| Author |
Message
|
| andre |
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Deniers..... |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 116
|
...may once be acknowlegded having tried to prevent major climate hysteria disaster like this for example, or this or this.
Not that it changes anything to the reality of climate change, there is at least one environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, who is not prepared to join the "noble cause corruption" of character murder and climate hysteria and wrote The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so.
Some quotes from a review
| Quote: |
What he found shocked him. Solomon discovered that on every “headline” global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent scientists.”...
...In addition, Solomon notes the harsh treatment that many scientists have endured simply because they followed the scientific method, the evidence from their research, and their own consciences, all of which led them to the conclusion that this or that facet of the global-warming consensus view was woefully incomplete or flat-out wrong. This treatment has had the effect intended by global warming scaremongers — to shut down promising areas of research and to silence credible critics...
...The term skeptic has historically been a badge of honor proudly worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that in the pursuit of truth, nothing is beyond question, every bit of knowledge is open to improvement and/or refutation as new evidence or better theories emerge. However, in the topsy-turvy field of climate science, “skeptic” is a term of opprobrium and to be labeled a skeptic is to be dismissed as a hack. Being a skeptic concerning global warming today is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages — you may not be literally burned at the stake, but your reputation will be put to flames... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 742
|
Andre,
Could you provide us with a list of some of these world renowned scientists. (I don't intend to buy the book.)
I wonder if Nigel Weiss might be one of them:
| Quote: |
SOLAR ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING
The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me.
For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website
Nigel Weiss |
(From a letter to the National Post in response to an article of Solomon's.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| That's the problem with polemics isn't it? The facts might still be obscured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 116
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
Andre,
Could you provide us with a list of some of these world renowned scientists. (I don't intend to buy the book.)
|
You could start for instance the authors and reviewers of the ISPM
of course all these people are character murdered because they doubt AGW, so you can happily dismiss all these, pointing to the vicous lies that have been told about them. Unfortunately, you will never realise that you're running around in circles that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 742
|
I was asking about the ones in the book. Are these ISPM authors the same scientists that are in the book? I'd like to stay on topic.
Regarding character murders, I wouldn't know. However I am familiar with the bad science of at least a couple of those listed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 600
Location: Montreal
|
Well they are associated with the Fraser Institute a Conservative, Libertarian think tank in western Canada that receives a large amount of it's funding from corporate sponsors. They were one of those groups of "scientist" who argued that cigarette smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
I'm always wary of trusting institutes with a declared political agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 116
|
I knew that it's indeed impossible to leave the groupthink box. I was afraid of that.
Anyway visiting the book link would have given this list
| Quote: |
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2. |
Now you can go ahead with the vitriol and the tar and feathers but when it's time for taking responsibility, never try the excuse: "Ich hab es nicht gewusst" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 600
Location: Montreal
|
I'm not opposed to the position that some predictions are likely exagerated, and unrealistic. However, I have yet to see compelling evidence that global warming isn't influenced by anthropogenic sources.
I agree the UN's hockey stick graph is alarmist because it doesn't cover enough years. It isn't fair to just dismiss this though, it will in general cause problems for the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
For each one of those there are hundreds that say otherwise
I dont trust the media by any means, the media is propaganda, but GW has been out of the media radar for years and years, and initally it was doubted and so on.
Even NASA observations have been censored by the Bush administration.
And its a bit odd that most scientists against GW are concentrated in the US (and its puppet states), so the few scientists closest to Pollution spewing corporations are the unbias ones while thousands of scientists around the world are supposed to be on the payroll of a world spanning global organization of deceit? come on
Glaciers are Melting, Iceshelves are vanishing, the polar ice cap is getting thinner and darker, I swear that when Coconut trees grow in Siberia there will still be people claiming GW is all a myth.
hum, I wonder how many of the people that beleive GW is a myth are creationists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 742
|
| andre wrote: |
I knew that it's indeed impossible to leave the groupthink box. I was afraid of that.
Anyway visiting the book link would have given this list |
As a matter of fact I did visit the book link and saw two reviews, one of which I read. I didn't see the list you found, so thanks for that. Several familiar names there.
Thanks also for the puerile insults. It saves me the trouble of bothering to read any further.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 600
Location: Montreal
|
| icewendigo wrote: |
For each one of those there are hundreds that say otherwise
I dont trust the media by any means, the media is propaganda, but GW has been out of the media radar for years and years, and initally it was doubted and so on.
Even NASA observations have been censored by the Bush administration.
And its a bit odd that most scientists against GW are concentrated in the US (and its puppet states), so the few scientists closest to Pollution spewing corporations are the unbias ones while thousands of scientists around the world are supposed to be on the payroll of a world spanning global organization of deceit? come on
Glaciers are Melting, Iceshelves are vanishing, the polar ice cap is getting thinner and darker, I swear that when Coconut trees grow in Siberia there will still be people claiming GW is all a myth.
hum, I wonder how many of the people that beleive GW is a myth are creationists? |
What puppet states lol? Anti-GW science mostly comes out of countries with strong corporate sponsorship of science and government, and from countries with conservative governments in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 116
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| andre wrote: |
I knew that it's indeed impossible to leave the groupthink box. I was afraid of that.
Anyway visiting the book link would have given this list |
As a matter of fact I did visit the book link and saw two reviews, one of which I read. I didn't see the list you found, so thanks for that. Several familiar names there.
Thanks also for the puerile insults. It saves me the trouble of bothering to read any further.
Cheers. |
You're more than welcome, but don't you see how you turn around in circles, first you character murder any body who dares to express doubts about the holy AGW case, and since he is character murdered he is now a crook and hence he is wrong.
it will probably be another millenium or two before we are out of these dark ages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 88
|
| andre wrote: |
Now you can go ahead with the vitriol and the tar and feathers but when it's time for taking responsibility, never try the excuse: "Ich hab es nicht gewusst" |
No need really when you can only put forth a dozen scientist --many of which are misrepresented by their inclusion on your list.
Just look at the first one Dr. Wegman. Who stated:
“In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.”
Dr. Edward Wegman Testimony to Congress.
The same Testimony demanded by a hostile Congress to which the National academy of sciences affirmed the hockey stick methods, initial conclusions as well as the overwhelming confirmation from many other types of proxy information (pollen counts, glacial records etc).
Take the 2nd one put into context Dr. Browich "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." And immediately explains why: "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
A bit of intellectual honesty please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 116
|
| Quote: |
A bit of intellectual honesty please. |
| Lynx_Fox wrote: |
| The same Testimony demanded by a hostile Congress to which the National academy of sciences affirmed the hockey stick methods, |
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
| Quote: |
| The NRC's panel review determined that Dr. Mann made in the words of the NRC witnesses inappropriate choices and that the panel had much the same misgivings about Dr. Mann's work. Moreover, both the NRC and Wegman reports essentially corroborated the main criticisms raised by the McIntyre-McKitrick studies about Dr. Mann's initial hockey stick studies. |
So, how long is your nose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Deniers..... |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 88
|
Thanks but I already had a copy of the testimony.
Perhaps you'll read it this time:
“In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.”
Dr. Edward Wegman Testimony to Congress.
| Quote: |
| The NRC's panel review determined that Dr. Mann made in the words of the NRC witnesses inappropriate choices and that the panel had much the same misgivings about Dr. Mann's work. Moreover, both the NRC and Wegman reports essentially corroborated the main criticisms raised by the McIntyre-McKitrick studies about Dr. Mann's initial hockey stick studies. |
That's not from Wegman, but a political statement that spun the testimony. Wegmans primary complaint is the original researchers did not work close enough with statistical community, and perhaps not how he would have done it, but as I've already shown you twice by the time of the testimony he substantially agreed with the researchers' conclusion about prominent recent warming.
It's not substantially different than the National Center of Atmospheric Research testimony to Congress, that while the statistical method had some problems, they were minor and didn't effect the conclusion, and that the conclusion has been supporting by many other temperature reconstructions using completely different proxies. (borehole temperatures, glacier length histories, ice isotope, marine and lake sediments microfossils of temperature sensitive organisms, coral records, and yes even tree rings) Here's that report.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=1
The entire debate about the hockey stick is silly at this point--it's affirmed so many times, and in so many ways, that there is absolutely no doubt in the vast majority of scientist having anything to do with climate research--including Dr. Wegman(not a climatologist) according to your own link.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
