Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change Deniers at It Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

    Originally posted by llanlad2 View Post
    Can you provide examples of a large majority of scientists coming to the same wrong conclusion because they "suck upon the teat of government?"

    If scientists only conclude what the state wants them to then how come they frequently make conclusions that are often awkward to the powers that be?

    the earth isn't flat
    it revolves around the sun
    smoking is bad for you
    nuclear fall out is bad
    the ozone layer is thinning
    polluting rivers is bad
    seatbelts save lives
    planting seeds in straight lines with spaces between them is a good idea
    vaccinations are worth having

    Oh I know cos they just want to poke their noses in and tell people they may have to alter their behaviour -the interfering geeks.


    I spoke to a professor of atmospherics recently and he assured me there was plenty of evidence to support global warming. I didn't get the impression he was saying it to keep his job. After all he had his job before global warming was a widely accepted theory.
    John Coleman: Founder of The Weather Channel

    When Coleman posted his first climate change brief online, he was surprised by the attention it got. “I thought I was the only one,” he says. “I started finding that there were plenty of people out there, it’s just that the media was ignoring them and the place to find them was on these little corners of the internet.” In May, 2008, an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition at the National Press Club, with the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the U.N. consensus of man-made climate change. Nine thousand of the names reportedly belong to Ph.Ds.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

      Originally posted by llanlad2 View Post
      Can you provide examples of a large majority of scientists coming to the same wrong conclusion because they "suck upon the teat of government?"

      If scientists only conclude what the state wants them to then how come they frequently make conclusions that are often awkward to the powers that be?

      the earth isn't flat
      it revolves around the sun
      smoking is bad for you
      nuclear fall out is bad
      the ozone layer is thinning
      polluting rivers is bad
      seatbelts save lives
      planting seeds in straight lines with spaces between them is a good idea
      vaccinations are worth having

      Oh I know cos they just want to poke their noses in and tell people they may have to alter their behaviour -the interfering geeks.


      I spoke to a professor of atmospherics recently and he assured me there was plenty of evidence to support global warming. I didn't get the impression he was saying it to keep his job. After all he had his job before global warming was a widely accepted theory.
      In the western democracies "the state" only "wants something" once it's clear that a critical mass of citizens have already fallen in line. The flip flop on climate change in the USA is being driven by public sentiment more than anything else. I don't recall "the state" wanting to place limits on smoking until there was public pressure to do so. Nor do I recall the state wanting to do anything about the ozone layer, polluted rivers or banning atmospheric nuclear weapons testing [and a host of other policies] until the public demanded it.

      Another example: As EJ has written, policy related to dealing with the debt overhang and failing credit system will not change until the unemployment rate increases sufficiently to bring enough political pressure on the Administration.

      How the state, the MSM, NGOs, and other organizations influence public opinion is another matter entirely...;)
      Last edited by GRG55; 02-19-09, 08:22 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

        Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
        John Coleman: Founder of The Weather Channel

        When Coleman posted his first climate change brief online, he was surprised by the attention it got. “I thought I was the only one,” he says. “I started finding that there were plenty of people out there, it’s just that the media was ignoring them and the place to find them was on these little corners of the internet.” In May, 2008, an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition at the National Press Club, with the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the U.N. consensus of man-made climate change. Nine thousand of the names reportedly belong to Ph.Ds.

        31000 scientists- and how many meteorologists?
        See link below for info on the paper you mentioned. Funnily enough the authors sent it to departments in universities but not the meteorology ones.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480

        Real science discussion/development/progress occurs through research followed by publishing in peer reviewed journals not petitions. The consensus supporting man-made GW within articles published within journals is almost 100%.

        Not believing in humans influencing global warming is "faith based" and nothing to do with science. Usually it's a belief that the government has tricked/forced all the experts to come to the same conclusion so they can screw the public somehow.

        Personally I'll go with the experts on this and not a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

          I hope you're not calling me an Internet conspiracy theorist.
          Last edited by cjppjc; 02-19-09, 10:43 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

            Originally posted by llanlad2 View Post
            31000 scientists- and how many meteorologists?
            See link below for info on the paper you mentioned. Funnily enough the authors sent it to departments in universities but not the meteorology ones.
            This has been blown out of the water. Other surveys on the other side have even bigger numbers. Science is not a political process anyway.
            Originally posted by llanlad2 View Post

            The consensus supporting man-made GW within articles published within journals is almost 100%.
            Within a very small group of circle-jerk peer-reviewers, but even that has changed in the last year. In filled data is not real data...

            Originally posted by llanlad2 View Post
            Not believing in humans influencing global warming is "faith based" and nothing to do with science.
            Not the case - that is like saying atheists are faith based. To not believe only means that ones standard for evidence is different than yours. in the last year there have been several papers that have punched holes in the hockey-team case.

            Seriously - take two examples - suppose the average temp (satellite is the only way to measure 'global' BTW) went up 5 deg C in the next few years. Does that prove AGW? Not really.

            Suppose it goes down 5 deg C - does that disprove AGW - Again, not really. Somethings are really not knowable. I think you have been listening to folks that remind me of kids that go in a closet and turn off the light to see how scared they can get.

            Take a look at http://www.climateaudit.org/ if you want to understand why the case has not been made. (the case that there isn't AGW hasn't been made either). Real science is funny that way.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Climate Change Deniers at It Again

              Greenland, Antarctica Glaciers Speeding Faster Toward the Sea

              By Alex Morales

              Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than predicted, accelerating their march to the sea and adding to the rising ocean levels that threaten coastal communities worldwide.

              The Pine Island Glacier, the biggest in West Antarctica, has sped 40 percent faster toward the sea since the 1970s and Smith Glacier is moving 83 percent quicker than 15 years ago, said David Hik, executive director of the Canadian secretariat of the International Polar Year, an international scientific project.

              “The loss of ice is pretty spectacular,” Hik, a professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, said today in a telephone interview from Geneva. “The big outflow glaciers on Greenland are accelerating their discharge as well.”

              The study means scientists now have a better handle on the potential contribution to sea-level rise of melting ice sheets than two years ago, when the United Nations produced its biggest report on global warming, predicting an increase in sea levels of 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches) this century.

              The UN acknowledged a lack of certainty about ice loss from Antarctica. The latest findings will help refine climate-change modeling and predictions of future sea-level rise, Hik said.

              “Altogether, the glaciers in the West Antarctic are losing about 103 billion tons a year of ice in discharge,” he said. “This discharge from west Antarctica would add an additional 10 to 20 centimeters” to the existing UN predictions of sea level rise this century, he said.

              While the UN said a complete melt of the West Antarctic ice sheet is unlikely this century, Hik said “we thought lots of things were unlikely even two years ago.” A collapse of the sheet could add 1 to 1.5 meters to sea levels this century, he said.

              “The effects of warming are going to be global,” Hik said. “What happens at the poles will influence all parts of the planet and it’s very evident that we can see rapid changes in sea level associated with changes in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

              International Polar Year drew in 50,000 researchers from 63 countries, according to Hik. The project spanned two years, ending next month, to incorporate a full year each of the Arctic in the north and the Antarctic in the south.

              To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net.

              Last Updated: February 26, 2009 10:35 EST

              Comment

              Working...
              X