david dissadent
New Member
.
Global Warming Denial.
- Thread starter revol68
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
No idea. I'm afraid I'm not a film critic.
The Hansen I'm on about works for NASA and Columbia Uni. He suggested that Lindzen's ideas were worth testing, but others actually did the testing itself.
See e.g. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdf
Well it just so happens that he was, Bernie. Mr Justice Burton, sitting in the High Court, described Gore's film as "alarmist", "exaggerated" and "one-sided". He also identified 9 significant scientific falsehoods and ordered the film carry a 'health warning'.
One of the falsehoods identified in the High Court was highly exaggerated sea level rises - one of Hansen's specialties. See, for example, "Dr" laptop's breathless post on the Great Global Warming Swindle thread.
Huge sea level rises are coming - unless we act now [double gulp!]
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6279747&postcount=993
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Don't see how that makes any difference to the scientific evidence against Lindzen's 1997 (and 2001) papers.
But you do see how it places him in the corrupt scientist league, alongside the likes of Mann, Overpeck, Jones, Schneider - all heavily involved in the UN-IPCC AGW fraud, no?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You're a fucking loony bigfish.
Doesn't it bother you as a trot to be a useful idiot for the people who back GW Bush?
Doesn't it bother you as a trot to be a useful idiot for the people who back GW Bush?
Well it might bother me if it any of it were true, but, alas, like most of your pronouncements, none of it is. I don't come here as you do to peddle the peak oil scarcity scam on behalf of GW Bush and the Western oil giants. Nor do I come here either to peddle the Manmade Global Warming scam on behalf of the bankrupt Democrats and New Labour.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It seems to me that you have trouble distinguishing cause and effect here.
If some science happens to be convenient or inconvenient for capitalists of one sort or another or their political servants, it doesn't make the science wrong.
If it's inconvenient for some capitalists, you can be sure of finding contrarian PR pseudoscience that they've paid for however and you seem to indiscriminately seek out and C&P that stuff.
Peer-review is how you tell the difference. It may not be perfect, but it's a far better way to determine whether the science is correct than whether or not you like the uses that various interested third parties may make of that science.
If some science happens to be convenient or inconvenient for capitalists of one sort or another or their political servants, it doesn't make the science wrong.
If it's inconvenient for some capitalists, you can be sure of finding contrarian PR pseudoscience that they've paid for however and you seem to indiscriminately seek out and C&P that stuff.
Peer-review is how you tell the difference. It may not be perfect, but it's a far better way to determine whether the science is correct than whether or not you like the uses that various interested third parties may make of that science.
Readers can find out for themselves just how "good" Desmog blog is by checking out a recent debate on the Roy Green show between Richard Littlemore, a Desmog blog editor, and Christopher Monckton.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/08/climate-debate-realist-monckton-beats.html
Among other things, Monckton explains how Desmog blog was founded with $300,000 from a convicted internet fraudster.
Littlemore had little option but to later acknowledge his public evisceration. Many of his blog's own readers opined that Littlemore got hammered in the debate.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
The comment to which you are replying was not about the desmog blog, so you are poisoning the wrong well.
Neither Littlemore nor Monckton are climate scientists so a debate between the two is irrelevant. Science isn't conducted by debates between journalists on radio talk shows.
Neither Littlemore nor Monckton are climate scientists so a debate between the two is irrelevant. Science isn't conducted by debates between journalists on radio talk shows.
Hang on! You're not a scientist either and yet here you are debating science... albeit in a very limited way through your falacious appeal to scientism.
By the way: "Not all scientists agree that the warming we've seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming. .... There are those who want to attribute any perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropogenic global warming. I predict that if we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They’re not really looking at the science; they’re looking at the disaster.” Stanley Goldenberg, meteorologist, Hurricane Research Division, NOAA
http://www.insurancetechguru.com/bl...g-not-linked-to-increased-hurricane-activity/
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Straw man. I didn't say laymen can't debate it. I said it isn't what's important -- the peer-reviewed science is.
Provide any peer-reviewed papers in which Goldenberg has explained what is causing the warming trend and explained why CO2 has not had the warming effect that would be expected, and is observed.
lol - Bigfish bumbles again.
Fallacious argument. There is no such thing as a "warming effect that would be expected" from CO2 - what you imagine is happening has never been observed in reality. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and in the absence of correlation their can be no causation. Ice-core data shows that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follow changes in temperature on all time scales, putting cause and effect the other way round. If you disagree with any of this, please provide mathematical proof of the cause-and-effect mechanism.
In addition:
Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook is Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University. He has authored eight books and 150 journal publications.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
The greenhouse effect is well established physics. If you think you can disprove it, write it up and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. It will need to be better than your last attempt though.
We already did the PDO on the first page. And Easterbrook is not a climate scientist.
mathematical proof? What are you on about?
You've got a blind spot (like most denialists) if you can't see that the lag is quite plausible to CO2 acting as a feedback to warming caused by Milancovitch cycles. Denilaists like you sieze on the lag as proof of something (mainly cos Al Gore didn't mention it in AIT methinks) but it rules out nothing.
Can you explain why a lag SHOULDN'T be there?
Can you explain how the earth climbs out of ice ages without the CO2 feedback?
No, you can't.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
erm no - what the historic record shows is that on previous occasions factors other than CO2 have been the trigger for temperatures to rise. This in no way proves that if CO2 concentrations rise then this can't also cause a corresponding rise in temperatures.
What these historic trends also demonstrate is the way in which a warming earth naturally triggers additional CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which (I'd argue) then reinforces the warming effect of whatever initially triggered the warming... so the historic trends can actually be taken to demonstrate the warming effect of increased CO2 concentrations, as well as the worrying potential for the earth to naturally emit large quantities of CO2 as it warms... ie a run away greenhouse effect.
aren't the IPCC predictions based on average temperature changes over the longterm?
I think they are, so while the PDO switching into it's cool phase will no doubt either reduce the rate of temperature rise, or possibly even lead to slight cooling, this effect is only temporary, and the under lying rise will still be there when the PDO swings back to it's warmer state.
there's an interesting article about this in new scientist this month, part of which predicted the deniers would be jumping on this as proof that global warming isn't happening... and right on cue we have this post from Bigfish.
david dissadent
New Member
A 15 minute film on why we are so unmoved by global warming by the psychologist Dan Gilbert.
http://poptech.org/popcasts/?viewcastid=163
http://poptech.org/popcasts/?viewcastid=163
david dissadent
New Member
Similar threads
