WFFaithful
Well-known member
Where do you get this crap from?
Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
lol at you talking about "healthy skepticism"
Says the guy with his hand over his face
Alarmists afraid of debate...
When Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Randy Johnson took the mound during his prime, he was known as The Walking Infirmary. Johnson was one of the hardest throwing pitchers in baseball history, throwing a blistering fastball that frequently topped 100 mph. To make a point, he would often throw his fastball right at hitters’ heads. He complemented his fastball with a knee-buckling slider that left-handed hitters were sure was going to put them in the hospital ward before it curved away from their heads and darted over the plate.
At 6 feet 10 inches tall and frequently wearing a nasty scowl on his face, Johnson was every bit as intimidating in appearance as his pitches were intimidating in effectiveness. When Randy Johnson took the mound, hitters on opposing teams coincidentally came up with all sorts of illnesses and ailments that they claimed required them to stay at home or on the bench.
Johnson may have retired from baseball after the 2009 baseball season, but his legacy continues in the global warming debate. When global warming alarmists are invited to participate in a debate or panel discussion with global warming skeptics, they coincidentally come up with all sorts of excuses to stay at home or on the bench.
For example, late last month global warming alarmist Bill Nye – who proclaims himself “The Science Guy” – was scheduled to debate skeptic Marc Morano on a nationally televised segment on CNN. One would expect that a person who believes the science is on his side would relish the opportunity to participate in, and decisively win, a nationally televised debate. At the last minute, however, Nye cowardly backed out. Nye didn’t even give Morano the courtesy of advance notice of his cowardice, with the CNN producer giving Morano only six minutes advance notice that Nye would not participate.
Similarly, prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann gave a presentation last month at publicly-funded Valencia College near Orlando, Florida. Although Mann has repeatedly chickened out of appearing in venues in which alarmists and skeptics can examine and question each other’s assertions, Mann was all too happy to travel to Florida (presumably at Florida taxpayers’ expense) to speak at an event in which he alone controlled the message.
That being said, it is hard to blame the alarmists for their fear of public discussion and debate; every time they attempt to debate the science, they end up getting smoked. Given what happened the last time there was a public debate in Florida regarding global warming, who can blame Michael Mann for seeking to avoid the same embarrassment suffered by his brother-in-arms, Ray Bellamy? Even though Bellamy is a trained presenter for Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, all the Al Gore training and Hollywood gimmicks in the world couldn’t save him from the overwhelming verdict of science. No wonder why Michael Mann flies solo in his global warming presentations.
To the limited extend that alarmists do venture into the world of interactive discussion and debate, their arguments are tarnished with the unmistakable odor of personal hypocrisy.
When the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune filled in for “The Coward Guy” Bill Nye in the CNN segment, he decided his best line of attack was to smear Marc Morano by claiming Morano must be funded by the fossil fuel industry. Incredibly, Brune made this argument after the Sierra Club accepted $26 million from fossil fuel company Chesapeake Energy. Notably, Al Gore Climate Reality Project presenter Ray Bellamy attempted a similar smear in his Tallahassee, Florida debate just days after Gore sold his Current TV to fossil-fuel funded Al Jazeera for $500 million.
And Michael Mann will attack a skeptical scientist as being “valueless” and serving as a “hired gun” when he himself gets rich off his high-profile alarmism, charging as much as $10,000 plus travel expenses for a single talk.
Why do global warming alarmists come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid participating in interactive public discussion and debate? The answer is simple; they have learned that if they do, they will wind up like a hapless bird caught in the path of a blazing Randy Johnson fastball.
When Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Randy Johnson took the mound during his prime, he was known as The Walking Infirmary. Johnson was one of the hardest throwing pitchers in baseball history, throwing a blistering fastball that frequently topped 100 mph. To make a point, he would often throw his fastball right at hitters’ heads. He complemented his fastball with a knee-buckling slider that left-handed hitters were sure was going to put them in the hospital ward before it curved away from their heads and darted over the plate.
At 6 feet 10 inches tall and frequently wearing a nasty scowl on his face, Johnson was every bit as intimidating in appearance as his pitches were intimidating in effectiveness. When Randy Johnson took the mound, hitters on opposing teams coincidentally came up with all sorts of illnesses and ailments that they claimed required them to stay at home or on the bench.
Johnson may have retired from baseball after the 2009 baseball season, but his legacy continues in the global warming debate. When global warming alarmists are invited to participate in a debate or panel discussion with global warming skeptics, they coincidentally come up with all sorts of excuses to stay at home or on the bench.
For example, late last month global warming alarmist Bill Nye – who proclaims himself “The Science Guy” – was scheduled to debate skeptic Marc Morano on a nationally televised segment on CNN. One would expect that a person who believes the science is on his side would relish the opportunity to participate in, and decisively win, a nationally televised debate. At the last minute, however, Nye cowardly backed out. Nye didn’t even give Morano the courtesy of advance notice of his cowardice, with the CNN producer giving Morano only six minutes advance notice that Nye would not participate.
Similarly, prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann gave a presentation last month at publicly-funded Valencia College near Orlando, Florida. Although Mann has repeatedly chickened out of appearing in venues in which alarmists and skeptics can examine and question each other’s assertions, Mann was all too happy to travel to Florida (presumably at Florida taxpayers’ expense) to speak at an event in which he alone controlled the message.
That being said, it is hard to blame the alarmists for their fear of public discussion and debate; every time they attempt to debate the science, they end up getting smoked. Given what happened the last time there was a public debate in Florida regarding global warming, who can blame Michael Mann for seeking to avoid the same embarrassment suffered by his brother-in-arms, Ray Bellamy? Even though Bellamy is a trained presenter for Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, all the Al Gore training and Hollywood gimmicks in the world couldn’t save him from the overwhelming verdict of science. No wonder why Michael Mann flies solo in his global warming presentations.
To the limited extend that alarmists do venture into the world of interactive discussion and debate, their arguments are tarnished with the unmistakable odor of personal hypocrisy.
When the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune filled in for “The Coward Guy” Bill Nye in the CNN segment, he decided his best line of attack was to smear Marc Morano by claiming Morano must be funded by the fossil fuel industry. Incredibly, Brune made this argument after the Sierra Club accepted $26 million from fossil fuel company Chesapeake Energy. Notably, Al Gore Climate Reality Project presenter Ray Bellamy attempted a similar smear in his Tallahassee, Florida debate just days after Gore sold his Current TV to fossil-fuel funded Al Jazeera for $500 million.
And Michael Mann will attack a skeptical scientist as being “valueless” and serving as a “hired gun” when he himself gets rich off his high-profile alarmism, charging as much as $10,000 plus travel expenses for a single talk.
Why do global warming alarmists come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid participating in interactive public discussion and debate? The answer is simple; they have learned that if they do, they will wind up like a hapless bird caught in the path of a blazing Randy Johnson fastball.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
lol bill nye canceling a debate = alarmists afraid to debate
really brightening up my morning, lec. keep 'em coming
really brightening up my morning, lec. keep 'em coming
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/20...al-warming-newt-gingrich-on-the-fiscal-cliff/
Here's Nye debating Morano on CNN. Video of the actual debate that you say didn't occur. Lol
Here's Nye debating Morano on CNN. Video of the actual debate that you say didn't occur. Lol
WFFaithful
Well-known member
Where do all these "articles" come from? Email forwards?
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
they're all OP/EDs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/06/warmists-display-cowardice-and-hypocrisy-in-avoiding-global-warming-debate/
James Taylor, contributor:
I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
lolzzzzzzzzz:
"In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms"
keep the clown train coming! this might be my favorite post after his "open letter" signed by veterinarians and dentists
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/06/warmists-display-cowardice-and-hypocrisy-in-avoiding-global-warming-debate/
James Taylor, contributor:
I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
lolzzzzzzzzz:
"In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms"
keep the clown train coming! this might be my favorite post after his "open letter" signed by veterinarians and dentists
Last edited:
All you have you proven is that you have not looked at the overwhelming number of sources of climate scepticism. You show one person from the heartland...big fucking deal. The carbonated gulls trot out that distinguished shit-spewer, Michael Mann, at every turn.
Why don't you stop playing the blind captain who leads this ship of fools and instead investigate the source both Pour and I have provided throughout.
