Page 12 of 150 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516172262112 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 2988

Thread: Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

  1. #221
    That's what I thought...
    We're going to be good again.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Strickland33 View Post
    That's what I thought...
    Well, it is really a matter of "where to begin?"

    I'm gonna try and tackle it in parts but lets just start with "for the sake of science".

    If science is the oracle in your society then it's the truth- teller...maybe I'm an idealist but for science to best serve humanity it must have a reasonable degree of autonomy from political motivations.

    We can talk policy based on bad science,carbon-sequestration- land grabbing,trillions of dollars spent chasing a fantasy solution to a grossly over weighted problem, the plight of newly industrialized 3rd world countries forced to bear the economic brunt of the policy changes, etc., etc.
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-12-2014 at 11:11 PM.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Well, it is really a matter of "where to begin?"

    I'm gonna try and tackle it in parts but lets just start with "for the sake of science".

    If science is the oracle in your society then it's the truth- teller...maybe I'm an idealist but for science to best serve humanity it must have a reasonable degree of autonomy from political motivations.

    We can talk policy based on bad science,carbon-sequestration- land grabbing,trillions of dollars spent chasing a fantasy solution to a grossly over weighted problem, the plight of newly industrialized 3rd world countries forced to bear the economic brunt of the policy changes, etc., etc.
    I guess what I'm wondering, though, is where and how you see political motivations playing into the publication of this research. Especially in the American political context, which has witnessed vastly different presidents and Congresses from all over the place in regards to party-affiliation. Likewise, there have been tremendous shifts in science, as practiced, funded and published, which is to say that it doesn't seem to be nearly the singular unit as you make it sound...

    Genuinely looking forward to your answer.
    We're going to be good again.

  4. #224
    I'm unsure how it is you have looked into the issue yet remain unaware of the politics involved?

    Anyway, mainstream press is aptly named.

    The biggest lie is the repeated insistence that there is some sort of unanimity on the subject of climate change.

    The same unsubstantiated lie is simply repeated over and over.

    Here is a serious paste from Huffpo and shows 49 scientists and astronauts -- just within NASA!--who qualify as "deniers"...

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1418017

    "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."

    The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-13-2014 at 11:14 AM.

  5. #225
    Here is another "denier"...just so happens to be one of the "real" IPCC scientists-

    “This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

    And another IPCC scientist :

    “I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

    And another apostate:

    Another Quote: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnera
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-13-2014 at 10:34 AM.

  6. #226
    Strick -- here are two prof.'s from the School of Environmental Studies at East Anglia.

    Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony provide this research paper on the IPCC and how it operates.

    These guys can clearly state the case much better than I. I really believe it will be worthwhile to read a couple of pages...


    http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uplo...ahony-PiPG.pdf

    Initial Abstract

    "This is the first of a series of three biennial reviews of research on the subject of climate change. This review is concerned with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): its origins and mandate; its disciplinary and geographical expertise; its governance and organisational learning; consensus and its representation of uncertainty; and its wider impact and influence on knowledge production, public discourse and policy development. The research that has been conducted on the IPCC as an institution has come mostly from science and technology studies scholars and a small number critical social scientists. The IPCC’s influence on the construction, mobilisation and consumption of climate change knowledge is considerable. The review therefore ends by encouraging geographers of science to turn their research and scholarship to understanding the roles played by the IPCC, and equivalent institutional processes of climate change knowledge assessment, in the contemporary world."

  7. #227
    Another excerpt from the team at East Anglia...

    Yet the IPCC remains largely conventional in its hierarchical instincts. In a recent sociological critique of the IPCC, Yearley (2009) argues that climate science is currently constructed through assigning the (interpretative) social sciences a specific role – a subsidiary one. “The institutional assumption of the IPCC is that the most relevant social science is economics” [p.401], thus marginalising knowledge about climate change which emerges from disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, communication science, philosophy and history. Yearley’s assertion is certainly borne out by Bjurström and Polk’s (2010) analysis.

    Here we see the mainstream argument turned on its head as the authors of the study conclude, effectively, the only scientific discipline worth hearing from, as concerns the IPCC and it's reports,are the economists.*

  8. #228
    O for 17 years...no warming. How do you Buzzouters justify supporting the IPCC's computer models after such an abysmal fuggin record!?

