Climate change - a retard’s perspective

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. No Ruler Member

    This is what I love about anti science types. You don't have to know anything at all yet you call people vile names based on your own ignorance.

    I linked a talk with an actual climate scientist, and yet, because TI saw the term denier associated with her TI refused to consider her at all.

    Let me show you what he was refusing to consider:
    I actually learned more about climate science in her hour interview that I have from reading newspaper articles.

    So, what TI is saying is that his ignorance of a complex and difficult topic is more important than this woman's years of dedicating her life to a search for truth. She has published 130 papers in the field. TI is saying that because someone else labeled someone 'denier' that he has no obligation to learn what she actually says.

    TI, you reject information based on your assessment of its ideological purity. If it is somehow 'right wing' in your mind, then you reject it out of hand,

    Oh well, carry on.
  2. The Internet Member

    So you have one legit scientist on your team. Is she getting any Koch money?

    What do you think about tens of thousands of published, peer reviewed authors on my team?

    The issue of scientific consensus I can understand, even though I can’t understand all the physics and chemistry and stuff.

    The deniers deny the fact that a scientific consensus exists.
  3. Boris Korczak Member

    We all know that the stink bugs were brought to US with Chinese imports. Some Chinese people find them delicious.(!)
    We have them now in Virginia and short of burning our houses down nothing else can kill them.
    Stay safe
  4. The Internet Member

    Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
    Thu, 2012-11-15 10:26
    James Lawrence Powell.*

    Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

    I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

    I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

    This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase "global climate change." She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

    Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, "climate change" without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.

    By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

    Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

    The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)

    Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

    A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.

    Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

    Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

    Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I want a 23 bedroom climate-controlled mansion on a nice plot of private acerage, a fleet of cars and my own private jet, too. :D
  6. The Internet Member

    So out of nearly 14,000 published, peer reviewed research papers we have 24 papers that reject global warming. Here they are:

    List of 24 articles rejecting anthropogenic global warming, with links where available. See abstracts or excerpts from abstracts here.

    Bali, R., K. K. Agarwal, S. N. Ali, and P. Srivastava (2011), Is the recessional pattern of Himalayan glaciers suggestive of anthropogenically induced global warming? Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(7-8), 1087-1093, doi:10.1007/s12517-010-0155-9.
    Citations: 2

    Baliunas, S., and R. Jastrow (1993), EVIDENCE ON THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF SOLAR VARIATIONS, Energy, 18(12), 1285-1295, doi:10.1016/0360-5442(93)90016-7.
    Citations: 7

    Balling, R. C. (1993), THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA, Research & Exploration, 9(2), 201-207.
    Citations: 2

    Bashkirtsev, V. S., and G. P. Mashnich (2003), Will we face global warming in the nearest future?, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 43(1), 124-127.
    Citations: 4

    Bellamy, D., and J. Barrett (2007), Climate stability: an inconvenient proof, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering, 160(2), 66-72, doi:10.1680/cien.2007.160.2.66.
    Citations: 5

    Berner, U., and W. Stahl (1999), Geosciences and climate, Zkg International, 52(1), 28-+.
    Citations: 0

    Chilingar, G. V., L. F. Khilyuk, and O. G. Sorokhtin (2008), Cooling of atmosphere due to CO2 emission, Energy Sources Part a-Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects, 30(1), 1-9, doi:10.1080/15567030701568727.
    Citations: 1

    Chilingar, G. V., O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, and M. V. Gorfunkel (2009), Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect, Environmental Geology, 58(6), 1207-1213, doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1615-3.
    /Citations: 2

    Dergachev, V. A., and O. M. Raspopov (2010), Reconstruction of the Earth's surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 50(3), 393-402, doi:10.1134/s001679321003014x.
    Citations: 1

    Essenhigh, R. H. (2009), Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide, Energy & Fuels, 23, 2773-2784, doi:10.1021/ef800581r.
    Citations: 3

    Jastrow, R., W. Nierenberg, and F. Seitz (1991), GLOBAL WARMING - WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE TELL US, Energy, 16(11-12), 1331-1345, doi:10.1016/0360-5442(91)90006-8.
    Citations: 4

    Jedral, W. (2010), CCS TECHNOLOGY AND SAVING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE - PRO AND CON, Rynek Energii(3), 113-119.
    Citations: 0

    Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2003), Global warming: Are we confusing cause and effect?, Energy Sources, 25(4), 357-370, doi:10.1080/00908310390142389.
    Citations: 10

    Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2004), Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report, Environmental Geology, 46(6-7), 970-979, doi:10.1007/s00254-004-1112-2.
    Citations: 8

    Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2006), On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?, Environmental Geology, 50(6), 899-910, doi:10.1007/s00254-006-0261-x.
    Citations: 9

    Loehle, C. (2004), Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data, Ecological Modelling, 171(4), 433-450, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.08.013.
    Citations: 14

    Luedecke, H.-J., R. Link, and F.-K. Ewert (2011), HOW NATURAL IS THE RECENT CENTENNIAL WARMING? AN ANALYSIS OF 2249 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 22(10), 1139-1159, doi:10.1142/s0129183111016798.
    Citations: 0

    Michaels, P. J. (1993), BENIGN GREENHOUSE, Research & Exploration, 9(2), 222-233.
    Citations: 4

    Njau, E. C. (2005), Expected halt in the current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, 30(5), 743-752, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.07.011.
    Citations: 3

    Persinger, M. A. (2009), The possible role of dynamic pressure from the interplanetary magnetic field on global warming, International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4(1), 44-46.
    Citations: 0

    Qian, W. H., and B. Lu (2010), Periodic oscillations in millennial global-mean temperature and their causes, Chinese Science Bulletin, 55(35), 4052-4057, doi:10.1007/s11434-010-4204-2.
    Citations: 5

    Scafetta, N. (2010), Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(13), 951-970, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015.
    Citations: 17

    Scafetta, N. (2012), Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 80(13), 124-137, dpi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005.
    Citations: 1

    Zhen-Shan, L., and S. Xian (2007), Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95(1-2), 115-121, doi:10.1007/s00703-006-0199-2.
    Citations: 11

    I just did a search for “Curry” on the above citations and I got nothing. So Judith Curry hasn’t bothered to publish any evidence in support of her claim that global warming is overstated.

    Bringing the copypasta here is a lot of work because the carriage returns are never there and I have to put them in. Nobody pays me to do this. It is a labor of love. I hope you guys can feel the love.

    I highlighted the year the article was published and the journal name, just to help me understand more about the authors, if possible. Some journals sound like industry sponsored PR --e.g., Zkg International.
  7. White Tara Global Moderator

    YO! I'm a belieber now, praise jeebus! :rolleyes:

    Actually truth be told I was never much of a sceptic, but do choose to side with the skeptics on small points.

    1- The term denier is deliberately provocative and discourages robust debate.

    2- The under-examined or under published to the mainstream aspects of warming that would prove to me once and for all that it is not in fact to late (as I suspect) so funds and planning can be directed to projects in preparation for this future.

    3- i remain deeply suspicious and mostly disgusted at the plethora of climate change profiteers that have sprung up in the last few years.

    These are why i choose to align myself with the skeptics as there are too many unanswered questions remaining.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. The Internet Member

    I think we need the term “denier,” because we need to call a spade a spade. Some people deny that a scientific consensus exists inspite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

    The term is shameful because one should not deny the evidence when speaking the public. There needs to be a lot more shame for that, in my opinion. The people are not free to make informed choices when they are swimming in misinformation.

    As with every major issue, there are mistakes to be made in the direction of minimizing the problem and in the direction of over-stating the problem. There are mistakes to be made in the solutions proposed as well. So we have to be aware of all of this.

    There are New Agers who think we’d all be better off living like our ancestors a hundred years ago and they use global warming to argue against a lot of modern technologies, like GMOs. Those people are trouble.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Internet Member

    I noticed the name “Jastrow” popping up on several of the 24 science papers rejecting global warming. He is a very interesting person. Here is his obit.

    Robert Jastrow, Who Made Space Understandable, Dies at 82

    Published: February 12, 2008

    Robert Jastrow, who led a major space science institution and helped to bring space down to earth for millions of Americans, died Friday at his home in Arlington, Va. He was 82.
    George C. Marshall Institute
    Robert Jastrow

    The cause was complications of pneumonia, according to an announcement from the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, the policy institute Dr. Jastrow helped found in 1984 after 20 years as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, a unit of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    In an age when scientists tended to keep to their laboratories and lecture halls, Dr. Jastrow was a very public figure, a prolific author and commentator on a wide range of topics including the space program, astronomy, earth science and national security issues. He lectured on CBS and NBC about space, and his 1967 book “Red Giants and White Dwarfs” was a best seller for a nation hungering for an accessible guide to science during the space race.

    “He had a deep sense of the need to interpret science and make it available to the public,” said Albert Arking, a former student of Dr. Jastrow. As an ambassador of science, he was a natural, Dr. Arking recalled, saying, “His enthusiasm for science was infectious.”

    His descriptions were sharp and his language clear. In an article he wrote in August 1969 while he was director of the Goddard Institute, he described the 50 pounds of rocks and soil that the Apollo 11 astronauts brought back to earth as a “Rosetta Stone” of the history of the solar system. Without the erosive properties of air and water that have turned the surface of the earth into a kind of palimpsest, an over-written document that hides all but glimpses of its history, the surface of the moon, he said, “has preserved the record of its past for an exceptionally long time.”

    Dr. Jastrow was born in 1925 in New York, and earned undergraduate and doctoral degrees in physics at Columbia University. In 1958, he joined the newly formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration as head of its theoretical division, which did basic research in fields like cosmology and astronomy.

    With the encouragement of Harold Urey, a Nobel laureate at NASA at the time, Dr. Jastrow became an energetic proponent of lunar exploration. In 1961, he became director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which worked within the agency on projects like the robotic probes Pioneer, Voyager and Galileo, which sailed throughout the solar system.

    In 1992, he became chairman of the Mount Wilson Institute, which runs the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, and in 1984 he helped found the George C. Marshall Institute, which took positions in public debates over science policy. He was chairman emeritus of the institute at his death.

    He received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the Arthur S. Flemming Award for Outstanding Service to the United States Government, as well as the Columbia University Medal of Excellence.

