3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_mpvidcar_1 OP-ed in WSJ signed by 16 scientists. Other scientists complaining that they weren't afforded the opportunity to sign too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Here's a link to the printed article; There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.. Money quote .........although the article is full of them. 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 "Answers are easy. It's asking the right questions that is hard!" --- The Fourth Doctor I mean, between the Cassandra Complex / 'We're All Gonna Die!!' set and the ones who shrug and say 'Meh!...' (both of which have their own agenda and funding conflicts) there had to be something. I have to admit I'm something of a fence-sitter on this issue. We don't know what we don't know. Hell, we don't even know what we think we know. All I know is, making predictions, nevermind policy proposals, under these these conditions can play the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Heretics! Burn them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 People wouldnt be so skeptical if the policy prescriptions to attempt to solve this issue didn't include wealth distribution policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 People wouldnt be so skeptical if the policy prescriptions to attempt to solve this issue didn't include wealth distribution policies. What ? ? ? Filtering billions of dollars from "rich" countries thru the U.N. to the under developed countries of S. America and Africa WON'T fix the atmosphere ? huh. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_mpvidcar_1 OP-ed in WSJ signed by 16 scientists. Other scientists complaining that they weren't afforded the opportunity to sign too. That's great. Science by op-ed. But let's give it credence THIS time, even though it's complete bull **** when James Hansen or the IPCC use this tactic. Bad science is bad science. Both sides contribute to it. The solution is: knock this **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 That's great. Science by op-ed. But let's give it credence THIS time, even though it's complete bull **** when James Hansen or the IPCC use this tactic. Bad science is bad science. Both sides contribute to it. The solution is: knock this **** off. Did you fall and hit your head and wake up as Dave? They were giving their opinion based on data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Did you fall and hit your head and wake up as Dave? They were giving their opinion based on data. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 Thank you. WTF is the problem? They took some data, analyzed it and stated their opinion in an op-ed. They didn't try to make the data fit their conclusions like the IPCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 That's great. Science by op-ed. But let's give it credence THIS time, even though it's complete bull **** when James Hansen or the IPCC use this tactic. Bad science is bad science. Both sides contribute to it. The solution is: knock this **** off. Well, the thing here isn't that they're trying to prove something is, they're saying that data used by various and sundry groups was wrong. If I have a problem with your cross-pollination experiment, and it's obvious to me that you used the savoy cabbage pollination stick rather than the Brussels sprout stick, then really, what can I do to disprove your findings by doing it properly myself? You'll be able to say that you got a different result rather than that you totally ed the goose with sloppy, inaccurate work. I must've missed the part where they claimed that this op-ed was a scientific paper. What they're charging is that the data set and predictions for GW studies were inaccurate by a statistically significant %. Then they offered a reason why this might've happened with the generally very reliable "follow the money trail." They're also saying that the conditions in the scientific community are such that anyone with differing opinion or who doesn't "Harumph!" loudly enough is committing career suicide, and so the result is that climate science as we know and love it is more about peer pressure than peer review. I don't think the WSJ is an especially bad forum for voicing these concerns to the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Concerned that too many deniers are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom. The Forecast the Facts campaign led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs. Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change, the group explains on their website. Well empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable. According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity. So far, the campaign has identified 55 deniers in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define deniers as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world. Daily Caller This seems incredibly counter-productive, because the more successful they are in adding names to the ever-growing meteorologist denier list, the faster the notion of consensus goes out the window. . Edited January 31, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts