Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

parados wrote:

Nothing like that great scientific journal the Wall Street Journal....

Why write a scientific article when you can write an opinion piece for the WSJ?

Try getting your scientific article printed in one of AGW cult's "peer reviewed journals" if it dissents from the approved orthodoxy.

The argument from authority you are implying is based on a now badly discredited foundation.

There is little that's new, from an historical perspective, in the excessive credulity of large numbers of people and, as well in the, self-serving duplicity of the controlling elite in defending the orthodoxy that has so beneffitted them politically and economically.

1 Reply

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
333
Ivy League Organic Chemist Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield is a former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, Professor Emeritus of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago. "The earth has been subjected to many warming and cooling periods over millions of years, none of which were of human origin," Merrifield wrote on July 11, 2007. "Data from many independent sources have mutually corroborated these effects. They include data from coring both the Antarctic ice cap and sediments from the Sargasso Sea, from stalagmites, from tree rings, from up-wellings in the oceans, and from crustaceans trapped in pre-historic rock formations. The onset of each 100,000-year abrupt warming period has been coincident with emissions into the atmosphere of large amounts of both carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases, which absorb additional heat from the sun, a secondary warming effect," he explained. "Solar radiation would appear to be the initial forcing event in which warming oceans waters release dissolved carbon dioxide, and melt methane hydrates, both of which are present in the oceans in vast quantities. Subsequent declines in radiation are associated with long cooling periods in which the green house gases then gradually disappear (are re-absorbed) into terrestrial and ocean sinks, as reflected in the data from coring the Antarctic Ice Cap and Sargasso Sea," he added. "The current 100 year solar radiation cycle may now have reached its peak, and irradiation intensity has been observed to be declining. This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases. While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the ‘forcing agent' for global warming, the subject surely needs more study," he concluded. (LINK)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Try getting your scientific article printed in one of AGW cult's "peer reviewed journals" if it dissents from the approved orthodoxy.

The argument from authority you are implying is based on a now badly discredited foundation.

When all else fails, accuse science of not conducting actual science but don't give any evidence to support your contention.

There is no reason that the article in the WSJ had to be opinion if there was real science to support it. But you will note there is no science in the piece in the WSJ.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Try getting your scientific article printed in one of AGW cult's "peer reviewed journals" if it dissents from the approved orthodoxy.

The argument from authority you are implying is based on a now badly discredited foundation.

When all else fails, accuse science of not conducting actual science but don't give any evidence to support your contention.

There is no reason that the article in the WSJ had to be opinion if there was real science to support it. But you will note there is no science in the piece in the WSJ.

You are dead wrong on both counts.

The malfesance of AGW "scientific" professionals has been fairly thoroughly demonstrated in the purloined e-mails. The findings were hardly surprising - self-serving establishents have behaved like this throughout history. Scientists are no exception. Indeed the history of scientific establishments, from the time of Gallileo to the 19th century disputes over thermodynamics and electromagnetism were full of the same stuff. Late in that century, when Maxwell Boltzman published his statistical thermodynamics (including the quantification of entropy) , the seientific establishment mocked and tried to silence him. The poor sap was so dismayed he blew his brains out.

The WSJ article was written by a scientist, an academic meterologist from Harvard. It is simply not true there was no science in it - go read it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The malfesance of AGW "scientific" professionals has been fairly thoroughly demonstrated in the purloined e-mails.

No, it hasn't been. It just shows they wrote a few e-mails that could be taken out of context of the other millions of e-mails they wrote. The same could be done with cherry picking parts of your posts george.

Look, here is george threatening my life...

georgeob1 wrote:

You are dead

George is clearly desiring to commit murder based on the malfeasance demonstrated in his post. What fun, cherry picking and then claiming it has meaning.

So.. which scientific journals was Galileo prevented from publishing in?

Quote:

Maxwell Boltzman published his statistical thermodynamics

You mean he actually published it as science? WOW..

Now back to the lack of scientific publishing by the deniers.....
I am curious what YOU think is science in the WSJ opinion piece. Where are the observations and the calculations? Please feel free to point them out

Or did you mean this part?

Quote:

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

2 Replies

@parados,

georgeob1 wrote:

Quote:

You are dead

parados wrote:

Quote:

George is clearly desiring to commit murder

Incorrect. george is clearly of the opinion that you are dead. This may even be a colloquialism that you smell bad. Nowhere does it suggest murder except in your faulty logic.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

What????

You can't possibly be implying that the meaning in the emails is open to interpretation? How could you turn on george like that Ionus?

1 Reply

@parados,

Unfortunately parados is a rather pedantic quibbler. (I loved the reference to Boltzman's published work - omitting as it did the scientific establishment's villification that historically followed!) One who, as his reaction to the WSJ essay illustrates, is remarkably able to selectively find and value favorable (to his prejudices) excerpts taken out of context from a larger and more fundamental work - labelling the faorable escerpts as science, while implying the rest is not.

Being the credulous slave of the self-serving "nowledge" establishment is clearly not an easy task. One must forsake his rational judgement and common sense in the process.

2 Replies

The flaming on this site is erudite and civil.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Unfortunately parados is a rather pedantic quibbler.

This statement caught my attention, it struck me as taking George to most accurately provide a description of Parados debating practice here. I have found Parados to be lawyerly, and in fact I think he must be a lawyer although I don't remember if he has confirmed that or not, but lest you get all perturbed, Parados, although I think you are totally illogical much of the time I still have some admiration for your bulldoggish attitude of debating what you apparently think even though I think you are wrong most of the time, so congratulations to you for your persistence and effort, if I was the teacher I would give Parados an "A for effort" as the old saying goes.

So I had to look up the word, "pedantic," and here is one reference, which made George's stock go up in my eyes yet again, as he is uncannily insightful and precise with words of description:
Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner.
Being finicky or picky with language.

More of George's post, which adds to the detail of the above description, and I particularly noticed the forsaking of rational judgement and common sense, and I would certainly agree with that, George, as regards to Parados debate of some issues:

Quote:

Being the credulous slave of the self-serving "nowledge" establishment is clearly not an easy task. One must forsake his rational judgement and common sense in the process.

0 Replies

Now this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/researcher-reportedly-threatens-sue-nasa-climate-data/

Researcher Reportedly Threatens to Sue NASA Over Climate Data
A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA to compel the release of climate change data, saying he suspects the agency has manipulated research like a university research center in Britain is accused of doing.

The Washington Times reported Thursday that Christopher Horner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has given NASA until the end of the year to grant his two-year-old Freedom of Information Act request for research detailing NASA's climate data and explaining why the agency has altered its own figures.

He's referring to calculations that first showed 1998, then 1934, then 1998 and 2006 as the hottest years on record.

The threat comes after leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit showed scientists appearing to manipulate climate data. The director of the unit has stepped down while an investigation is underway.

Horner said he suspects NASA's information is "highly damaging."

But White House scientists defended the science behind global warming on Capitol Hill Wednesday. A NASA spokesman told the Times the agency is collecting information to respond to Horner's request.

0 Replies

Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

In case you can't read goerge, I asked if you thought that quote was "science"? I didn't say I thought it was science.

Since the quote contains no calculations and no observations, it wouldn't meet what I had laid out just a paragraph earlier.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror when accusing anyone of selectively taking excerpts out of context.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Finn wrote:

The assertion by Parados that your failure to provide him with evidence of the bogus nature of the Global Warming Big Lie, is specious, but if you take a look in recent WSJ archives you'll find an excellent article by a MIT Meteorologist.

Now.. if one were to read Finn's claim vs the quote I provided From Lindzen I see a disconnect in whether Lindzen thinks there is a Global Warming Big Lie. Lindzen thinks the catastrophic projections are wrong but Lindzen believes that warming does exist.

Finn also made this claim...

Finn wrote:

The WSJ article was written by a scientist, an academic meterologist from Harvard. It is simply not true there was no science in it

It is impossible to tell which opinion piece of Linzen's Finn was referring to but this piece has even less scientific references than the piece I first used and I didn't really find any actual science in that piece.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

In case you can't read goerge, I asked if you thought that quote was "science"? I didn't say I thought it was science.

Since the quote contains no calculations and no observations, it wouldn't meet what I had laid out just a paragraph earlier.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror when accusing anyone of selectively taking excerpts out of context.

Still quibbling. A pedant forever,

Science doesn't necessarily require calculations or even observations. Moreover the presence of both does not insure that the effort that contains them is meaningful science either. Excellent examples of this proposition are the many nonsensical forecasts of terrestrial doom produced in defense of outlandish warming assertions, all based on numerical models of non-linear parabolic differential equations that are known to both involve chaos - to be unable to duplicate known phenomena..

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Hate to differ with you, but "observation" is a necessary component of science.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's generally true, but a speech, an essay, an analytical paper or other such work can still be a part of science even if it doesn't involve measured observation. Indeed the list of pbservation-free scientific works is very long indeed. That is the point you, and parados, are missing here.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You can't possibly be implying that the meaning in the emails is open to interpretation?

Everything is open to interpretation. That is why wildlife gets run over on the roads. They make the wrong interpretation. The obvious interpretation to the emails is rigged data, cynical scientists, and scientific institutions involved in fraud and bullying. Your interpretation of somehow it is just one big typo requires a fanaticism that a suicide bomber would balk at.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Everything is open to interpretation.

Yes, truer words never spoken, especially for some people, such as Clinton and his famous "it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is" statement, and Parados as well, many times on this forum, one good example in claiming that it did not necessarily mean Sudan offered OBL to us when Clinton said "They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."[/quote]

Everything is certainly open to interpretation especially when the meaning of words are interpreted by a lawyer that has a very large vested interest in the meaning of those words.

1 Reply

@okie,

Yeah.. we should take your word that "release" means "offer" and "did not bring him here" means "declined the offer".

I think I will take the word of the 9/11 commission that actually interviewed people involved over your interpretation okie. Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton according to the official bi partisan investigation.

2 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know