Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #61 
You're quoting Monckton as a climate change expert?  Really?  The same guy who wanted to quarantine AIDS victims FOR LIFE??

https://web.archive.org/web/20140702183917/http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

From Wiki -

In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton's, a shirt shop in King's Road, Chelsea.[11]

In 1999, Monckton created and published the Eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle that involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called "polydrafters". A £1 million prize was won after 18 months by two Cambridge mathematicians.[12] By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. Monckton launched the Eternity II puzzle in 2007, but, after the four-year prize period, no winner came forward to claim the $2 million prize.

Monckton is a director of Resurrexi Pharmaceutical. It is claimed to be "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases."[13] In the BBC documentary, "Meet the Sceptics" (2011), he claimed he had cured himself of Graves' disease.[14] UKIP's CV for Monckton claims that his methods have produced cures for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes, as well as reducing the viral load of an HIV patient,[13] but on Australian radio, Monckton refrained from claiming any cures.[15]



Monckton has asserted that he served as science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during his years with the Number 10 Policy Unit, and that "it was I who—on the prime minister's behalf—kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward."[22] John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, however, has claimed Monckton was "a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable."[23] Writing in The Guardian, Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment notes that Thatcher's memoirs, The Downing Street Years, do not mention Monckton and credit George Guise with the role of science advisor.[22]


Monckton inherited a peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[24] which provided that "[n]o-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".[25][26]

Monckton stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Lords after the 1999 reforms. He first stood for a Conservative seat in a March 2007 by-election, and was among 31 of 43 candidates who received no votes.[27] He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008,[28] July 2009,[29] and June 2010,[30] again receiving no votes. He was highly critical of the way the Lords was reformed, describing the procedure in the March 2007 by-election, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion."[31]


Monckton joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in 2009 and became its chief spokesperson on climate change.[32][33] At the 2010 general election he was nominated as the UKIP candidate for the Scottish constituency of Perth and North Perthshire; although a hereditary peer, he was entitled to stand for election for the House of Commons as he is not a member of the House of Lords. He subsequently withdrew in accordance with UKIP's policy of not opposing other Eurosceptic parliamentary candidates.[34] In June 2010, UKIP announced he had been appointed its deputy leader, to serve alongside David Campbell Bannerman[35] under party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who owns an estate in Scotland adjoining Monckton's.[36] He was succeeded in the role of deputy leader by Paul Nuttall in November 2010.[37]

In 2011 he stood as lead party-list candidate for UKIP in the Scottish Parliament constituency of Mid Scotland and Fife[38] but did not gain election, with the UKIP list coming seventh after scoring 1.1% of the region's vote.[39] Monckton also headed UKIP's policy unit for a while but according to the party's spokesman he had relinquished any formal role by June 2012, moving into a "semi-detached" relationship with UKIP.[36] By January 2013 he had become UKIP's president in Scotland[40] but was sacked by UKIP leader Nigel Farage in November 2013 following factional infighting.[41]


On 6 December 2012 Monckton took Burma's seat at the COP18 Climate Change Conference in Doha without permission and made a short speech attacking the idea of man-made climate change. He was escorted from the building and given a lifetime ban from attending UN climate talks. Monckton said that there had been no global warming over the last sixteen years, and thus the science should be reviewed.[45]

Between 2009 and 2010 the film maker Rupert Murray followed Monckton on his climate change tour. The film was later broadcast on 31 January 2011 on BBC Four titled Meet the Sceptics. Prior to its broadcast its depiction of Monckton was described by fellow skeptic James Delingpole as "another hatchet job"[46] and Monckton's attempted injunction failed.[47]



I really urge you to read the scientific articles, rather than those by Monckton and Goddard aka Heller (why the pseudonym when writing "scientific" stuff???). 

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,769
Reply with quote  #62 
OK, he's whacky, apparently a successful entrepreneur, unsuccessful, then successful, then sacked (in fine Python fashion) politician, but...

"Is he wrong?"

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #63 
The "legitimate" (my word) climate scientists would say, yes, he is wrong.

The consensus gap.

Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming

Posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm Updated: October 16, 2012 at 7:32 am

skeptics v realists v3

Perhaps you thought that the whole “planet isn’t warming” meme was killed by this summer’s bombshell Koch-funded study. After all, it found “global warming is real,” “on the high end” and “essentially all” due to carbon pollution.

Sadly, denial springs eternal. Long-debunked denier David Rose has an article in the Daily Mail, “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released … and here is the chart to prove it.”

The piece is so misleading, even the UK Met Office felt a need to instantly debunk it with a blog post that included this chart.

[MetOffice]

UK Met Office graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

Since Rose managed to find one misleading chart to push his myth, I thought I would dig up ten serious ones that show the reverse, including the top chart from Skeptical Science, the great Australian blog, which is derived from the data in the Koch-funded study.

Note: “Skeptics” is an Aussie word for denier or disinformer. The British have their own words — Rose or Mail:

So one has to assume going in that any climate piece in the Mail with Rose’s name on it is somewhere between misinformation and disinformation. The latest piece tends toward the latter. Heck, even Judith Curry complains she was misquoted, as Media Matters notes.

The Met Office, part of the UK Defence Ministry, explained, it’s absurd to look at a cherry-picked “trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)”:

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

The warming trend is clear in a chart from an earlier Met Office post “Noughties confirmed as the warmest decade on record“:

[average-temps]

Here’s an analogy to the notion it hasn’t warmed from the El-Nino-fueled summer of 1997 through the La-Nina-cooled summer of 2012. Imagine your kid got 11 B’s and 1 A+ in 9th grade science class. Then, in 10th grade science, she gets 9 A’s and 2 A+’s — but her last grade was “just” an A. Would you say she is doing better in science class or worse in science class?

If you prefer your charts from U.S. agencies using the good ‘ole Fahrenheit scale, here’s NOAA’s version of the previous chart, which notes “Every year of 2000s [was] warmer than 1990s average”:

 

[decadal-global-temps-1880s-2000s1]

The recent La Nina, far from providing evidence that the planet isn’t warming, demonstrates the exact reverse, since it was the hottest La Nina on record — as seen in this chart from NOAA:

[ENSO-chart]

See also this discussion of the World Meteorological Organization from December 2011: 2011 Is Warmest La Niña Year on Record and Science “Proves Unequivocally” It’s “Due to Human Activities.”

If you want to refute the disinformers with perhaps the biggest dataset, analyzed independently, and backed by Koch money, well, you have to go to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study — and really, what else is it good for? Their key paper from 2011 found it’s warming fast:

… our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.

They compare their findings with all the other datasets, and it looks like this:

ten year data analysis comparison graph

The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” Via BEST.

Still warming, though that’s just a chart of land-surface temperatures.

In fact, the land has received only a tiny fraction of the manmade warming in recent years as the scientific literature — captured in this great Skeptical Science infographic — makes clear:

[global_warming_components]

Components of global warming for the period 1993 to 2003 calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.

Now, if you actually read the scientific literature, you find the oceans have been rapidly warming in recent decades (see “Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans“):

[Total-Heat-Content]

“Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”

And no, the ocean didn’t stop warming in the middle the last decade, as a chart from yet another scientific study makes clear (see “Search for ‘Missing Heat’ Ends Myth Global Warming Has Ended“):

[2_OHC-2005-2010]

Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010 derived from Argo measurements. The 6-yr trend accounts for 0.55±0.10Wm−2. Error bars and trend uncertainties exclude errors induced by remaining systematic errors in the global observing system. See Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011).  Via Skeptical Science.

Still warming.

You may have noticed in the infographic that Arctic sea ice has seen 0.8% of global warming — nearly two-fifths of the warming the continents have received. I wonder what has been happening in the Arctic:

[Arctic-Death-Spiral]

Arctic Sea Ice is melting much, much faster than even the best climate models had projected. The reason is most likely unmodeled amplifying feedbacks. Image via Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

Oh, right, it’s in a death spiral — and that’s just the two-dimensional sea ice extent. Let’s remember that “Experts Warn Of ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue.”