    None of the 108 models predicted warming would come to a standstill -- not for one year and certainly not 17 straight.This standstill all while yearly carbon emissions greatly increased?

    So then, with the theory on the rocks they throw the mic back to the Godfather of AGW, James Hansen. What does James do? He takes the shingle from his baby, Goddard, and conjures up a "probably" and a "very likely" when explaining the heat has gone to the bottom of the sea.

    Culture

    About time for a billboard for this utter bullshit.

  9. #229
    I don't think 33 is looking for more proof that there are always disagreements among scientists. It seems he's asking what do you want to see happen?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    I don't think 33 is looking for more proof that there are always disagreements among scientists. It seems he's asking what do you want to see happen?
    drill, baby, drill?

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Strickland33 View Post
    I guess what I'm wondering, though, is where and how you see political motivations playing into the publication of this research. Especially in the American political context, which has witnessed vastly different presidents and Congresses from all over the place in regards to party-affiliation. Likewise, there have been tremendous shifts in science, as practiced, funded and published, which is to say that it doesn't seem to be nearly the singular unit as you make it sound...

    Genuinely looking forward to your answer.
    The issue was brought the to modern world by Margaret Thatcher, who was battling a nasty coal miners strike and used the issue against them
    http://www.masterresource.org/2013/0...st-to-skeptic/

    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    google "Margaret Thatcher" and "Global Warming"

    The issue was assumed by the Earth Day crowd, and here we are. The only way to combat the man-made climate change is to assume worldwide cooperation and/or power. The solution is an inherently political one - see Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Thatcher eventually had a change of heart on the issue when the politics changed. Apparently she regretted the beast she had created.

    The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary claims that Thatcher cooked the science
    http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.c...ed-global.html

    It was news to me that the catalyst for setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was nasty, evil Margaret Thatcher. See, she wanted to flog nuclear power, so gave the Royal Society money to 'invent' global warming. Once a fabrication industry had been set up, so the story goes, it became more and more alarmist to sustain itself with bigger and bigger government grants.

  12. #232
    "Margaret Thatcher flogging nuclear power on a cold day!"
    "Margaret Thatcher flogging nuclear power on a cold day!"
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  13. #233
    As stated earlier in the thread, one of the chief aims is to see science freed from ideological restraints so it better serves the "truths" it is intended to expose.

    Again, IPCC author and reviewer, Prof. Hulme with more commentary:

    Professor Hulme has expanded on this theme in news interviews. "I think there is a serious problem with the way scientists are used, and the way they position themselves, in climate-policy debates," Hulme told the Toronto Globe and Mail. "Wherever you look around climate change, people are bringing their ideologies, beliefs and values to bear on the science."

    The Globe and Mail story continues:
    Prof. Hulme leads a group of CRU scientists who believe that the extraordinary political importance placed on their research, and the activist, ideological way that research has been used by the IPCC, has put scientists in the position of being the authors of policy — a position that distorts the role of science in society.

    "If we simply believe that science dictates policy, then I'm afraid we're living in an unreal world," Prof. Hulme said. "If people are arguing that science policy should flow seamlessly from the science, then science becomes a battleground, where people start saying that we must get the science on our side. We have lost an openness and a transparency that leads to good science."

  14. #234
    In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

    Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

    For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

    International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

    But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

    Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

    “The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

  15. #235
    Top Swedish scientist and member of the IPCC says there is no cause for alarm.

    Top Swedish climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, who has served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official global warming advocacy body, was also quoted publicly on February 3 as saying,

    “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic. The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all. The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceed the previously thought ones, and computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations are the only way to go.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...e-truly-cruel/

  16. #236
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    42,040
    thanks, Heartland Institute, for your input.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Top Swedish scientist and member of the IPCC says there is no cause for alarm.

    Top Swedish climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, who has served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official global warming advocacy body, was also quoted publicly on February 3 as saying,

    “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic. The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all. The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceed the previously thought ones, and computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations are the only way to go.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...e-truly-cruel/
    The guy is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist btw.
    Last edited by ONW; 01-14-2014 at 01:30 PM.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    thanks, Heartland Institute, for your input.
    You are so full of shit.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    The guy is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist btw.
    The guy is more qualified than 97% of his IPCC peers but then don't read, do you?

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    thanks, Heartland Institute, for your input.
    0 for 17 years, Buzz...no warming. Who is getting fired?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •