MIT climatologist: No consensus on global warming
MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen patiently explains why the claims by Al Gore, Newsweek, and CNN that a consenseus on global warming exists are simply nonsense.
HT: Drudge
HT: Drudge
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
In a parallel example, another NASA scientist, Roy Spencer, caused a fair bit of doubt about global warming when he announced that his measurements (from satellites) showed that the globe was not warming in contrast to surface temp measurements. Turns out he was wrong: :::[ExxonMobil funds global warming spoofer] and so now they are removing the temp satellite measurement program completely. Bit suspicious don't you think?
All on your taxpayers dollars seem to be going to dupe you, but at least you seem prepared for the consequential sea level rise (from the name of your blog ;) )
http://tinyurl.com/mtvmy
The contrary claim was spin whose numbers don't really affect the conclusion.
Won't work, my friend. To be consistent, you have to disqualify the scientists (mostly not climatologists, BTW) who argue in favor of the Gore thesis who are backed by extremist environmental groups. Which is OK with me, BTW. If you eliminate those who have an apparent or possible conflict of interest, the alarmists take a far bigger hit than the skeptics.
The key here is to read all the evidence, and not just articles supporting your viewpoint. That includes being aware of the degree to which the case for alarmism rests upon the discredited hockey stick graph. When all the evidence is allowed on the table, it seems that there have been far more pronounced periods of global warming than the recent one- without permanent effect.
Why not address the arguments, rather than engaging in the Leftist tradition of personal attacks on the person you disagree with? In the meantime, see
http://tinyurl.com/nryly
http://tinyurl.com/s4xpl
http://tinyurl.com/fo5hk
http://tinyurl.com/ovtdg
Wasn't Bob Waters also in Pink Floyd, or have I got that wrong? Or was it Roger? Or his roger the film director? No matter. Good name.
Anyway - don't accuse me of being a leftist. I don't fall so neatly into that box my friend.
Secondly - you can't accuse me of a personal attack just because I am asking the age old question in didactics, made famous by Cicero in 60 BCE. Qui bono?
Who benefits? In this case ExxonMobil benefits, and if they are paying the messenger - how is that a personal attack? Especially since I did say, "apparently, he is a good climate scientist". It is a fact he gets paid by big oil - you can't hide from that brother.
By the way - I would love to see your proof that these scientists you talk about are backed by extremist environmental groups.
I am having a look at your URL's, thanks for posting them.
You misapply Cicero's statement. He was asking how to identify who is responsible for something. He wasn't saying that you can disqualify a person's opinion without examining its merits simply by finding some alleged connection to a concerned party.
Here's another couple of URL's for you, BTW: http://tinyurl.com/g78vb
and http://tinyurl.com/z4l6o
Gee. If I come up with too many more names, it won't be unanimous anymore, will it?
By the way... you are aware, aren't you, that human activity is responsible for 0.25% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
The bottom line is that the folks on your side of this debate can't discredit the arguments the other side, so you resort to sources with no more credibility than Exxon itself to discredit those who make them- without bothering to address their arguments even in passing. And when you do so, it's generally spin jobs like the attempted- and discredited- discrediting of Spencer you referred to in your first comment.
Why is it that scientists with some remote connection to Exxon are automatically disqualifed, while scientists (and others) with an obvious political agenda are not? Shouldn't we be talking about the arguments here? Why is it that it always comes down to conspiracy theories about Big Bad Oil?
The above URL leads to Fox News and Steve Milloy - I can help you out here.
Fox News is owned by an Australian, Rupert Murdoch. I went to school with his son, Lachlan and have recently caught up with him and his lovely wife Sarah who I also know professionaly from my past life in advertising.
I won't 'talk out of school', so to speak, about Fox, and it's journo's but suffice to say their priority is less one of scientific integrity and more one of gaining political influence (in order to own more media) and Fox was established specifically for this purpose, and you have to say Murdoch has achieved his aim. He is a kingmaker. They are simply business folk - not bound to telling the truth. Therefore Fox have been marrying the message of Bush's financial constituents - big oil and coal - with his voter base, RW Xians, and trailer park types and the like. So that is the real world lay-out for you. If you want proof of this... look at how Fox was the only one to declare that those 500 shells of mustard gas (ha ha - my grandfather used to make it in WW2 - horrible weapon, but hardly one of mass destruction, esp. for those troops adequately protected)were the life threatening WMD we had all been cowed into fearing. No other media org made the clam the long lost WMD had been found. Fox did because Rupert still has something to extract from Bush.
As for Steven Milloy - he's just an attack dog for big oil as can be seen by his associations with ExxonMobil funded thinktanks. Not a good one either. As for Fred Singer - big-oil stooge. Look at the thinktanks he is associated with. And I have alredy dealt with Spencer.
By the way, regardless of whether you have a 1.2 degree celcius warming per decade - or a 1.9 degree rate of warming YOU STILL HAVE GLOBAL WARMING! Spencer shoots himself in the foot. Heck, even Bush admits there is warming (whatever you do don't come back to me with some theory on sunspots)
And just to illustrate Milloy's tendancy to shoot off at the mouth with not even a hattip to truth, his last paragraph is quite telling:
Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It’s no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.
Whereas the truth is that 88% believe global warming will affect future generations:
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll, out Sunday, March 26th. A vast majority of respondents (88%) think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens them a great deal. About four-in-ten (38%) feel that global warming is already a serious problem, 47% feel that it will be in the future.
Forgive my coloour, but to use an Australianism, it seems Steve Milloy does not know his arse from his elbow.
I hope your other links are a bit more objective
Nobody questions that there is global warming going on. Has been, cyclically, for centuries. The causes aren't clear, though- and it's been happening for far longer than the internal combustion engine has been around.
The evidence that human beings are responsible in any way significant way is negligable. There has, in fact, been at least one rather extended period long before there was an external combustion engine significantly warmer than the present one. The alarmists simply exclude that data from their statistics, choosing to use tree rings alone as their source of information and ignore the geological data and the historical records involved. But the cycle from 700 to 1300 B.C. was far more extreme than any since.
What is in question, in short, is whether global warming is a serious threat, and whether the 0.28% of greenhouse gases for which human activity is responsible plays a significant role. Claims for the allegedly unprecidented character of the contemporary episode are simply based on falsified evidence. The evidence to that effect you will have already read.
It is clear, sir, that you do not know your arse from your elbow!
Millroy documents his polling data. Different poll, different results. Poll results have a tendency to reflect how the question is asked, and of whom. And when. No question that the hype behind Gore's film has made at least a temporary impact on public opinion. So do all the fawning MSM nodding heads.
You can't authomatically disqualify information just because you disagree wtih it. Once again... you need arguments, not just ad hominems!
Now. Back to your further conspiracy theories.
Actually, Fox only has that reputation among extremists in that box you claim unconvincingly not to fit in. In other words, it's not a shill for envirnomental alarmists and other folks whose claim to objectivity isn't exactly stellar, either.
You know. Like the folks you quote on your blog. You can't make your point just by claiming that anybody who disagrees with you is an "attack dog for big oil." Not everybody is gullible enough to buy the ad hominem, especially when it's your sole argument!
Tell you what: Come up with so me counter- arguments, and I'll publish them. But no more ad hominems, OK? We already know that you're going to say thatanybody who disagrees with you is a stooge of big oil! That's no fairer than my dismissing you and everybody on your side of the coin by calling you environmental extremists!
Evidence, my man! Evidence!
If you can't refute the arguments, making accusations that the people who make them are part of some evil conspiracy doesn't work. It's too easy, and proves nothing.
Except, perhaps, to the kind of fringe types who swallow arguments hook, line and sinker- and then close their minds.
Huh, let's do the quick google test on "global warming" site:foxnews.com
Results 1 - 10 of about 563 from foxnews.com for "global warming". (0.07 seconds)
and on "global warming" site:cnn.com:
Results 1 - 10 of about 41,900 from cnn.com for "global warming". (0.07 seconds)
and on "global warming" site:abc.go.com:
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400 from abcnews.go.com for "global warming". (0.17 seconds)
and on "global warming" site:abc.go.com:
Results 1 - 10 of about 235,000 from msn.com for "global warming". (0.20 seconds)
and on "global warming" site:bbc.co.uk:
Results 1 - 10 of about 85,700 from bbc.co.uk for "global warming". (0.20 seconds)
You can see that FoxNews is biased aginst covering what is clearly news for the rest of the media. I don't think your 'extremist' call stands up to the data.
And then again, you have to remember that you can automatically disqualify anybody who takes the alarmist view on global warming, since their research grants depend upon it being a serious problem.
Oh, wait. That's what you said about those who both disagree with them and simultaneously don't exist with regard to Big Oil, isn't it? And I guess if that was a non sequitur and blatant special pleading,, my equivalent must be, too. Darn.
===
Yes you are so right, I had forgotten that reality has a strong left-leaning bias.
You ought to try reality some time, Wadad. But I have to warn you that appreciating it does involve actually being open to having your own biases exposed as such. That seems to be something you're not ready for at this point.