Finally we have the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which each have been getting a mere 0.2% of the warming. Let’s check in on those:

  • Nature: “Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized”
  • JPL: Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise by 2050
  • Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’
  • Large Antarctic glacier thinning 4 times faster than it was 10 years ago: “Nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this glacier.”

Still warming.

That’s ten charts, enough for now, but there are many other physical indicators of continued warming (see “How Can It Be Warming When It’s (Almost) Always Cooling?“)


How Can It Be Warming When It’s (Almost) Always Cooling?

Posted on November 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm Updated: November 5, 2011 at 8:56 pm

The Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) verified three things we already knew:

  1. Recent global warming has been “on the high end.”
  2. It’s accelerating.
  3. The data won’t stop the deniers and their media allies from spreading disinformation, including the myth that it has stopped warming.

skeptics v realists v3

Figure 1: BEST land-only surface temperature data (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, 1998 to 2005, 2002 to 2010 (blue), and 1973 to 2010 (red).

Dana of Skeptical Science has a good post on the denier’s latest spin, “Going Down the Up Escalator,” reposted below.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT


One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.  In fact, “it hasn’t warmed since 1998” is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and “it’s cooling” is fifth.

This myth stems from a lack of understanding of exactly what global warming is.  The term refers to the long-term warming of the global climate, usually measured over a timescale of about 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.  This is because global warming is caused by a global energy imbalance – something causing the Earth to retain more heat, such as an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface, or an increased greenhouse effect.

There are also a number of effects which can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation or the 11-year solar cycle.  Sometimes these dampen global warming, and sometimes they amplify it.  However, they’re called “oscillations” and “cycles” for a reason – they alternate between positive and negative states and don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature.

Right now we’re in the  midst of a period where most short-term effects are acting in the cooling direction, dampening global warming.  Many climate “skeptics” are trying to capitalize on this dampening, trying to argue that this time global warming has stopped, even though it didn’t stop after the global warming “pauses” in 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, or 1998 to 2005 [see Figure 1 above, Hat-tip to Skeptical Science contributor Sphaerica for identifying all of these "cooling trends."]

As Figure 1 shows, over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate “skeptics” could have argued (and often did, i.e. here and here and here) that global warming had stopped.  And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27°C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset).  And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short-term noise dampening the long-term trend.

In short, those arguing that global warming has stopped are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term global warming signal.  Since the release of the BEST data which confirmed the global warming observed by all other global temperature measurements, climate “skeptics” have been scrambling for a way to continue denying that global warming is a problem, and focusing on the short-term noise has become their preferred go-to excuse.

The Noisy Group

Unfortunately, those making a lot of noise about the noise (and sweeping generalizations that global warming has magically stopped) include several “skeptic” and/or “lukewarmer” climate scientists, who really should know better.  One of these, Judith Curry, is actually a member of the BEST team whose data has been used by climate “skeptics” as “proof” that global warming has stopped.  Unfortunately, Dr. Curry herself fed these myths in a rather dismaying interview:

“There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped…To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate…This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline”

Predictably, Dr. Curry’s comments have been disseminated far and wide by climate “skeptics” who desperately want this myth to be true.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has made similar claims in the comments on Skeptical Science:

“Since 2002, as shown in the lower tropospheric plot and in the upper ocean data, little of that heat has accumulated there. There is not enough melt of sea ice or glaciers to account for it there. “Global warming” has nearly stopped using these two metrics”

Dr. Roy Spencer has taken this argument to the extreme, claiming that based on one cool month in his University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) tropospheric temperature dataset, “the troposphere is ignoring your SUVand that (perhaps sarcastically):

“While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world”

These climate scientists really should know the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal, and it’s a travesty that they’re misinforming the public, the media, and policymakers by conflating the two concepts.

The Signal Comes Through Loud and Clear

On the other hand, other scientists who understand statistics are doing an excellent job explaining the difference between signal and noise.  For example, when asked if BEST showed that global warming had stalled over the last decade in response to the interview with Dr. Curry, Dr. Richard Muller (the BEST team lead) said:

“That’s incorrect…I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it [was] warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.”

What the Science Says

The peer-reviewed scientific literature confirms Muller’s comments.  For example, Santer et al. (2011):

“Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming.  A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal.  Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

and Easterling and Wehner (2009):

“Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling.We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming.”

Not only are these short-term “pauses” just noise in the data, but observations show that they are entirely expected, and predicted by climate models (i.e. see Meehl el al. 2011).

Other Physical Evidence of Continued Warming

It’s also important to point out that global temperature measurements aren’t our only evidence of the long-term global warming trend.  We’ve observed many physical indicators of global warming (Figure 2).

warming indicators

Figure 2: Physical Indicators of a Warming World

When is Warming Cooling?

When constantly confronted with this myth that global warming stopped in 1998, or 2000, or 2002, or 2005, or [insert year], we wonder why distinguishing between short-term noise and long-term signal is such a difficult concept for climate “skeptics.”  They remind us of the Penrose stairs made famous by M.C. Escher – a staircase which people can descend forever and not get any lower.  This paradoxical perception of an impossible construction seems to be how climate “skeptics” view the world, which is undoubtedly why they’re willing to risk our future on the hopes that 97% of climate scientists are wrong about climate science.


Info about BEST - financed in large part by Koch Foundation -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth


__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,671
Reply with quote  #64 
DC - I have some advice for you.  Sometimes less is more.  It would take someone an entire six pack to get through your post.

Clearly, there's no shortage of manufactured data to support the idea of global warming, errr, climate change.  If only we had been on this planet for all 4.5 billion years and we could see that our climate had been static for all but the last 100 years when we screwed the pooch.

That's like saying we caused all this damage in the last 7/10 of one second out of an entire year.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 7,459
Reply with quote  #65 
Blasphemy Grizz. Al Whore told us the science was settled and all the ice would be gone by now and the polar bears would be dead.
Wait a minute...didn't Obama say he would stop the seas from rising? Maybe he is all powerful.

I also notice the left has been silent when one of their own, the great John Kerry, has actually invoked scripture and God's will as reasons for us to pursue the quest to save the planet from global warming. Where are all the libs crying about separation of church and state .

__________________
#SCOTUS x two
Fresh has rings. Ask him to tell you about them


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazsdad
I also notice the left has been silent...


spazdad - Silent?  Please.  I ask question after question only to get crickets in return.  You're not really going to go there, are you?  I'm not the least bit intimidated so feel free to ask me anything.  As for your Kerry question I don't even understand what you want me to say.  Can you make it a yes/no or multiple choice question?  If it's Church/State, I could care less if a politician quotes the Bible.  Is that what you wanted to know?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,670
Reply with quote  #67 
"It's above my pay grade" or "I trust my elected leaders to figure it out" are not really answers.  Those have been your contributions on dozens of occasions.  You aren't really some intellectual, master problem solver.  Just a cheerleader in man's clothing
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 7,459
Reply with quote  #68 
I don't want you to say anything as my statement wasn't directed at you. Sorry I didn't know saying "the left" means Dewey.


__________________
#SCOTUS x two
Fresh has rings. Ask him to tell you about them


ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #69 
Dewey doesn't really represent the left, too many of his positions simply don't align. He's really nothing more than an Obama cheerleader, still stuck in the false, utopian campaign rhetoric of 2008.

For example, the left vehemently opposed Obama's expansion of the NSA and spying on Americans. Obama did too when it was expedient to become the democrats candidate for president. We all know how that worked out / Obama now wields the DoJ like a club against privacy proponents.

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #70 
Many friends on the east coast are telling me that this is The Worst Global Warming EVER!

If we're going have a global warming in our lifetime, can't it at least be warm?

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,835
Reply with quote  #71 
Cool front blew through South Texas this morning. About a month ahead of schedule from what I remember. Hope it warms back up so we can keep the pool open a couple of more weeks. In the past I have been able to swim as late as early October. Not this year I suspect.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable, and correctable with proper study. Stupidity is a way of life.


GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #72 
WASH POST LEAD TUESDAY: Obama targets popular coolant in new effort to curb greenhouse gases... Developing...

Geologist: 'Vanishing evidence for climate change'...

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #73 
Hottest August on record

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


a)  The article I posted earlier, along with so many similar articles I've read through the years, leads me to the conclusion the vast majority of scientists studying this issue obviously believe humans are affecting the global climate, and not in a positive way.

b)  It's clear to me scientists commit themselves to very high levels of education, and dedicate a lifetime of work in research, climate and environment in this case, for far more important reasons than easy access to income.  I can't imagine many scientists go to such lifetime lengths just for the easy buck.  What a waste of a life.

c)  Many scientists have grown old and retired from the research practice.  I'm guessing a significant number of these scientists would self reflect and find a need deep inside to expose a community misleading the entire world, strictly for the financial benefits they can garner.  It simply doesn't compute with my understanding of people, born with the gift of a great mind, who choose and dedicate a lifetime in hopes of discovering answers.  I just can't buy the conspiracy theory that minds like these opt for the misinformation road simply to get money.  Like I said, this would make for a very shallow life.




There is no end to the exchange of climate data one could find to support a particular perspective.  That said, I'd like to re-post what I wrote a few weeks ago and ask again, do you really think those who became scientists by educating themselves to the high levels they did and fulfilling what must have been a lifetime dream of working to discover the critical answers of our universe, would go to these great lengths simply to lie to mankind in order to collect a free Government research check?  It's very difficult for me to be that cynical and imagine one entered the field of their dreams only to misinform and/or mislead.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,769
Reply with quote  #75 

Quote:
....do you really think those who became scientists by educating themselves to the high levels they did and fulfilling what must have been a lifetime dream of working to discover the critical answers of our universe, would go to these great lengths simply to lie to mankind in order to collect a free Government research check?


Yes.

And I am going out the door, so no explanation. [biggrin]

Other than this...

Insert politicians where you've written scientists and ask the same question. Same answer? That's not why I answer in the affirmative. But for now...it'll have to do.

Toodles!

 


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #76 
Bill - I don't think politicians and scientists are driven in the same manner.  We can also find doctors who do unscrupulous things for money, like hand out drugs to all callers, but for the most part, I think you become a doctor to provide care for people, not to get easy Medicare money.  To become a scientist in order to collect a check rather than find answers seems inconceivable to me.  Use those math skills to defraud people in the investment world if your intention is to get rich.  Not saying they're not out there, just saying they have to be a significant minority.  Just my opinion.

Edit:  How much education you need to be a politician anyway?  [wink]

Edit II:  Secondly, we'll need to understand why the Government bribes are outperforming the "carbon" money and winning over more of these scientists.  Finally, the admissions from those scientists who retire and reflect on a career of a "misinformation for money" would be greater, imo, if such were the case.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #77 
I have to agree that climate scientists are not in it "for the money".  There's a lot of money being thrown at the movement, but I don't think much of it is ending up in the global-climate-change-believing climate scientists' pockets.  Here are a couple of articles if you're interested -

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-money-changes-climate-debate/

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

And I don't know too many climate scientists that make millions after they "retire" like Congress members and past Presidents do.

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,769
Reply with quote  #78 
But the most ubiquitously published are often those who fit the political climate. So to speak.
__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #79 
[image]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/google-announces-plans-to-cut-ties-with-alec-20140922

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 7,459
Reply with quote  #80 
As stated yes everyone does understand climate change is occurring. It has been, I would imagine, since the dawn of the planet. Now mam made global warming.....not so much agreement or proof.
Again, like ,many of your posts. What's your point?

__________________
#SCOTUS x two
Fresh has rings. Ask him to tell you about them


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #81 
If we can't turn to the experts for proof, where do we turn next?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,670
Reply with quote  #82 
From DC's link

Quote:
In a statement, ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson indicated a separation had already taken place. She called Google's departure "unfortunate" and "a result of public pressure from left-leaning individuals and organizations who intentionally confuse free market policy perspectives for climate change denial."