    He was briefly married in 1967 to the former Ruth Witenberg. He leaves no immediate survivors, the Marshall Institute said.

    A competitive athlete who was “a bit reckless” as a skier, Dr. Arking said, Dr. Jastrow was driven to work as hard as he played, often working all night to finish projects and expecting his staff to do the same. He would often pull his colleagues out of the office to run with him around the Central Park Reservoir.

    Later in life, as chairman of the Marshall Center, Dr. Jastrow blended the scientific with the political, often, colleagues said, in response to what he saw as efforts by others to politicize science. In 1985, he published “How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete,” a book supporting President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, known as the Star Wars missile defense system.

    Dr. Jastrow also became a prominent skeptic on climate change issues, arguing that scientists who warned of a global warming crisis were misattributing nature’s effects on climate to the effects of mankind. Dr. Arking, a climate scientist at John Hopkins University who continued to visit his old mentor on a regular basis until two days before his death, recalled arguing the issue with Dr. Jastrow, finding him less and less willing to make any concessions in their discussions.

    “I tried to dissuade him on some issues,” Dr. Arking said, recalling that Dr. Jastrow responded: “Yeah, you’re probably right, but this is the way we have to put it. We have to convince people that this is not the catastrophe that people were making it out to be.”

    I highlighted the last sentence because it strikes me as peculiar. Who is “we”? Smells like a noble lie. Like CIA type stuffs.

    Oh hey, SDI, that’s a "noble lie” fake project to launder money used for CIA covert ops, innit? Cuz I notice we spent many billions on it and yet where the fuck is it.
  10. The Internet Member

    Robert Jastrow looks a little bit like Terry Jastrow, but I don’t know if they are related. Would be an interesting coincidence.

    jastrow190.jpg Terry+Jastrow+Premiere+Paramount+Pictures+TBZZeK06qiCl.jpg
  11. The Internet Member

    One of Robert Jastrow’s books, published apparently by Warner Bros?


    Another book by Robert Jastrow. Seems kinda New Age:

    • Like Like x 1
  12. The Internet Member

    Here is Robert Jastrow pimping Star Wars to the American public in 1985. Physicists doing physics rather than PR for the CIA said, WTF that SDI plan is impossible. But Congress was like, okay derp here are all our Jewgolds!

    Title: How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete
    Author: Jastrow, Robert
    ISBN: 0283992735
    Condition: Used, good
    Comments: Satisfaction Guaranteed. Shipped quickly.
    Binding: Hardcover
    DustJacket: None
    Publisher: Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd
    Publication Date: 1985


    The CIA were apparently really hard up for cash in the 1980s. Before the SDI scam we had the Iran Contra scam. That started as a plan to make money selling weapons to Israel who would sell them to Iran and, I guess, split the profits with us. We couldn’t sell directly to Iran due to laws. Then we tried to use our weapons deals as a means to get some of our hostages released. But we have a policy against rewarding terrorists.

    I bet at the beginning the US-Iran conversations were like, “Hey nice doing business with you.... BTW anything you can do to get our hostages out would be appreciated. You might even see a discount on the next few bombs!"

    But the subtleties that kept the deals marginally legal broke down into blunt arms for hostages deals --not legal.

    So a whole laundering skimming operation funding CIA work came to a halt in about 1984-85. Then SDI! I don’t even know how much we spent on that crazy thing.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonylemmi Member

    The government tends to dump money in incomprehensible amounts on the flavor of the week. Soon to be forgotten by the voters. It is still going on.
  14. Anonylemmi Member

    A filter for crap reporting would solve damn near all the worlds problems. Except for the problem of devising and utilizing such a filter. Who will watch the watchers?
  15. The Internet Member

    Everybody. We’re still going to have the whole Internet and TV and radio and everything else we use to share info.

    Right now major media can put out terrible articles that mislead the public without paying much of a social price. Because they’re competing against popular media that is all equally bad right now.

    One reason science reporting is so bad now: print media is struggling and they’ve axed their budgets for science writers. The public, being non-experts, don’t complain and demand better science reporting because they aren’t sure what that would look like. So we create a place where they can see what it looks like.

    We already have that to some degree --all the places where real scientist write articles. But it’s too hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. So people don’t try.

    You don’t have to Google too hard to find journalists, pundits, and some scientists claiming that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. That is a frank lie easily contradicted by the articles I posted in this thread. These people pay no price for lying to us. I want them to pay a price. A price like, "Don’t let the screendoor hit you in the ass on the way out!” They can be banished from LegitTV after one lie. Let them blather on LiesWeLikeTV instead.
  16. White Tara Global Moderator

    OK this is a little cheeky posting this as it has little to do with climate warming but what they hey :p

    "I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
    He shows me recent footage captured by spacecraft that have their sights trained on our star. The Sun is revealed in exquisite detail, but its face is strangely featureless.
    "If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he says.
    This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.
    _72367413_72367199.jpg The Sun's activity may be falling faster than at any time in 10,000 years
    It has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at a peak.
    This giant ball of plasma should be peppered with sunspots, exploding with flares and spewing out huge clouds of charged particles into space in the form of coronal mass ejections.
    _72322524_xflare_combo2.jpg The Sun should be at the peak of its activity - bursting with flares and coronal mass ejections
    But apart from the odd event, like some recent solar flares, it has been very quiet. And this damp squib of a maximum follows a solar minimum - the period when the Sun's activity troughs - that was longer and lower than scientists expected.
    "It's completely taken me and many other solar scientists by surprise," says Dr Lucie Green, from University College London's Mullard Space Science Laboratory.
    The drop off in activity is happening surprisingly quickly, and scientists are now watching closely to see if it will continue to plummet.
    "It could mean a very, very inactive star, it would feel like the Sun is asleep... a very dormant ball of gas at the centre of our Solar System," explains Dr Green.
    This, though, would certainly not be the first time this has happened.
    Start Quote

    It's an unusually rapid decline”
    Prof Mike LockwoodUniversity of Reading
    During the latter half of the 17th Century, the Sun went through an extremely quiet phase - a period called the Maunder Minimum.
    Historical records reveal that sunspots virtually disappeared during this time.
    Dr Green says: "There is a very strong hint that the Sun is acting in the same way now as it did in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum."
    Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics, from the University of Reading, thinks there is a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.
  17. The Internet Member

    ^Do you feel my copypasta pain? Those and-quotes [ &quote; ] are distracting. And what happened to the double carriage returns? Maybe one day the internet will be better.

    The word “baffled” as in “scientists are baffled” or “is baffling scientists,” is one of those tells indicating the author usually writes articles for the food or travel sections.
  18. The Internet Member

    The George C. Marshall Institute was founded in 1984 by Frederick Seitz (former President of the United States National Academy of Sciences), Robert Jastrow (founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies), and William Nierenberg (former director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography).

    The Institute's primary aim, initially, was to play a role in defense policy debates, defending Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or "Star Wars"). In particular, it sought to defend SDI "from attack by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and in particular by the equally prominent physicists Hans Bethe, Richard Garwin, and astronomer Carl Sagan."[1] The Institute argued that the Soviet Union was a military threat.[1] A 1987 article by Jastrow[3] argued that in five years the Soviet Union would be so powerful that it would be able to achieve world domination without firing a shot.[1] With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Institute shifted from an emphasis on defense to a focus on environmental skepticism, including skepticism on issues of global warming.[1]

    The Institute's shift to environmental skepticism began with the publication of a report on global warming by William Nierenberg. During the United States presidential election, 1988, George H. W. Bush had pledged to meet the "greenhouse effect with the White House effect."[1] Nierenberg's report, which blamed global warming on solar activity, had a large impact on the incoming Bush presidency, strengthening those in it opposed to environmental regulation.[1] In 1990 the Institute's founders (Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz) published a book on climate change.[4] The appointment of David Allan Bromley as presidential science advisor, however, saw Bush sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, despite some opposition from within his administration.[1]

    In 1994, the Institute published a paper by its then chairman, Fredrick Seitz, titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. Seitz questioned the view that CFCs "are the greatest threat to the ozone layer".[5] In the same paper, commenting on the dangers of secondary inhalation of tobacco smoke, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances."[6]

    In 2012, the institute took over the responsibility for running the website from the Claremont Institute. aims to inform the American people of missile threats, thereby encouraging the deployment of a ballistic missile defense system.[7][8]

    Global warming
    Since 1989 GMI has been involved in what it terms "a critical examination of the scientific basis for global climate change policy." [9] The Institute was described as a "central cog in the denial machine" in a Newsweek cover story on global warming.[10]

    In Requiem for a Species (2010), Clive Hamilton is critical of the Marshall Institute and contends that the conservative backlash against global warming research was led by three prominent physicists -- Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and William Nierenberg, who founded the Institute in 1984. According to Hamilton, by the 1990s the Marshall Institute's main activity was attacking climate science.[11]Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway reach a similar conclusion in Merchants of Doubt (2010), where they identified a few contrarian scientists associated with conservative think-tanks who fought the scientific consensus and spread confusion and doubt about global warming.[12]

    GMI is one of only a few conservative environmental-policy think tanks to have natural scientists on staff.[13] Noted skeptics Sallie Baliunas and (until his death in 2008) Frederick Seitz (a past President of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962–1969) have served on its Board of Directors. Patrick Michaels is a visiting scientist and Stephen McIntyre, Willie Soon and Ross McKitrick are "contributing writers".[14] Richard Lindzen served on the Institute's Science Advisory Board.[15]

    In February 2005 GMI co-sponsored a Congressional briefing at which Senator James Inhofe praised Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear and attacked the "hockey stick graph".[16]

    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  20. Anything that isn't propaganda here gets a thumb down. Some people are hell bent on concealing the truth.
    This message by funny has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  21. The Internet Member

    I guess the take-home point about Robert Jastrow is: CIA asset. Yes, speculation, but he was part of an intelligence run disinformation effort, SDI, so close enough.

    Some people say SDI was designed to fool the Russians into thinking we had cool friggin’ lasers out in space. Maybe so. But I am troubled that the scam went on for so long and consumed over 30 billion dollars.

    Once SDI fades from the news, the George Marshall Institute decides to help the tobacco industry?

    And now it is helping the oil companies?

    I worry the CIA does not actually work for us any longer.

    You know, this global warming issue is difficult enough without bringing in chem trails and every other fucking Alex Jones moonbattery. Maybe go start another thread for that crap.
  22. Moonbat = anyone who speaks up against your propaganda.
    This message by Funny has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  23. The Internet Member

    One of the common accusations of the climate contrarians is that the IPCC was a radical group in which alarmist scientists made unsupported statements about the dangers of global warming. It was thus with great interest that I read how this large international group, consisting of hundreds of scientists and thousands of reviewers and consultants, worked for three years on each of the three IPCC assessments. To hear the critics, one would think the radicals hijacked this process and then claimed consensus for their views. But as Schneider explains, the IPCC was forced to adopt the UN definition of “consensus,” which is “unanimity.” Every nation had to approve every word in the document, and even one veto could scuttle the entire process. Consequently, each statement of fact had to be documented, and every suggestion of policy approved by even the most conservative delegations.

    Schneider's first-hand stories of these negotiations are fascinating. A handful of countries were the source of almost all of the objections: Saudi Arabia, the United States, China, and Russia-not coincidentally the biggest producers and consumers of hydrocarbons. One of the most frequent phrases in the IPCC notes is “Saudi Arabia, with the support of the United States, objected....” Schneider also reports that many of the members of the official U.S. delegation admitted privately that they agreed with the majority of scientists there but were under different orders from their bosses in Washington. He played a central role in finding compromises. At least once, he threatened to expose the obstructionist position of the U.S. delegation to the press and in congressional testimony scheduled for the next week. Schneider's description of the process explains why the IPCC assessments, far from being radical, 
have consistently underestimated future warming and its consequences.
  24. The Internet Member

    Please don’t disrupt my thread, funny. This stuff is important, as important as the Carolina parakeet which once filled the southern skies. We killed them all unthinkingly. Unthinkingly is not good.

  25. The mods bestowed you with a like button ? I didn't understand why some member had them and some did not.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. White Tara Global Moderator

    Its auto generated now, and updates the privileges every now and then based on a balance of number of posts, numbers of likes received and number of dislikes received I believe. No favouritism involved. :)
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Sounds like a well designed system

    Back on Topic, Thank you internet for your extensive posts. My point is We can't stop it anymore, so we better prepare for it
    • Like Like x 3
  28. Asheera Member

    The Finnish education ministry facepalms in your general direction. Reminds of when a few of their representatives toured the US lecturing on what they had done, with the US media displaying a complete incapacity to grasp what they were saying. I remember one exchange where one journalist kept asking about standardised tests and the Finn kept trying to explain that they don't do those. It was very cringe worthy to watch as a presumably qualified journalist failed to understand simple English over and over and over again.

    The key to the Finnish approach was inclusion and equality. They focused on making education accessible to everyone, regardless of status or income. When they scored off the charts in the international comparison tests they were as surprised as anyone.

    Finnish teachers have always been fairly well respected, so it must be said that they had a great base from which to begin their education experiment. No one can really argue with the results, but try to find a few US articles that articulate what they done and you have a search on your hands.

    I never followed the other thread, but if you have a link to where she presents some actual scientific evidence on the topic I'd be interested to view it. Don't bother with her politics shit, I'm only interested in actual science.

    And, yet again, you have proved through your comment the need for the term. Yet again you discuss no evidence, but somehow think that forwarding some unevidenced talking points that expressly avoid discussing the evidence is someone valid practice. The same tactic is used by creationists, Scientologists and any number of woo merchants. You are forwarding no evidence that pertains to the topic, and your only contribution is to encourage an avoidance of evidence-based discussion.

    I find an absence of evidence-based discussion, while attempting to forward some misleading talking points, to be deliberately provocative and discouraging of robust evidence-based debate - that's why the 'denier' term is needed.
    There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of research papers addressing these topics. There are also a plethora of detailed summaries about the state of such research from multiple international scientific organisations (NAS and IPCC are two that have been mentioned ITT). So how can you even begin to claim this topic is "under-examined or under published"???? How can spewing such a blatant ignorant talking point, that a mere five minutes with google can debunk, be considered anything other than 'denial' bullshit?

    Ignorance can be cured, and if you are utterly unaware of the summaries and research papers ( is awesome for finding research papers) then you now have the opportunity to look them up (latest IPCC would be my recommended starting point). If you decide not to take the opportunity for some basic self-education in the topic, and refuse to retract such a blatantly false talking point, then I will be fully justified in labelling such denialist bullshit.
    Who, in terms of scientists who carry out the laborious and detailed research into climate systems, are making a profit? University professors rarely get to lead the high-life, and represent a career choice that flies in the face of your baseless insinuation here. How many people, to take an example, have devoted hundreds of unpaid hours to the IPCC reports while struggling to make ends meet in their own university research??? If you really think climate scientists are making big money on this then I've a bridge to sell you.
    It seems to be a simple continuation of a trend since NONE of your postings ITT have been about climate change. You cannot discuss an area of science without referencing the evidence now can you?


    The greenhouse effect is key to this discussion, and has been known about since the 1800's. It involves the basic chemistry of certain gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapour, etc., that have the property of trapping heat at a much higher rate than most other atmospheric gases.

    You can demonstrate the basic effect at home rather easily. Take two transparent plastic bottles and two thermometers. Place a thermometer in the first bottle and close its cap. In the second hold a lit match inside it until it has burned out, then place the second thermometry within it and cap it up. Leave both outside on a sunny day and not how the second bottle (which has more carbon dioxide) will record a higher temperature.

    Earth, as an ecosystem, relies on this effect for life to survive, and without such the temperature on Earth would be much much lower. Venus, to take an example, is hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the sun because of the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

    So let's ask a (fairly) basic question in terms of chemistry - what can we expect to see if atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from 280ppm to over 400ppm (currently it is around 390ppm) knowing that it possesses this greenhouse property? What impact would an increase in excess of 2 Watts per square metre (not an unreasonable estimate) have on the temperature of the atmosphere? What part of the chemistry here is unsound? Why would anyone expect chemical properties known since the 1800s to, for reasons unknown, not manifest themselves in line with over a century of chemistry research?
  29. Schwabe Member

    I heard methane is even worse than CO2. And I heard that the effect of the sun on temperature change is less than thought before.
    Also volcanoes cool down the atmosphere. Maybe USfags should drill a hole in the Yellowstone park to accelerate the big eruption expected to take place ... this could save the world and enables to burn up all oli and coal without bothering about global warming. I wonder why this fracking stuff is enforced so much ..
  30. The Internet Member

    Thanks for the info. We could do that. We used to do that.

    Maybe a “fund of knowledge” is a function of an individual and the community that individual interacts with. Like language. Or herd immunity. When you get vaccinated, you have some immunity to a virus. But you will be far less likely to get sick if you're in a community of people who are also vaccinated.

    I can’t answer your question but the way you ask it makes me feel like over 400 ppm must be bad.

    I remember from chemistry that 1 calorie heats 1 gram of water 1 degree, right? And 80 calories heat 1 gram of ice at 0 degrees to 1 gram of water at 0 degrees. 80 is a lot more than 1!

    So those ice sheets near the poles are heat sinks. Each gram of ice melting absorbs 80 calories of heat while still remaining at a temperature of 0 degrees. The next 80 calories that gram of water takes in will make it 80 degrees warmer, which is getting close to the boiling point of 100 degrees.

    Of course, the heat energy in a gram of ocean water isn’t going to stay there. It will move around the planet. But the point is, the ice keeps the oceans from getting warmer. Once they’re gone the water will increase in temperature much more rapidly.

    Speaking of creationists, Robert Jastrow shilled for the Discovery Institute. He shows up in one of their movies, Privileged Planet. I saw him in a YouTube. He doesn’t say anything significant, just stuff like we don’t know what happened before the big bang, and as a scientist he’s a philosophical materialist and this makes him a sad panda. But the creationists are super excited to have a respected physicist in their movie. Because they understand propaganda and the use of positioning to convey meaning.

    Jastrow could have said, “Blah blah blah I like cookies and milk,” and still his mere presence in the film would convey scientific legitimacy for the Intelligent Design idea.

    Many of those old CIA guys who fought the commies seem to want an America filled with “believers.” Much like the NSA demands backdoors to all our encryption systems, our intelligence services seem to want a backdoor into science, one that allows for the insertion of a few ideas without evidence from time to time. The backdoor is “faith” or “spirituality” or “holism” or “alternative medicine” or “post-modernism” or even “skepticism,” when that word is used to re-frame a denial of evidence as a request for evidence.

    It’s not enough that faith can exist outside of science. We’ve got to have faith a little bit inside science so it can serve as a backdoor, a way for powerful people to be at-cause over facts.
  31. White Tara Global Moderator

    Asheera I was merely stating my position, to be fair as relating to the skeptics who need for more information. i believe this thread is an opportunity to unveil the scientific facts to the uninitiated.

    I was actually trying to invite more posting of scientific studies to discuss the validity of the solutions to a problem. No I was not suggesting professors were the profiteers at all, far from it. Its the private enterprise profiteers that have sprung up all over the place that are the concern.

    You seem to claim this thread is only a place for science so you seek to exclude anyone wishing to gain more information from opining. it would seem to me that if you exclude those coming from a position yearning for information from this thread it would make it an awfully dry thread.

    My mistake, I read the thread title Climate change, a retards perspective as an invitation to get informed.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. The Internet Member

    Yes, redardation is fine in this thread. Lying liars who lie and who derail and who act like the have evidence when they only have talking points from some propaganda factory, they are welcome to say their piece once but not the same thing twice because no, that is not going to help.

    But I am not the boss, kids. Just expressing my personal opinion.

    There is no shame in being wrong. This one time I had an argument with my wife back before we got married. Had to do with statistics. I’m more mathy than she is and I was completely convinced she was wrong. After the first hour I got very condescending and superior. After the second hour, I was all, “Look you just don’t get it...” After the third hour I was, “OMG you are totally right."

    That was when I knew she was the one for me.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  33. WTF New Orleans
  34. White Tara Global Moderator

    In future, be careful how you word things. I read your above as suggesting I am a lying liar who lies. I never acted nor said that i had evidence, quite the contrary TI.

  35. The Internet Member

    Ok I am sorry I worded my post badly. I certainly do not view you as a lying liar.

    I was thinking of people who claim there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming. Those people are lying.

    Many of the people claiming there is no consensus are very powerful and politically connected.

    Many scientists have shared how they’ve been pressured to change their reports to emphasize uncertainty and to de-emphasize the seriousness of the problem. A lot of them get some funding from Federal agencies and they worry that their careers might be in trouble simply for being honest.

    Shit is fucked up and their are liars out there. I do not think you are one of them.

    It makes me ill to see a good scientist like Robert Jastrow on the side of the disinformation guys. I don’t get it. I wish he were alive still. I wish he had heirs or family somewhere who might shed some light on why he took on the role of con artist near the end of his career. I think he must have somehow been convinced that his lies were noble and necessary.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. The Internet Member

    One of the repeated talking points goes something like, “Scientists are pressured to toe the party line if they want grants and tenure.” At the same time, there are lots of reports about legal threats to various scientists for simply sharing their findings with other scientists, journalists, or the public. All the pressure is in one direction: minimize concerns about global warming. So this talking point is one of those opposity things. True, but in an opposite way.

    In spite of enormous professional pressure against them, the scientists are trying to be honest with us about what they see. They pay a price for this. Some of them get the OSA type trash stealing stuff.

    Scientists Denounce Climate Change Denial, Censorship

    DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY : Americas, Climate Change, Energy, Politics
    2012•02•22 Stephen Leahy Inter Press Service

    Amid revelations of a well-funded US organisation’s plans to deliberately distort climate science, scientists and journalists at a major scientific conference called on the Canadian government to stop its muzzling of scientists.

    For the past four years, the Canadian government has been denying timely access to government scientists even when their findings are published in leading scientific journals, said scientists and journalists in a special session of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science meeting here in Vancouver, British Columbia.

    “The Canadian public doesn’t know as much as they could about science and climate change,” said Margaret Munro, who is a science writer for Postmedia News, based in Vancouver.

    “The more controversial the story, the less likely you are to talk to the scientists,” Munro told IPS.

    Last year, journalists from around the world were denied access to Canadian government scientist Kristi Miller, who had published a groundbreaking paper on the decline of salmon populations in western Canada in the journal Science.

    However, lobbyists for the oil and gas industry appear to have direct access to scientists, according to emails obtained under access to information legislation. Internal government documents reported an 80 percent decline in Canadian media coverage of climate change since 2007 when the new Stephen Harper Conservative government put restrictive policies into place.

    “It is unacceptable that the Canadian public sits back and allows access to the science they’re funding to be denied them,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria.

    When the science community starts having “panels about the muzzling of scientists, you know the situation is pretty desperate”, Weaver said.

    Media provides the public with information so they can make informed decisions. But without timely access, the media cannot perform its role, he said.

    “When government muzzles scientists for political reasons, it cuts at the fundamental principals of good science,” said Stephen Hwang, professor of general internal medicine at the University of Toronto.

    “The open discussion of ideas is essential to science, just as a free press is essential to democracy,” Hwang said in a statement.

    The US government has also controlled its own media’s access to scientists, especially under the George W. Bush administration. Many of those restrictive policies are still in place under the current administration, said Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    But lobby groups in the US face no such restrictions, and have been instrumental in the decline in awareness about the risks of climate change, various surveys have shown. In a January survey of the top 22 policy priorities for the US, the public ranked climate change dead last, according to the Pew Research Center.

    Confidential documents obtained last week from the Heartland Institute, a US libertarian think tank, reveal a multi-million dollar campaign to mislead the public about climate change and subvert government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One project intended to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren. Heartland is also funding climate change contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents reveal.

    Heartland has responded to this exposure with threats against media. On the weekend, it issued legal notices to websites and news organisations such as Canada’s DeSmog Blog, which broke the story, for “what it views as malicious and false commentary”. The notices demand the removal of alleged Heartland documents and any and all commentary.

    “Bad science and spin must be challenged more,” said European scientists here at AAAS as part a call for greater integrity, openness and clarity, and public engagement on complex issues of global significance.

    Despite promises of accountability and transparency, Canada’s government scientists remain “muzzled”, various media organisations including the World Federation of Science Journalists wrote in an open letter to Harper. The letter noted that efforts to resolve the issue have been ignored and now the only recourse is to draw public attention in Canada and around the world.

    Last December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration introduced a communication policy that allows scientists to freely speak to the media whenever they wish. Harper is being urged to adopt a similar policy for Canada’s government scientists.

    “Canadians have the right to… unfettered access to the expertise of publicly-funded scientists,” the letter concluded.
  37. The Internet Member

    Harper-controlled DFO is censoring federal scientists with research rules, critics say

    FEBRUARY 15, 2013 10:23 PM

    Angry scientists and academics are accusing the Stephen Harper government of muzzling and censoring its scientists to the point that research cannot be published, even when there is collaboration with international researchers, unless it matches government policy.

    Under revised Fisheries and Oceans Canada rules, scientists working in its central and Arctic region cannot be involved in publishing research until a DFO division administrator has reviewed it “for any concerns/impacts to DFO policy.”

    That amounts to censoring scientific findings, says Jim Turk, Canadian Association of University Teachers executive director.

    “The federal government wants to control what scientists do and what they find and how it’s reported. They want to suppress findings that can be seen as being against their political objectives,” Turk said.

    A letter written to Harper Thursday on behalf of the 68,000 CAUT members expresses “deep dismay and anger at your government’s attack on the independence, integrity and academic freedom of scientific researchers.”

    The latest changes run contrary to the spirit of free scientific inquiry and smack of political censorship, the letter says.

    It is part of a pattern that has seen the Harper government reduce media access to scientists and cut funding and programs, Turk said.

    University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said the changes put DFO research reviews into the hands of Ottawa bureaucrats instead of scientists.

    “It means that international scientists will not want to collaborate with Canadian scientists,” he said. “This is reminiscent of the Cold War era, with the KGB in Russia … George Orwell would just be chuckling in his grave.”

    Demands from DFO that foreign researchers sign restrictive agreements have upset Andreas Muenchow, a University of Delaware oceanographer who has collaborated with Canadian scientists on Arctic research.
    In a blog posting Muenchow wrote: “I believe this is a disturbing political climate change … I feel that it threatens my academic freedom and potentially muzzles my ability to publish data.”

    The policy is substantially different from the 2003 Canadian government agreement, he wrote.

    Rick Kool, Royal Roads University associate professor in the school of environment and sustainability, said the clampdown illustrates the government’s control-the-message mindset.

    “They are moving toward a managed democracy where people get to vote every few years and the winning party rules, not governs. When you see yourself as a ruler, you can ignore science and data,” he said.

    “There’s a shackling of science when it doesn’t give convenient answers and doesn’t serve the political interest.”

    Without knowing the science, especially in areas such as climate change, governments cannot come up with good policies, Kool said.

    It is difficult for scientists to fight back, he said. “It would take a courageous scientist, working for the federal government, to break the rules and see if every other scientist across Canada would stand up for them.”

    However, Kevin Stringer, DFO ecosystems and oceans science assistant deputy minister, said the aim of the “minor modifications to publication procedures” are to eliminate duplication of peer reviews and ensure government intellectual property rights are respected in third-party publications.

    “Publishing and communicating scientific work is a crucial element of what we do,” he wrote in an email.
    “The requirements for approval of the release of science articles are long-standing and take place within the science sector. And our record is solid.”

    DFO issues more than 300 research publications annually, plus publications by scientists in books and journals, Stringer said.

    “Scientists take the issue of scientific integrity seriously and so does Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Our policies and procedures are designed to support this,” he said.

    Researchers believe the policy is starting in the Arctic, where there are issues such as climate change and sea ice, but will soon be adopted Canada-wide.

    “I think they thought they would test run it before putting it into the politically hot waters on either coast,” said a scientist who cannot be named as he has not received DFO permission to speak.

    I’m puzzled by the government’s claim that it is muzzling scientists in part to protect government IP rights. The whole point of public funding is so the public can access the information and benefit from it.
  38. The Internet Member

    I would just like to point out to our libertarian friends, that the Koch funded organizations promoting their memes are the very ones doing this anti-free information stuff. So I think those libertarian organizations are an example of an opposity thing. Just like the “Bridge to Total Freedom” is an opposity thing.
  39. The Internet Member

    Woah Google Images just tipped me off to some people challenging the notion that a scientific consensus exists. They make an apples to oranges comparison though.


    The 97% consensus figure comes from a paper reviewing 11,000 abstracts between 1991-2011. The researchers described their methods for sorting abstracts into three categories regarding the global warming hypothesis: endorsed, rejected, uncertain. Later the researchers invited authors to rate their own papers. Basically, the researchers and the authors rated the papers in a similar manner. If anything, the authors viewed their own papers as more pro-global warming than the raters. Here’s the abstract:

    The 52% number comes from a survey of meteorologists --the guys on TV who give you the weather forecast. These guys don’t generally do peer reviewed original research.
    So the first paper essentially validates a method of categorizing abstracts in the published peer reviewed literature and the second paper gives us the opinions of some meteorologists who were nice enough to respond to a survey (26%). Not really the same thing at all.

    Nonetheless, someone is using the survey results to say that the scientific consensus is a myth.


    The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
    Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

    In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.

    Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².

    So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
    I find the above blog post by Anthony Watts depressing, the way it pretends some victory even when that is not the case.
  40. No Ruler Member
    It's an hour long, and I'm not going to summarize it, but she talks about sexy stuff like multidecadal trends and wave dynamics, plus she addresses the social issues along with the science. Good stuff. But if you are a progressive type you will likely have steam coming out of your ears by the end.

    Good luck.

    Hmmmm, maybe that could be a new energy source, have progressives read Judith Curry and hook up a turbine...

    BTW, the Rational Wiki page on her is worthy of Religious Freedom Watch. I know nothing about the woman but the 66 minute interview I listened, That 66 minutes had no relation to the person described on the RationalWiki page.

    Could the RationalWiki be...well, irrational about this?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins