Resisting Climate Hysteria

Knobby22 said:

Exactly. It is the establishment aims being promoted in the article.

Click to expand...

Funny post, are you pontificating that the AGW alarmist spin is only taken up by non-establishment media.

and the real story with the 16 scientists - any comments?

OzWaveGuy said:

I wonder if these 16 scientists fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists? The continuous assertion from the alarmist with an agenda is that all scientists agree global warming is unprecedented and is a result of man's 3% contribution to the world's total CO2.

"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."​

Basilio - still waiting for your answers on the fundamental questions you've been dodging. Shall we assume that you cannot answer them and your climate assertions are based on a religious belief and not one of fact?

Click to expand...

Good find, OWG...

I don't know what's happened to global warming here in SE Qld. It's been wet and periods of torrential rain with daily temps in the mid 25s. So much for no more dam filling rains, huh.

I see no difference in weather patterns. We owned a school uniform clothing factory for many years and wet weather when the kids start school is nothing new. We would often be looking for a breather with the back-to-school uniforms delivered before the first week of school only to start getting urgent tracksuit orders soon after school started due to the wet weather.

I see no difference in the weather now than I did 20 years ago...LOL

OzWaveGuy said:

Funny post, are you pontificating that the AGW alarmist spin is only taken up by non-establishment media.

and the real story with the 16 scientists - any comments?

Click to expand...

No, the establishment spins the global warming debate to create doubt, and the "scientists" aren't even all scientists. Many were in fields not related and some were the usual suspects. I thought that was your beef against Tim Flannery?

Why is it surprising that it is in a Murdoch paper when they are the heart of the establishment wanting to slow change? If it was published in a respectable paper then I may have more interest.

The article was pretty short on facts and long on spin solely aimed at keeping the converted believing against the facts. Just like a religion. Keep praying!

As I have said before: follow the money!
I am sure security was tighter than for this one.


The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[37] Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."[9]

Knobby22 said:

If it was published in a respectable paper then I may have more interest.

Click to expand...

Like The Age for instance.

I suppose Knobby that you consider this bit of dirt in the SMH is your idea of respectable newspaper comment.

An example of a reputable publication.

New Scientist 22 October 2011

IPCC wrong on melting effects.

Until recently the IPCC was predicting that the vast ice sheets of Antartica would grow over the 21st century as warming increased the water content of the atmosphere leading to higher snowfall.
The picture on the ground already looks rather different. Satellite measurements show that both Antartica and Greenland are already losing large quantities of water and the rate of loss is accelerating. If current trends continue -we don't know if they will-the loss of ice from these sheets will raise the water level by 0.5metres on this effect alone.

It was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting but it now seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect. This is bad news because warm water melts ice much faster than warm air. Warm currents can melt the floating ice shelves that hold back ice on land. In west Antartica ice sheets rest on land that is below sea level and so could be exposed directly to warm water.

Knobby22 said:

An example of a reputable publication.

New Scientist 22 October 2011

IPCC wrong on melting effects.

Until recently the IPCC was predicting that the vast ice sheets of Antartica would grow over the 21st century as warming increased the water content of the atmosphere leading to higher snowfall.
The picture on the ground already looks rather different. Satellite measurements show that both Antartica and Greenland are already losing large quantities of water and the rate of loss is accelerating. If current trends continue -we don't know if they will-the loss of ice from these sheets will raise the water level by 0.5metres on this effect alone.

It was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting but it now seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect. This is bad news because warm water melts ice much faster than warm air. Warm currents can melt the floating ice shelves that hold back ice on land. In west Antartica ice sheets rest on land that is below sea level and so could be exposed directly to warm water.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.

Nonetheless it is interesting if it is proven through the scientific method to be true.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.

Nonetheless it is interesting if it is proven through the scientific method to be true.

gg

Click to expand...

The scientific method of proving how much ice is melting in the Antartic is simple and transparent. NASA uses its Grace satellite to measure gravity data (see below) . The discussion and analysis of what is happening in the Antarctic can be found on their website.

Is Antarctica Melting?
01.12.10


Graph of Antartic Mass Variation since 2002The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
Larger Image

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Garpal Gumnut said:

Unfortunately the New Scientist sees the world through a Left-wing lens, and cannot be relied upon for veracity.

gg

Click to expand...

Pffft
Proof please.

OzWaveGuy said:

I wonder if these 16 scientists fit basilio's criteria as "traditional" climate scientists?

Click to expand...

Strange question OWG, seeing as the article itself doesn't claim that the signatories are climate scientists, traditional or otherwise. But out of curiosity I took a look. The short version is that 12 are unequivically not climate scientists, three might be under a generous definition, and just one definitely is.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
Academic field was geochemistry where his work is highly regarded. For the last 20 years he's been at least a part-time politican, reaching the level of Minister for Education. I haven't found a list of his academic publications, but his popular book on climate change is such a muddle of basic factual errors that the kindest excuse is that he was writing outside his field. Climate scientist? Nope.

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
From his Web page, under the Wharton Marketing Department at U. Penn: "In addition to forecasting, Professor Armstrong has published papers on survey research, educational methods, applied statistics, social responsibility, strategic planning, and scientific peer review. Most recently, his research activities have involved political forecasting (he is a co-founder of PollyVote.com) and forecasting for conflicts and terrorism". Climate Scientist, Nope.

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
I didn't bother to look this one up; if he's a climate scientist he's in the wrong department. Nope.

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
"... holds a Ph.D. in physics and is a former Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs for ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. He has more than forty years experience in the electronics and energy industries.... He is currently working with a group of partners on developing and commercializing a technology for extracting carbon dioxide from the air." Claims to have discovered that the IPCC "case for climate change" is flimsy only after he retired in 2004. Climate scientist, Nope.

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
Can't find anything definite. He might be Edward E. David Jr., who was born in 1925, took a PhD in Electrical Engineering in 1947, was a Science Advisor to President Nixon, directed research for major companies including Bell Labs and Exxon, and is still a director of Ronson Corporation. If this is the guy he's remarkable, but he's not a Climate Scientist.

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
"I am interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and in the application of these spin-polarized systems in other areas...In most of our work we use circularly polarized laser photons to pump angular momentum into electron spins, and we use hyperfine interactions to transfer angular momentum from the polarized electrons to the nuclei. In appropriate containers, the polarized nuclei can be stored for hours or even days with little loss of spin. Much of our present work is aimed at understanding the slow loss of spin which occurs in these containers."
Scientist yes, Climate Scientist, Nope.

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
From his Webpage on the Cambridge website: ".... From 1992-2002 he was Professor of Physics and Electronics at the University of Surrey, including a term as Head of the School of Electronics and Physical Sciences. During 2003-5, we was the Executive Director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute, an £80M project which brings together academics from Cambridge and MIT to work on research, education and industrial outreach for the benefit of the UK economy." Distinguished scientist Yes. Climate scientist, Nope.

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Hmmmm. A PhD is the usual qualification for a research scientist and he doesn't have one. OTOH he worked at BOM for 38 years, including over a decade as head of BOM's climate section.

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
Yes.

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
From his personal website, hosted under Virginia Tech, his research interests are: "Synthesis and characterization of high performance matrix polymers and structural adhesives, new composite matrix and adhesive polymers for possible use in aerospace, new high-temperature polymer dielectrics for computer development, fire-resistant polymers and composites; and new sulfonated aromatic polymers for proton exchange membranes (fuel cells)." Climate science, Nope.

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Judging by his bio as published by his current employer, career emphasis is technology, executive, and advocacy more than science. Nope

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
Say huh?? Designed wonderful air and spacecraft, but says himself that he's not a climatologist. Nope.

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
When did he have time to become a climate scientist, or any other sort of research scientist for that matter. Nope.

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Practising astrophysicist who holds that cosmic rays are a primary driver of climate change on earth and disputes the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity. His research interests are to do with stars, galaxies, and the early universe, but I'll accept him under my very broad classification as a climate scientist. Yep.

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Background and reputation seems to be in the fields of turbulence and flight, but I haven't found much information, possibly because I'm only looking in English. I have no reason to doubt that he was director of the Royal Dutch Met, so I'll class him as a climate scientist on the precedent of William Kininmonth.

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva
Born 1929 and made his name in nuclear physics. No, not a "traditional" climate scientist. The World Federation of Scientists is organised into Permanent Monitoring Panels each focussed on one planetary emergency. There is a PMP for Climatology, which is chaired by Dr Christopher Essex, an applied mathematician, and which says that its "Summary of the Emergency" and "Priorities for Dealing with the Emergency" are both being revised. Christopher Essex is also not a climate scientist.

The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16. And they are all (surprise) well established in their profession. Sadly their junior colleagues can't be open-minded if they expect to get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all.

No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.

Warmists, face it, it's all over.

Logique said:

The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16 dissenters out of thousands trained scientists. And they are all (no surprise) well established in their non related profession. Happilly their departments will be rewarded so they can get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all.

No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.

Deniers, face it, it's all over.

Click to expand...

I'll just fix that Follow the money.

Another example of climate scientists being threatened by the established money.
http://www.theinterdependent.com/11...ances-to-climate-scientists-thwart-their-work

And if you work for a the government and dare to find out things that the powers that be don't want you to find about climate effects then don't expect to keep your job!!!

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/26/nation/la-na-arctic-scientist-20110826

Logique said:

The 16 scientists questioning the warmists are just the latest 16. And they are all (surprise) well established in their profession. Sadly their junior colleagues can't be open-minded if they expect to get grants, or indeed to build a science career at all.

No reputable scientist ever says 'the science is in'.

Warmists, face it, it's all over.

Click to expand...

One of those scientists is 91 years old. If nobody junior to him can build a science career, how did the other 15 manage it?

You seem to think that "science" is a single discipline. How many fields do these 16 signatories represent?

And the qualifications of Professor Ross Garnaut and Professor Tim"our dams will never be full again and I will buy a waterfront property while the sea level rises 1mt in the next 100 years"Flannery????

And whose pay roll are these guys on???

And you wonder why there are sceptics of global warming opps.....climate change opps.....extreme weather!!

:sleeping:

C'mon you guys. You can't run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

The hypocrisy here is astonishing.

<<The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.>>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

macca said:

<<The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.>>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Click to expand...

We should increase our emissions of CO2 just to be on the safe side. Pour on the coal.

Carbon cuts here will be offset by more from China

While Gillard might actually believe the nonsense from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that China "is taking action on climate change" that shames us in our tardiness, he must know the simple truth that it is actually going to double its CO2 emissions by 2020.

Again, Gillard might actually believe it when she says that China is closing more and more coal-fired stations.

But Combet knows that in net terms, China is planning to increase its coal-fired generation capacity by close to 500GW by 2020.

While Gillard might actually believe the nonsense from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that China "is taking action on climate change" that shames us in our tardiness, he must know the simple truth that it is actually going to double its CO2 emissions by 2020.

Click to expand...