Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"
Collapse
X
-
Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"
Tags: None
-
Originally posted by pellegrino View Postdoesn't anyone have anything to say about this? I find it quite fascinating.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostI am inclined to support the view point underlying this letter. OTOH, and being honest, I find the letter itself presents the same problems I see in much of what is written about climate change; it is short on detail and long on generalities. That the climate debate is politicized and undermined by monied interests is not new. What that actually means in terms of the science is no clearer to me now than before I read the letter. Of course, as usual here, I was skimming, so maybe I should read it again.
Comment
-
Sounds like a nut to me."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by EuropeanFootballMale View PostI don't know anything about anything, but I do know that there is a huge consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening. I am also uncomfortable taking a position that requires me to believe in massive conspiracies of any kind.
The notion of "consensus" on "global warming" is very consciously manufactured. There are hundreds of established scientists at Princeton, MIT, Harvard and around the world not only question but flatly deny the basic tenets of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
There are some pretty crafty ways they've gone about engineering the appearance of "consensus." I was at COP 15 - the climate conference in Copenhagen primarily drive by the UN's IPCC - and I was amazed at how often the media trumpeted the claims of the IPCC report confirming the human role in global warming (while assuming as FACT but without demonstration, that global warming is occurring) and the regular media citation of the report being endorsed by 4,000 scientists. In reality there were fewer than 3,000 scientists involved in the report, but the real mindblower is even funnier - there were fewer than 60 scientists involved with reviewing the one chapter of the report that dealt with "attribution" for climate change - i.e. the part that tells you who/what is responsible. Those 50-some scientists were hand-selected by the three lead authors of the chapter and there was no independence in the review process - none of the usual checks and balances of peer review were in play.
Those sorts of shenanigans have become the norm.
There are really three questions in play:
1. Is the earth's atmosphere warming? And (1a) if it's warming are people primarily responsible because of the carbon they're pushing into the atmosphere?
2. If so, is it a problem?
3. If it's a problem, can anything meaningful and sure be done about it?
The case can be convincingly made that the answer to all three of those questions is no.
1. No system of atmospheric measurement shows any warming in the earth's atmosphere since the late 90s. Emphasis here is on ATMOSPHERIC warming - the alarmists will trot out plenty of data showing that the earth has warmed, but all of it will rely heavily on land-based measurements, which is demonstrably distorted by local factors. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
1a. If it's warming - are people responsible? There is NOTHING but circumstantial evidence to suggest that they would be - what was thought to be evidence (i.e. ice cores suggesting that warming has historically followed carbon spikes in the atmosphere) is now debunked, bringing warmists back entirely theoretical computer models.
2. If it IS warming, how do we know it's a problem? We know with a fair degree of certainty that the earth has been warmer than it is now for long stretches twice in the last 2,000 years and that in the more recent medieval warm period farmers produced wine grapes in the English Midlands and Vikings thrived in places like Greenland that now struggle to support larger communities. The climate has been changing throughout human history and people have always adapted - so why wouldn't they now?
3. In my view the most egregious aspect of the warming lobby has been its ability to make it seem like being concerned about the environment and buying into global warming hype are part of the same package. They want people to believe that either (a) you are a concerned citizen who hates global warming and trusts their computer models or (b) you drive a hummer and want to kill polar bears for fun.
There is plenty that can and SHOULD be done to make the human footprint on the world less damaging and to make us better stewards - and none of it requires us to buy into unsubstantiated claims about the climate, or to ritually slaughter the global economy on the altar climate change.Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī
It can't all be wedding cake.
Comment
-
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View PostI don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View PostI don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.
But like the phantom "4,000 scientists" claim this one is trumpeted far and wide.Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī
It can't all be wedding cake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Indy Coug View PostThe overwhelming majority of the 125 points have absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenesis.If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.
"Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.
"Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoCalCoug View PostYeah, many seem to be addressing the argument that there is no global warming at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Indy Coug View PostMany who? The real argument is about AGW. If AGW doesn't exist, then mankind is just along for the ride while Mother Nature does WTF it wants.
I would agree with your last sentence. Very astute.If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.
"Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.
"Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxcoug View PostPAC that 97% claim that they have as #3 is extremely dubious - it comes from a non peer reviewed article (but watch them stir up an absolute scheitstorm if anyone else quotes anything that's not peer reviewed) out of a sample of 79 self-selected climate scientists.
But like the phantom "4,000 scientists" claim this one is trumpeted far and wide.
Also, on a survey, rather than an actual study, do you really need the peer review - it seems it's a different sort of thing to me (assuming you're correct it was not in a peer-reviewed journal - I can't confirm or deny that).
Is there any other survey you know of that casts doubt on the claim?If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.
"Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.
"Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn
Comment
Comment