|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming Is Natural
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Two New Books Confirm Global Warming Is Natural
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| SDVT-2 |
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...ase,52394.shtml
:whistle: |
|
|
| ihatecabbie |
What's it like to have facts pounded down your throat every day?
I have no doubt that they are forthcoming. :) |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
| It is.... :rolleye2: |
|
|
| Cosmo Vitelli |
meanwhile at the global climate change meeting...
"PARIS Scientists and government officials are falling far behind in their attempts to come up with an authoritative report on global warming - but not because of major disagreements among more than 100 nations and dozens of scientists.
The problem is wrangling over the wording and nuances of general language, three delegates told The Associated Press on Wednesday, the third day of their meeting in Paris.
The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if it is issued on time Friday, will warn the world that global warming is here and worsening, using its bluntest language yet. It is the fourth such report to be issued since 1990.
The report, according to drafts and participants, says it is "very likely" - which means at least 90 percent certain - that climate change is caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and will result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100.
There may be efforts to change that wording to "virtually certain," which connotes a 99 percent likelihood."
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?...526&Category=24 |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
I am sure it would suck in Canada if it only got down to -10 instead of -20.. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. |
Please just shut the fuck up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Jan 2005
The global cooling myth
Filed under:
Climate Science
Paleoclimate
Greenhouse gases
Instrumental Record
FAQ
— william @ 5:31 am - ()
Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call "imminent" (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
Will also quotes "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn't. The piece isn't from "Science"; it's from "Science News". There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the "ice age" strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.
Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions. From the "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations", we find that they said we should:
Establish National climatic research program
Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
Develope Climatic index monitoring program
Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
Adoption and development of International climatic research program
Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.
Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
Further Reading:
Imbrie & Imbrie "Ice Ages: solving the mystery" (1979) is an interesting general book on the discovery of the ice ages and their mechanisms; chapter 16 deals with "The coming ice age".
Spencer Weart's History of Global Warming has a chapter on Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations.
An analysis of various papers that mention the subject is at www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ihatecabbie
What's it like to have facts pounded down your throat every day? |
You should know all about that....as I do that to you on a regular basis.
Quote: Originally posted by ihatecabbie
I have no doubt that they are forthcoming. :) |
Click the link in the first post, they have already been posted. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ihatecabbie
I'm lazy. :) |
And even more mentally lazy....you must be, to be a liberal. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...ase,52394.shtml
:whistle: |
Have you been in a coma? Did you miss the other 1000 times Singer and Avery have been discredited?
For starters:
| Quote: .....by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery...... |
About Fred Singer:
Quote:
Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]
Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...=S._Fred_Singer |
And:
Quote:
No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming
28 Jun 06
On Sunday, June 18, the DeSmogBlog received an email from Dr. S. Fred Singer, in which he says, “Yr (sic) June 16 blog contains the false statement that I sold my services to tobacco lobbyists.”
Dr. Singer goes on to “demand a full retraction and apology from the blog,” and he asks that we publish the following statement: “Dr. Singer and SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) have no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past. As a matter of policy, SEPP does not solicit funds or other kinds of support from any industry or from government, but relies on tax-deductible donations from foundations and individuals in many countries. Further, Dr. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an organization that has a strong anti-smoking position.”
We have no comment on the ACSH, but Dr. Singer’s main point – that he has “no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past” – strains credulity.
For example, here is the link to a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report. Here is the link to a letter thanking the Tobacco Institute for $20,000 intended “to support our research and education projects.” Here is a research paper, just as described in the earlier memo, with Dr. Singer’s name as the author. And here is another Tobacco Institute memo, reporting on Dr. Singer’s appearance with two Congressional Representatives releasing the paper to the media.
More to the point, for a blog about the dubious public relations tactics being used to skew the climate change debate, is Dr. Singer’s previous statements about his involvement with the oil industry.
For example, on Feb. 21, 2001, Dr. Singer wrote to the Washington Post, saying: “As for full disclosure: My résumé clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” At the time that Dr. Singer wrote this letter, ExxonMobil was listing him on their website as a recipient of US $10,000 in direct funding and as a participant in an event to which ExMo contributed $65,000. Our colleague Ross Gelbspan reported all this in The Nation in an article that can be found here.
This is a stark illustration of what we are up against in the climate change "debate." On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly. These people agree, unreservedly, that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.
On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. This campaign is largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the Competitive Enterprise Institute or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project. The money is then passed along to "experts" like Dr. Singer, who seems happy enough to be paid for his services, even if he is reticent to admit it after the fact.
There should be no doubt in this conversation where the weight of credibility lies.
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apolog...-be-forthcoming |
And Dennis Avery certainlly seems qualified to talk about global warming :rolleyes:
Quote:
Dennis Avery is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edits Global Food Quarterly. Avery crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology will save the world from starvation and disaster. Avery also disputes the scientific consensus on global warming.
He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
Avery served as a senior agricultural analyst for the US Department of State for between 1980 and 1988 under the Reagan administration, "where he was responsible for assessing the foreign-policy implications of food and farming developments worldwide". [1]
"As a staff member of the President's National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, he wrote the Commission's landmark report, "Food and Fiber for the Future," his biographical note states.
"Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin ... At Hudson, Avery continues to monitor developments in world food production, farm product demand, the safety and security of food supplies, and the sustainability of world agriculture," his biographical note states.
He enjoys a high level of influence among some sectors, and his big-business-friendly articles are disseminated to thousands of newspapers as well as subscribers in governments, banks and businesses.
Avery writes a weekly column for The BridgeNews Forum.
According to his biographical note "Avery travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks, including a program discussing the bacterial dangers of organic foods on ABC's 20/20".
Avery is also a member of the scientific policy advsiory panel for the corporate-funded American Council on Science and Health. [2]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery |
Quote:
Dennis T. Avery
Dennis Avery is a Senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and Director of its Center for Global Food Issues, where his son Alex Avery also works. He is also an Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and author of 'Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic' and of a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire Bridge News.
Avery is a fervent supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade.
Avery claims organic farming takes up too much land and thus destroys wildlife habitat. He argues that if it were widely adopted it would cause an 'environmental catastrophe' not to mention 'mass starvation'. Alternatively, says Avery, it would lead to measures for population control - possibly forced abortions. He has suggested its promotion may be part of a deliberate strategy to achieve such goals.
Avery is the originator of the 'E. Coli myth' - the idea that people who eat organic foods are at a significantly higher risk of food poisoning. Avery published an article entitled 'The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food' in the Fall, 1998, issue of American Outlook, a quarterly publication published by the Hudson Institute. Avery's article began, 'According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7).'
However, according to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food borne and diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food production in existence at their centers and he says Avery's claims are 'absolutely not true.' Even Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has commented critically on Avery's dubious use of statistics: 'looking at a few selectively reported cases from a single year doesn't seem to be convincing anybody who doesn't already have a predilection to believe you in the first place.'
However, stories about 'killer organic food' have appeared in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Ironically, a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report concludes organic practices actually reduce e-coli infection and reduce the levels of contaminants in foods. Avery's attribution of danger to organic farming on the basis that it makes use of manure is, in fact, nonsensical. In the UK, for example, conventional farmers use about 80 million tonnes of manure a year as a fertiliser. Just 9,000 tonnes goes on organic land.
The Hudson Institute is funded by many firms whose products are excluded from organic agriculture: eg, AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco, ConAgra, and Cargill.
Before joining Hudson, Avery served from 1980-88 as the senior agricultural analyst for the U.S. State Department where he was involved in assessing the foreign policy implications of food and farming developments.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15&page=A |
:spankin: :spankin: :spankin: :spankin: :spankin: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Please just shut the fuck up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ |
Yes..please....AB want you to stop throwing in facts which rebutt his bullshit...We have been through his denial of the global cooling scare before, and he posted the same piss poor attempt at explaining it away...
WHat he doesn't explain is the studies mentioned, the Climate Scientists mentioned in the articles ect ect....just as the global warming scare today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...18621-2,00.html
Quote: Whatever the cause of current weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling —or warming—trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras. Says George Kukla, a climatologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory : "Just because we can't get our cars started, are suffering from frostbite, and have a few feet of snow in our driveways, we should not start worrying about an Ice Age." Among scientists who fear that significant worldwide climatic changes have already begun, there are those who believe that another Ice Age is not far ahead—as well as others who predict that a potentially devastating warming trend may occur.
Ice Age doomsayers note evidence that average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 1° Celsius during the 1950s and 1960s. Kukla found that the average snow and ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased sharply in 1971 compared with the years between 1967 and '70. It reached a peak in '72 and '73 and then retreated about halfway back to what it had been in the late '60s. Now, says Kukla, satellite studies indicate that the snow and ice cover last fall increased again to about the level of '71. German Oceanographer Martin Rodewald has noticed a slow, general cooling of the waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific and an air-temperature drop in the Arctic regions over Canada and Russia.
Global cooling might be explained by a link between ice ages and changes both in the earth's attitude and in its orbit around the sun. That concept was championed by Germany's Alfred Wegener (best known for his ideas about continental drift) and later refined by Yugoslav Mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, for whom the theory is now named. Last year three scientists —James Hays of Columbia, John Imbrie of Brown University and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University in England—published the strongest evidence yet that Milankovitch was right. Analyzing cores of sediments taken from beneath the floor of the Indian Ocean, the trio assembled an accurate record of the earth's climate dating back 450,000 years and correlated this information with data about the earth's orbit.
Their finding: the timing of each of the planet's major ice ages was closely related to changes in the earth's attitude and orbit that reduced the amount of summer sunlight striking the polar caps. Unless man somehow unbalances the equation, these scientists concluded, the trend over the next 20,000 years will be toward a cooler global climate and the spread of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere—a new Ice Age.
The consequences could be catastrophic. A worldwide average temperature drop of only 1° Celsius could shorten growing seasons in the temperate zones enough to threaten global food supplies. Increased heating requirements would further strain energy resources such as coal, natural gas and oil. |
From Newsweek - 1975 - as posted above.
| Quote: A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. |
So you pretty much have it all....the drastic scenarios based on supposedly scientific evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence....JUST LIKE THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE TODAY. There is NO difference except that the motives now are political, and the rhetoric more overblown.
Yeah...there wasn't a global cooling scare.... :rolleyes:
 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Have you been in a coma? Did you miss the other 1000 times Singer and Avery have been discredited?
For starters:
About Fred Singer:
And:
And Dennis Avery certainlly seems qualified to talk about global warming :rolleyes:
:spankin: :spankin: :spankin: :spankin: :spankin: |
:lol: :lol:
AB and the attack left think lying and misrepresenting someone is 'discrediting' them... :burst: When all they really do is discredit themselves. They cannot TOUCH the science and facts behind Singers conclusions, so the left wing hate machine must attack attack attack...in a ridiculous attempt to tear someone down.
Its so common from AB now that I was kinda surprised it took him this long to start spreading his hate.
Lets post some facts:
Quote: S. Fred Singer is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.
Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).
Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently testifies before Congress.
Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University . He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other publications. His latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late 1997 through the Independent Institute. |
Just wait...AB will reference a philosophy major anytime soon...or a liberal history professor... :burst: |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
LIEMASTER , Avery and Singer talking about anything serious , is like giving Chuck Jones and Fritz Freleng credit for Gone With The Wind!
It would be a fucking cartoon! Like you! |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
:lol: :lol:
AB and the attack left think lying and misrepresenting someone is 'discrediting' them... :burst: When all they really do is discredit themselves. They cannot TOUCH the science and facts behind Singers conclusions, so the left wing hate machine must attack attack attack...in a ridiculous attempt to tear someone down.
Its so common from AB now that I was kinda surprised it took him this long to start spreading his hate.
Lets post some facts:
Just wait...AB will reference a philosophy major anytime soon...or a liberal history professor... :burst: |
I couldn't help but notice the bio you posted did NOT disprove that Singer was a paid whore for big Tobacco companies in the 80s, or a paid whore for big Oil companies now.....
Please post info disproving that or shut your dumb hole. |
|
|
| booybob |
Come on people. Everybody knows that global warming is George Bushs fault. :rolleyes:
I bet Halliburton has alot to do with it as well,they just patented a new ice making machine to sell to the world when the warming hits. George Bush and Halliburton,Taking over the world 1 country at a time. :D |
|
|
| booybob |
Just 1 question,
In 5-10yrs China and India will be the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gasses.
Do you think they should have to abide by the Kyoto accords or should they be exempt??
Look at China They have pollution way worse than ours.
Their rivers are dying at an alarming rate.
They are the worlds largest user of dirty coal for electric
They have haze in the air from pollution all the time. Have you seen the pictures of everyday people who have to wear face mask just to breath?
Acid rain is common. I thought we solved our problem with acis rain 20yrs ago.
Just a few quick thoughts to make you think. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
SDVT-2> Are you the CEO of a major oil company or are you just generally for pollution and against clean air or what?
This debate really makes me wonder what motivates your position?
:dontknow: |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
Just 1 question,
In 5-10yrs China and India will be the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gasses.
Do you think they should have to abide by the Kyoto accords or should they be exempt??
Look at China They have pollution way worse than ours.
Their rivers are dying at an alarming rate.
They are the worlds largest user of dirty coal for electric
They have haze in the air from pollution all the time. Have you seen the pictures of everyday people who have to wear face mask just to breath?
Acid rain is common. I thought we solved our problem with acis rain 20yrs ago.
Just a few quick thoughts to make you think. |
So does that excuse us and justify them? |
|
|
| tom sizemore |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
SDVT-2> Are you the CEO of a major oil company or are you just generally for pollution and against clean air or what?
This debate really makes me wonder what motivates your position?
:dontknow: |
These people are clearly fucked in the head.
Read an interesting article outlining why conservatives are against the notion of global warming accelerated by man. These scientists are pseudo scientists. It mentioned a conservative oil industry funded group called The Stewardship for the climate (can you believe these fucks have the nerve to call a group funded by oil such a thing), who receive all of their funding from oil and energy lobbies. It also went on to detail the whos who of 3 or 4 of these organizations. What a joke they are all conservative fuck sticks who sit on boards of energy corporations. Then said article went on to explore why actual scientists don't go to where these "scientific" conferences are held to debunk their bullshit by asking a few leading climatologist and the repsonse was that we are for pure scientific research, we don't get involved in propoganda and politics, we just do the math and the numbers.
Fucking neo con loads.....
Yeeefuckinghawwww |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...ase,52394.shtml
:whistle: |
yea its natural, naturally caused by humans...
look dude, there have never ever been this much activity on planet earth ever
there have never ever been over 6 billion people on earth either. fucking is natural, so the babys born from the fucking is a natural phenominon. so global warming is caused naturally |
|
|
| WV Booker |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
SDVT-2> Are you the CEO of a major oil company or are you just generally for pollution and against clean air or what?
This debate really makes me wonder what motivates your position?
:dontknow: |
he's a cookie-cutter koolaid drinking Republican..... and if you're one of these then Global Warming is not caused or affectted by humans...... it's required thinking..... not all Republicans, but the same type that believes the WMD's are in Syria, Bush never misled the public during the buildup to war, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are gods, Hillary and Bill had Vince Foster killed, etc..... the fringe element.
If a book came out claiming Global Warming was caused by the flatulence of sea monkeys this dude and his ilk would claim it as factual proof that man has no affect.... |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I couldn't help but notice the bio you posted did NOT disprove that Singer was a paid whore for big Tobacco companies in the 80s, or a paid whore for big Oil companies now.....
Please post info disproving that or shut your dumb hole. |
LOL...we are back to the AB philosophy...I posted it...you must disprove it.. LOL
First of all...there is nothing illegal about working for a tobacco company !!! Millions of American have either worked for or sold cigarettes !! I don't know why you are so hung up on that. I don't care if he worked for a tobacco company or not !!
Similarly, I don't care if he worked for or didn't work for an evil oil company !! It is irrelevant to the facts he presents which you cannot nor have not even tried to rebutt. ALl you have are these ridiculous attacks which say much more about you than anyone else.
Its perfectly ok with you that the Sierra Club with a budget in the 10's of millions funds global alarmist studies....but the CEI with a budget of 3 million, (a whopping 5ish% from Exxon) rebuts the much richer global alarmist community, and is somehow in bed with big oil... Classic AB hypocrisy..again. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. |
:o You linked an article from 30 years ago to prove a point. :freak: |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by WV Booker
he's a cookie-cutter koolaid drinking Republican..... and if you're one of these then Global Warming is not caused or affectted by humans...... it's required thinking..... not all Republicans, but the same type that believes the WMD's are in Syria, Bush never misled the public during the buildup to war, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are gods, Hillary and Bill had Vince Foster killed, etc..... the fringe element.
|
Thinking? Since when has the bushbots used their minds? They are all told what to think. And they are so brainwashed that the REPEAT The same things over and over that they hear from douchebags like scumbaugh. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
LOL...we are back to the AB philosophy...I posted it...you must disprove it.. LOL
First of all...there is nothing illegal about working for a tobacco company !!! Millions of American have either worked for or sold cigarettes !! I don't know why you are so hung up on that. I don't care if he worked for a tobacco company or not !!
Similarly, I don't care if he worked for or didn't work for an evil oil company !! It is irrelevant to the facts he presents which you cannot nor have not even tried to rebutt. ALl you have are these ridiculous attacks which say much more about you than anyone else.
Its perfectly ok with you that the Sierra Club with a budget in the 10's of millions funds global alarmist studies....but the CEI with a budget of 3 million, (a whopping 5ish% from Exxon) rebuts the much richer global alarmist community, and is somehow in bed with big oil... Classic AB hypocrisy..again. |
LOL! Then why did he LIE about accepting money from oil companies and big tobacco?
And why don't you take some of your own fucking advice and post and disprove one of the "alarmist" studies you claim are funded by the Sierra Club.... |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...ase,52394.shtml
:whistle: |
Thank the Good White Lord we finally have unequivocal proof regarding the global warming/climate change question. Roman wine grapes and Chinese court documents don't lie. All research into global warming should immediately cease, all documents and records burned, and all "scientists" researching this topic should be arrested and sent to Gitmo. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I couldn't help but notice the bio you posted did NOT disprove that Singer was a paid whore for big Tobacco companies in the 80s, or a paid whore for big Oil companies now.....
Please post info disproving that or shut your dumb hole. |
How do the white coats that print your bible for global warming make the money they get?
Those whores are not printing this bullshit because they care about mankind.. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
SDVT-2> Are you the CEO of a major oil company or are you just generally for pollution and against clean air or what?
This debate really makes me wonder what motivates your position?
:dontknow: |
Global warming alarmists are anti-American and anti-Capitalist. The goal is to destroy capitalist economies around the world. Why did the Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India?
It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage...2004399,00.html
You fucking assholes are so stupid you dispute it for free. Suckers. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Notice they didn't offer money for peer reviewed STUDIES challenging the findings of the IPCC report, only "articles".....
typical right wing fucks. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Did the books come with Crayons ? |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
:o You linked an article from 30 years ago to prove a point. :freak: |
Yes I did. |
|
|
| zimmie |
You gotta love these liberals....Still taking their lead from Al Gore, a comedic figure form the past.