I tell you this...you are gonna end up siding with the Astro Physicists who are lining the geologists and other lesser-light disciplines, as it were.
Here is Harvard-Smithsonian... You know, smart guy, those shills for shell:
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years.
"Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades," Soon says, "so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last 5-10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."
Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme. Their findings about the pattern of historical climate variations will help make computer climate models simulate both natural and man-made changes more accurately, and lead to better climate forecasts especially on local and regional levels. This is especially true in simulations on timescales ranging from several decades to a century.
Historical Cold, Warm Periods Verified
Studying climate change is challenging for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the bewildering variety of climate indicators - all sensitive to different climatic variables, and each operating on slightly overlapping yet distinct scales of space and time. For example, tree ring studies can yield yearly records of temperature and precipitation trends, while glacier ice cores record those variables over longer time scales of several decades to a century.
Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams.
"Like forensic detectives, we assembled these series of clues in order to answer a specific question about local and regional climate change: Is there evidence for notable climatic anomalies during particular time periods over the past 1000 years?" Soon says. "The cumulative evidence showed that such anomalies did exist."
The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.
"For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes," Baliunas says. "For example, the Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder. And in England, vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth. Now, we have an accumulation of objective data to back up these cultural indicators."
The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period." Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
The study - funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute - will be published in the Energy and Environment journal. A shorter paper by Soon and Baliunas appeared in the January 31, 2003 issue of the Climate Research journal.
NOTE TO EDITORS: Photos of key climate indicators are available online at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310image.html
Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists organized into six research divisions study the origin, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.
For more information, contact:
David Aguilar, Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7462 Fax: 617-495-7468
daguilar@cfa.harvard.edu
Christine Lafon
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7463, Fax: 617-495-7016
clafon@cfa.harvard.edu
Why don't you stop playing the blind captain who leads this ship of fools and instead investigate the source both Pour and I have provided throughout.
I tell you this...you are gonna end up siding with the Astro Physicists who are lining the geologists and other lesser-light disciplines, as it were.
Here is Harvard-Smithsonian... You know, smart guy, those shills for shell:
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years.
"Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades," Soon says, "so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last 5-10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."
Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme. Their findings about the pattern of historical climate variations will help make computer climate models simulate both natural and man-made changes more accurately, and lead to better climate forecasts especially on local and regional levels. This is especially true in simulations on timescales ranging from several decades to a century.
Historical Cold, Warm Periods Verified
Studying climate change is challenging for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the bewildering variety of climate indicators - all sensitive to different climatic variables, and each operating on slightly overlapping yet distinct scales of space and time. For example, tree ring studies can yield yearly records of temperature and precipitation trends, while glacier ice cores record those variables over longer time scales of several decades to a century.
Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams.
"Like forensic detectives, we assembled these series of clues in order to answer a specific question about local and regional climate change: Is there evidence for notable climatic anomalies during particular time periods over the past 1000 years?" Soon says. "The cumulative evidence showed that such anomalies did exist."
The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.
"For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes," Baliunas says. "For example, the Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder. And in England, vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth. Now, we have an accumulation of objective data to back up these cultural indicators."
The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period." Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
The study - funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute - will be published in the Energy and Environment journal. A shorter paper by Soon and Baliunas appeared in the January 31, 2003 issue of the Climate Research journal.
NOTE TO EDITORS: Photos of key climate indicators are available online at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310image.html
Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists organized into six research divisions study the origin, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.
For more information, contact:
David Aguilar, Director of Public Affairs
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7462 Fax: 617-495-7468
daguilar@cfa.harvard.edu
Christine Lafon
Public Affairs Specialist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: 617-495-7463, Fax: 617-495-7016
clafon@cfa.harvard.edu
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
lol
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
snort, someone confirmed the Medieval Warming period? no shit, that's not news at all, nor does its existence have anything to do with climate change. In fact, here's a NOAA comment on the issue, dated 4 years AFTER your decades old data (your link is to pubs from 2003)
I've noticed the trend that all of your trash comes from the early 2000's when climate change focused research was brand-new and everyone was clamoring about "inconvenient truth".
I've noticed the trend that all of your trash comes from the early 2000's when climate change focused research was brand-new and everyone was clamoring about "inconvenient truth".
Last edited:
BigTreeDeac
Ricky Peral
So you think a study that found there was a warmer period in MANY (their own words, note they didn't say all or majority which in science means it isn't the majority of places looked) places in the medieval period proves humans are not contributing to climate change? For fuck's sake man, learn how to read a scientific study or shut the fuck up and let the big boys discuss this. You say "alarmists" are afraid to debate but in the end nobody is afraid to have a debate or a discussion, we just can't have it with people incapable of accurately reading scientific studies. Saying that review of previous climate studies is somehow proof that man is not contributing to climate change is like saying because there have periods in Earth's history in which CO2 was more prevalent in the atmosphere, humans have contributed no CO2 to the current atmosphere. The fact the Earth has been hotter or more extreme in the past has no bearing on how humans are or are not contributing to current climate change.
The survey you posted also proves nothing as a mere 24% of people go so far as to think "Nature is overwhelming" (again note it doesn't say "Nature is the only" so even those respondents agree humans have contributed) while the rest are stratified based on HOW much they think humans have contributed and what the actual real world impacts of this climate change will be. How you can interpret that as a overwhelming number don't think humans are involved is just beyond me. It was a survey designed to assess how critical an issue to nature and the planet scientists think climate change is, not a survey on the root cause of climate change you dolt. But by all means, keep posting "facts" that don't prove your point in an effort to prove your point. A few actual scientists have posted on this thread and at least they can bring up somewhat valid criticisms because they actually understand how to read a study. You, on the other hand, appear to be nothing more than a hack journalist with delusions of grandeur that not only result in you believing yourself to be some football oracle but also a diviner of great scientific knowledge with no ability to back up any statement you make. But by all means keep citing Op Ed pieces and snippets from studies you have never read, will never read, and certainly will never understand.
The survey you posted also proves nothing as a mere 24% of people go so far as to think "Nature is overwhelming" (again note it doesn't say "Nature is the only" so even those respondents agree humans have contributed) while the rest are stratified based on HOW much they think humans have contributed and what the actual real world impacts of this climate change will be. How you can interpret that as a overwhelming number don't think humans are involved is just beyond me. It was a survey designed to assess how critical an issue to nature and the planet scientists think climate change is, not a survey on the root cause of climate change you dolt. But by all means, keep posting "facts" that don't prove your point in an effort to prove your point. A few actual scientists have posted on this thread and at least they can bring up somewhat valid criticisms because they actually understand how to read a study. You, on the other hand, appear to be nothing more than a hack journalist with delusions of grandeur that not only result in you believing yourself to be some football oracle but also a diviner of great scientific knowledge with no ability to back up any statement you make. But by all means keep citing Op Ed pieces and snippets from studies you have never read, will never read, and certainly will never understand.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Here, you Carbon Clowns...more evidence that you will have to deal with the cold hard facts the Astrophysicists (best and brightest, just ask TW 
Leaked Draft of UN Climate Report Admits then Evades Role of Solar Cycles in Climate Change says Friends of Science
Calgary, AB (PRWEB) December 20, 2012 -- The climate science critical review organization, Friends of Science, is pleased that expert IPCC reviewer Alec Rawls has leaked a secret IPCC AR-5 draft report on the World Wide Web.
Friends of Science say elements of this leaked report confirm the impact on climate by solar and cosmic forces as researched by astrophysicists like Nir Shaviv, earth scientists like Jan Veizer, and UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. Corbyn's solar-based long-term weather forecasts are so accurate he sells them on-line and British bookmakers bet on him.
The story has erupted into controversy perhaps best exemplified by competing comments by NY Times environment critic Andrew Revkin and James Delingpole of The Telegraph in the U.K.
According to a statement by Alec Rawls on the "Watts Up With That?”(WUWT) climate realist site, “The admission (by the IPCC) of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.”
Alec Rawls explains his reasons for releasing the draft report “The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers.”
Rawls, like others, is critical of the IPCC for ignoring evidence from hundreds of peer-reviewed technical papers that show the sun is a significant driver of climate change. Forces such as the solar wind traveling at a million miles per hour, solar magnetic cycles, and cosmic rays.
Rawls writes on WUWT, “President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 [carbon dioxide] is causing dangerous global warming....”
Albert Jacobs, one of the founders of Friends of Science criticized the lack of engagement of solar physicists by the IPCC. “Chapter 7 reads as if written by meteorologists. Attention is paid neither to the sun's gravity and magnetic connections to oceanographic oscillations, nor to the main element of interest to us in that respect: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.”
Rawls sense of urgency in leaking the report was explained, “Last week his [Obama’s] people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come...The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda.”
The IPCC also avoided mention of a very important published paper on atmospheric water vapor. This paper shows that water vapor is not amplifying the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect. This means that carbon dioxide has little effect on climate.
As well, years of climate models are compared to recorded temperatures in the leaked IPCC draft. Friends of Science have created a graph comparing the current IPCC results with the temperature observations showing a vast discrepancy.
The leaked report also reveals that the IPCC experts confirm there is no trend in the frequency or magnitude of droughts and floods on a global scale, contrary to popular belief, recently propagated after SuperStorm Sandy.
The IPCC says the draft reports are secret and should not be copied or distributed. Other dismiss this quoting the IPCC Chairperson Rajendra Pachauri statements in the May 2009 issue of The Progressive, “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.”
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise presented her findings, entitled “UN Climate Panel: Activist and Untrustworthy” during an October 2012 Friends of Science luncheon. In her book, “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert,” she reveals that the science has been tampered with by policy writers.
Several IPCC scientists such as Vincent Gray agree citing the fact that its origins lie in "The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," - in other words, the IPCC focuses solely on human impact.; some like Chris Landsea have withdrawn.
About the Friends of Science
A group of mostly retired earth and atmospheric scientists, professional engineers and geologists, Friends of Science has been reviewing peer-reviewed science on climate change for over a decade and their conclusion is that the sun is the main driver of climate change cycles, not you or CO2.
Read it. Learn. That's why you went to college, remember?
Leaked Draft of UN Climate Report Admits then Evades Role of Solar Cycles in Climate Change says Friends of Science
Calgary, AB (PRWEB) December 20, 2012 -- The climate science critical review organization, Friends of Science, is pleased that expert IPCC reviewer Alec Rawls has leaked a secret IPCC AR-5 draft report on the World Wide Web.
Friends of Science say elements of this leaked report confirm the impact on climate by solar and cosmic forces as researched by astrophysicists like Nir Shaviv, earth scientists like Jan Veizer, and UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. Corbyn's solar-based long-term weather forecasts are so accurate he sells them on-line and British bookmakers bet on him.
The story has erupted into controversy perhaps best exemplified by competing comments by NY Times environment critic Andrew Revkin and James Delingpole of The Telegraph in the U.K.
According to a statement by Alec Rawls on the "Watts Up With That?”(WUWT) climate realist site, “The admission (by the IPCC) of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.”
Alec Rawls explains his reasons for releasing the draft report “The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers.”
Rawls, like others, is critical of the IPCC for ignoring evidence from hundreds of peer-reviewed technical papers that show the sun is a significant driver of climate change. Forces such as the solar wind traveling at a million miles per hour, solar magnetic cycles, and cosmic rays.
Rawls writes on WUWT, “President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 [carbon dioxide] is causing dangerous global warming....”
Albert Jacobs, one of the founders of Friends of Science criticized the lack of engagement of solar physicists by the IPCC. “Chapter 7 reads as if written by meteorologists. Attention is paid neither to the sun's gravity and magnetic connections to oceanographic oscillations, nor to the main element of interest to us in that respect: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.”
Rawls sense of urgency in leaking the report was explained, “Last week his [Obama’s] people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come...The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda.”
The IPCC also avoided mention of a very important published paper on atmospheric water vapor. This paper shows that water vapor is not amplifying the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect. This means that carbon dioxide has little effect on climate.
As well, years of climate models are compared to recorded temperatures in the leaked IPCC draft. Friends of Science have created a graph comparing the current IPCC results with the temperature observations showing a vast discrepancy.
The leaked report also reveals that the IPCC experts confirm there is no trend in the frequency or magnitude of droughts and floods on a global scale, contrary to popular belief, recently propagated after SuperStorm Sandy.
The IPCC says the draft reports are secret and should not be copied or distributed. Other dismiss this quoting the IPCC Chairperson Rajendra Pachauri statements in the May 2009 issue of The Progressive, “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.”
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise presented her findings, entitled “UN Climate Panel: Activist and Untrustworthy” during an October 2012 Friends of Science luncheon. In her book, “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert,” she reveals that the science has been tampered with by policy writers.
Several IPCC scientists such as Vincent Gray agree citing the fact that its origins lie in "The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," - in other words, the IPCC focuses solely on human impact.; some like Chris Landsea have withdrawn.
About the Friends of Science
A group of mostly retired earth and atmospheric scientists, professional engineers and geologists, Friends of Science has been reviewing peer-reviewed science on climate change for over a decade and their conclusion is that the sun is the main driver of climate change cycles, not you or CO2.
Read it. Learn. That's why you went to college, remember?
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
You know what's better evidence? Like, evidence. From thousands of scientists.
You just pasted a release from PRWeb.
You just pasted a release from PRWeb.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
ah yes, the Friends of Science
" The Friends of Science endorsed the Heartland Institute's 2008 Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.[31] Some of the Friends, such as Madhav Khandekar, Chris de Freitas, Tim Patterson, Sallie Baliunas and Douglas Leahey, Tom Harris,[notes 13] were present at the conference which took place in New York City at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in March 2008. Other Friends, like Timothy F. Ball, who were endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields.[32] Arthur M. Patterson was another Friend and endorser."
hmmmmmmmmmmm
In 2004 Talisman Energy, a Calgary-based, global oil and gas exploration and production company, one of Canada's largest independent oil and gas companies, donated $175,000 [notes 6] to fund a University of Calgary-based "public relations project designed to cast doubt on scientific evidence linking human activity to global warming." Journalist Mike De Souza published the list of significant donations to the Friends of Science which had been received by the press, in an article published in the Vancouver Sun in 2011. Sydney Kahanoff, a Calgary oil and gas executive and philanthropist donated $50,000 through his Kahanoff Foundation, a charity he established in 1979. Murphy Oil matched one of its employees $1,050 donations. Douglas Leahey defended the donations to the Friends of Science from the then CEO of Talisman Energy, James Buckee,[notes 7][12] who shared the Friends' views on climate change.[13]
hmmmmmmmmmm
" The Friends of Science endorsed the Heartland Institute's 2008 Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.[31] Some of the Friends, such as Madhav Khandekar, Chris de Freitas, Tim Patterson, Sallie Baliunas and Douglas Leahey, Tom Harris,[notes 13] were present at the conference which took place in New York City at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in March 2008. Other Friends, like Timothy F. Ball, who were endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields.[32] Arthur M. Patterson was another Friend and endorser."
hmmmmmmmmmmm
In 2004 Talisman Energy, a Calgary-based, global oil and gas exploration and production company, one of Canada's largest independent oil and gas companies, donated $175,000 [notes 6] to fund a University of Calgary-based "public relations project designed to cast doubt on scientific evidence linking human activity to global warming." Journalist Mike De Souza published the list of significant donations to the Friends of Science which had been received by the press, in an article published in the Vancouver Sun in 2011. Sydney Kahanoff, a Calgary oil and gas executive and philanthropist donated $50,000 through his Kahanoff Foundation, a charity he established in 1979. Murphy Oil matched one of its employees $1,050 donations. Douglas Leahey defended the donations to the Friends of Science from the then CEO of Talisman Energy, James Buckee,[notes 7][12] who shared the Friends' views on climate change.[13]
hmmmmmmmmmm
Last edited:
Here is one from the Obama camp.
The list of international politicians and erstwhile greens who have become apostates of the carbon cult is growing every day.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
The list of international politicians and erstwhile greens who have become apostates of the carbon cult is growing every day.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
i also love that the 'article' refers to the internet as "the World Wide Web"
And more, so you can read first hand the intimidation which occurs when a scientist comes forward with a conclusion at odds with the global priests of carbonation
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.