of a degree Celsius (1.35 degrees Fahrenheit). Those data further prove that the fear-mongering hysteria about human-caused global warming is completely unjustified and is totally counterproductive to our Nation's essential needs and security."

-- "It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians and journalists that they keep regurgitating the nonsense about human-caused global warming," veteran Left-wing commentator and Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote. "The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution -- and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed."

Some Leftists believe the collective hallucination of warmism distracts from what they consider urgent progressive priorities:

-- "The most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might," University of Ottawa physics professor Dr. Denis Rancourt has written. "The global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth."

-- Social historian Dr. David Noble of Canada's York University concurs. He has lamented that warmism is "diverting attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movements."

-- Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, previously Education Minister in France's late 1990s Socialist government, denounced the "prophets of doom of global warming." He sounded amused in a September 2006 L'Express article. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people."

"The so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming is not holding up," Senator James Inhofe (R -- Oklahoma) told his colleagues January 8. "It is becoming increasingly clear that skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue."

So-called "global warming" has accomplished the impossible: It has united liberals and conservatives in laughter.

(Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Broken_Clock who wrote (118910)3/11/2009 11:06:21 PM
From: Kayaker
3 Recommendations   of 198654
 
Even left now laughing at Global Warming
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:24.
By DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion


Deroy Murdock

....He said on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on September 16, 2007 that he believes Saddam Hussein was involved in perpetrating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America....

....Murdock was named runner-up "Worst Person in the World" on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann after writing an article titled "Three Cheers for Waterboarding", in which he called waterboarding "something of which every American should be proud."....

en.wikipedia.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Kayaker who wrote (118911)3/11/2009 11:17:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock
3 Recommendations   of 198654
 
To be as honest as possible, I think GW makes sense. OTOH, I think the statement that 99% of those who study climate are on the GW bandwagon may be overstating it a tad. -g-
I studied climate briefly in college. My personal thought is that climatology is an area of science still in its infancy.

epw.senate.gov

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
January 14, 2009

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"
Update: December 22, 2008: 11 More Scientists Join Senate Report
Link to Full Printable PDF Report
INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#
This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming. (LINK)

#

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

#

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: Broken_Clock who wrote (118912)3/12/2009 12:51:44 AM
From: axial
5 Recommendations   of 198654
 
BC, this statement (which I assume is yours) is somewhat troubling:

'"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.'

---

I'm the first to agree that the debate on warming is far from settled. The hypothesis will be proven true, not true, or somewhere in between.

There are many definitions of "true"; for instance, criminal law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt", while civil law is satisfied by the "balance of probabilities". It was a long time before science accepted the truth of Einsteinian physics, as opposed to Newtonian. Science was slow to accept the idea of plate tectonics; the idea was ridiculed by many, scientists and academics alike.

Truth is just as much a matter of acceptance, as objective reality. It may be that some truths are unknowable. If truth were static, we'd still believe the earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around it.

The problem lies in the extent of possible damage: if the warming hypothesis is true, there is an unquantified probability of global changes that will prejudice life as we know it.

The consequences of prevention will cause no damage to the planet; the consequences of inaction may result in irreversible change and catastrophic destruction.

---

There is apprehension of a danger. It's a probability, not a certainty. By which standard will we judge it? Scientific truth? That changes. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"? By the time we know that, it may be too late. "Balance of probabilities"? Opponents of the hypothesis won't even accept that.

They want absolute, incontrovertible "scientific" proof. 100%. Nothing less.

---

Now we come to your statement: '"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.'

Whether or not the hypothesis is true, the apprehension is real. If mankind is to take preventive action it cannot be done without political action.

Of course advocates are attempting to create consensus. Without political action, no change can be effected. In view of the potential danger it would be irresponsible not to inform, to persuade, to seek action by democratic majority.

---

Nobody is questioning your right to equal time, an opposing view, and the right to motivate others in opposition.

To claim that advocates of the warming hypothesis are working toward "political" ends is to state the obvious. It's use of pejorative terminology, in an attempt to discredit the opposition with an illogical argument.

Would you have the matter ignored? Not debated? Or is "your side" the only side, while everyone else is playing "dirty pool"?

In the end, this matter will be decided by consensus, and that means politics and democracy - which, by your tortured logic, is wrong.

I disagree.

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: axial who wrote (118913)3/12/2009 7:05:41 AM
From: Aggie
26 Recommendations   of 198654
 
Hi TRIP,

In the late 70's, when I was pursuing a degree in geology, one of my professors was deeply involved with the growing study of the effects of acid rain. At the time, only a few grants had been underwritten, and it was clear that the body of work required to understand the problem was much bigger and would require much more. Over the course of a few years, the Acid Rain Issue turned into a bonnanza of grant writing for ambitious professors and their armies of graduate students. It made for a whole new supply of ecologists out on the market.

The point is, the evidence once collected was irrefutible. The genesis of the problem was traceable and could be demonstrated as clear cause & effect. This led to sweeping regulatory changes which in the end have benefited society and protected the environment. It happened because the science was treated as science, and the proof of the data was self-evident.

A similar grant-writing bonanza, on a vastly grander scale, has been a hallmark of the GW industry. Parts of this body of work represent a boondoggle on an unprecedented scale, but a lot of it is good solid work.

But unlike acid rain, the data is a combination of direct measurement and computer simulation, both of which are disciplines that have had tremendous technical advances in recent time. The newness of the science, the advancement of technique - all of these are things that complicate the confinement of critical thinking to the simple issue, and this provides fertile ground for rascals.

Bottom line: Any time intimidation is used in any form in the context of a scientific discussion, then the pure argument has been put at risk. When the main spokesmen of the GW cause present their cases with an air of condescension, as if this has "already been decided" and accuse all non-believers of scientific apostasy, then the game has been revealed. Such incredible arrogance has no place in a scientific proof.

There is no conclusive data, or the conclusion would be obvious and the scientific community would be in near unanimous consensus. They are not. There is good reason to challenge the conclusions when any challenge is treated in such a bizarre and politically charged way. And any time a politician starts to spout science, when he is clearly under-equipped to do so, then two things are a dead certain bet: He has figured out how to gain power and influence using this new tool, and he will do it to get hold of your money.

The hook to this particular play is not to prove global warming. Over its 4.5 billion year history, the earth has always been in flux in this regard because of radioactive and infrared decay. It always will be, as long as the sun shines.

No, the hook is to make you believe it's your fault. That's where the science becomes politics. At least for now, with our ability to measure and model as it presently stands.

Regards to all,
Aggie

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: axial who wrote (118906)3/12/2009 7:38:43 AM
From: couldawoulda
   of 198654
 
If they cut, it'll be a small one. I think we're also going to get a draw down nearing a million or so for the next inventory report.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Aggie who wrote (118914)3/12/2009 8:29:59 AM
From: axial
3 Recommendations   of 198654
 
Aggie, thanks for your thoughts.

"Bottom line: Any time intimidation is used in any form in the context of a scientific discussion, then the pure argument has been put at risk. When the main spokesmen of the GW cause present their cases with an air of condescension, as if this has "already been decided" and accuse all non-believers of scientific apostasy, then the game has been revealed. Such incredible arrogance has no place in a scientific proof."

I suggest that "incredible arrogance", intimidation, rudeness and the inability to conduct a calm, reasoned debate on merits of any proposition has become a hallmark of our times.

My point was that in a democracy neither advocates nor opponents of an idea should be denied the opportunity to politicize their belief. The objection: nothing can be achieved without political involvement. It is up to voters to decide what should (or should not) be done.

Finally, your point about the quality of science attracting irrational support applies equally to both sides of the GW debate. It's an interesting point, but not relevant to the question of political support for future action.

Again, it's up to voters to assess the quality of science, consequent information, and the rationale behind different courses of action. However, given the current polarized environment, there's evidence to suggest that the days when a democratic decision will be respected and supported by all are long, long gone.

More's the pity.

Regards,

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LoneClone who wrote (118902)3/12/2009 8:51:33 AM
From: CommanderCricket
5 Recommendations   of 198654
 
LC,

You are right and my post was a over the top in name calling.

I would like to see more balance in the discussion but that's for another thread.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: axial who wrote (118916)3/12/2009 8:53:05 AM
From: Aggie
2 Recommendations   of 198654
 
Hi TRIG,

"neither advocates nor opponents of an idea should be denied the opportunity to politicize their belief"

I don't think we're in dispute about that - where the problem is, is when politics and opinion is presented as science.

Thanks and Regards,

Aggie

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Ed Ajootian who wrote (117638)3/12/2009 8:55:50 AM
From: Dale Baker
   of 198654
 
END report looks good at first glance - thoughts?

biz.yahoo.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. Data provided by IEX, Alpha Vantage, Coinbase, Binance, Fintel and CityFALCON News - See Terms of Use.