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


a)  The article I posted earlier, along with so many similar articles I've read through the years, leads me to the conclusion the vast majority of scientists studying this issue obviously believe humans are affecting the global climate, and not in a positive way.

b)  It's clear to me scientists commit themselves to very high levels of education, and dedicate a lifetime of work in research, climate and environment in this case, for far more important reasons than easy access to income.  I can't imagine many scientists go to such lifetime lengths just for the easy buck.  What a waste of a life.

c)  Many scientists have grown old and retired from the research practice.  I'm guessing a significant number of these scientists would self reflect and find a need deep inside to expose a community misleading the entire world, strictly for the financial benefits they can garner.  It simply doesn't compute with my understanding of people, born with the gift of a great mind, who choose and dedicate a lifetime in hopes of discovering answers.  I just can't buy the conspiracy theory that minds like these opt for the misinformation road simply to get money.  Like I said, this would make for a very shallow life.



There is no end to the exchange of climate data one could find to support a particular perspective.  That said, I'd like to re-post what I wrote a few weeks ago and ask again, do you really think those who became scientists by educating themselves to the high levels they did and fulfilling what must have been a lifetime dream of working to discover the critical answers of our universe, would go to these great lengths simply to lie to mankind in order to collect a free Government research check?  It's very difficult for me to be that cynical and imagine one entered the field of their dreams only to misinform and/or mislead.



This Monday Night Daily Show clip on climate change emphasizes some of the exact points I made in these earlier comments.  Everything from the fact scientific study is a "profession", not a hobby, to the fact wealthy energy companies would use their billions to influence scientists and their studies if being bought off was their primary focus.  This episode was insightful for sure.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #84 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
From DC's link

Quote:
In a statement, ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson indicated a separation had already taken place. She called Google's departure "unfortunate" and "a result of public pressure from left-leaning individuals and organizations who intentionally confuse free market policy perspectives for climate change denial."


Well of course that would be their response.

Yahoo, Facebook and Yelp are joining Google, along with a host of other corporations that have left Alec.  Alec is trying to get them back through their "Prodigal Son Project" linked in this article -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/alec-google-climate-change-lies-letter-rebuttal

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,415
Reply with quote  #85 
Evidence that some things never change

13 Predictions from Earth Day 1970

http://ricochet.com/13-ridiculous-predictions-made-earth-day-1970/

Here is #7 - note the almost unanimous agreement - sound familiar?


“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter


__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,645
Reply with quote  #86 
Adios, South Beach?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/23/south_florida_as_51st_state_the_city_of_south_miami_votes_to_break_away.html

__________________
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.   ---   John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,670
Reply with quote  #87 
Also adios Virginia Beach. Stuff happens. You ever look at plate tectonics? We have always lost or gained shoreline from time to time. Time is all relative DC
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 7,459
Reply with quote  #88 
DC's link was almos comical to read if it was so scary that some people believe this nonsense. "Inevitable 10 foot rise" , too freakin funny.
I kept checking to see if it was satire but when one highlighted text took me to another article that quoted Mother Jones I realized it was just more liberal drivel.

__________________
#SCOTUS x two
Fresh has rings. Ask him to tell you about them


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #89 
Here is Jeb Bush's son on climate change...

I think people can agree that there has been warming in recent years,” Mr. Bush, a 38-year-old energy consultant, said.  He added that the vulnerability of the Gulf Coast to storms, which he said is worsened by climate change-related problems like sea-level rise and coastal erosion, “honestly keeps me up at night.”

If you believe Mr. Bush, I would think it would put an end to the articles some link here suggesting global warming is a hoax.  It may not change your view on the reason why we see this change, man-made or otherwise, but it seems he might have some credibility with those who question the facts.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,835
Reply with quote  #90 
Jeb Bush's Son is running for political office in Texas. He is part of the "Dynasty". He can go take a flying leap. Hopefully He lands on Dad's couch, and eefs up Florida. How did Jeb Bush go from being born in Texas, to Governor of Florida? I guess Hillary took some notes, and proceeded on the same type of path.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable, and correctable with proper study. Stupidity is a way of life.


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.