His biggest inconvenient truth is that he is a loser as well as his followers. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
You gotta love these liberals....Still taking their lead from Al Gore, a comedic figure form the past.
His biggest inconvenient truth is that he is a loser as well as his followers. |
Coming from two fucking numbnuts like you and SDVT, that is a huge compliment.... You have never made a statement here that hasn't been shot down within 30 seconds.... |
|
|
| betabryan |
Scientists said it was going to be a warm wet winter in Los Angeles. Instead it was cold and dry.
They can't even predict 6 months ahead.
==================================================
==========
Wet winter forecast has come up dry
Federal weather officials who predicted a rainy El Niño pattern now see only minimal potential. L.A. precipitation total could be a record low.
By Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writer
February 2, 2007
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Thursday dramatically downgraded its forecast for a winter of warm El Niño rains, the latest twist in a year of weird weather across Southern California.
Federal weather officials had been saying for months that the region would have a wet winter, but the Southland hasn't recorded significant rain since May.
NOAA said the latest weather and ocean temperature data now show that El Niño will have "minimal effects" across California and the rest of North America, following the lead of other forecasters, who in recent weeks said El Niño was fizzling.
"The problem with forecasting El Niño is that it's like shooting craps," said William Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "The dice are loaded with this global warming thing, but we don't know exactly how they're loaded."
Some forecasters now believe the region is in for a record dry spell.
California was hit by a record heat wave that killed more than 100 people in the summer, and is just now emerging from a near-record cold snap that destroyed at least $800 million worth of crops and brought a dusting of snow to unexpected places, such as Westwood. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by betabryan
Scientists said it was going to be a warm wet winter in Los Angeles. Instead it was cold and dry.
They can't even predict 6 months ahead.
==================================================
==========
Wet winter forecast has come up dry
Federal weather officials who predicted a rainy El Niño pattern now see only minimal potential. L.A. precipitation total could be a record low.
By Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writer
February 2, 2007
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Thursday dramatically downgraded its forecast for a winter of warm El Niño rains, the latest twist in a year of weird weather across Southern California.
Federal weather officials had been saying for months that the region would have a wet winter, but the Southland hasn't recorded significant rain since May.
NOAA said the latest weather and ocean temperature data now show that El Niño will have "minimal effects" across California and the rest of North America, following the lead of other forecasters, who in recent weeks said El Niño was fizzling.
"The problem with forecasting El Niño is that it's like shooting craps," said William Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "The dice are loaded with this global warming thing, but we don't know exactly how they're loaded."
Some forecasters now believe the region is in for a record dry spell.
California was hit by a record heat wave that killed more than 100 people in the summer, and is just now emerging from a near-record cold snap that destroyed at least $800 million worth of crops and brought a dusting of snow to unexpected places, such as Westwood. |
They cant tell when a fucking tornado is going to hit Florida and kill 19 people, but they know about global cooling :error: |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Coming from two fucking numbnuts like you and SDVT, that is a huge compliment.... You have never made a statement here that hasn't been shot down within 30 seconds.... |
:gdf: |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Quote: They cant tell when a fucking tornado is going to hit Florida and kill 19 people, but they know about global cooling |
I could explain how fast tornado's form,or how hard it is to warn people of the danger that are in bed.....but telling you any thing intelligent is like dumping a fresh beer down the drain,it's a waste and nothing useful comes from it |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by betabryan
Scientists said it was going to be a warm wet winter in Los Angeles. Instead it was cold and dry.
They can't even predict 6 months ahead.
|
Look, I don't buy into manmade global warming either, but when you confuse weather with climate it shows that you don't know much about the issue. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Notice they didn't offer money for peer reviewed STUDIES challenging the findings of the IPCC report, only "articles".....
typical right wing fucks. |
Here is the letter from the AEI and response to the overblown controversy..
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_...html#1170541963
Quote: Dear Prof. Schroeder:
The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.
The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.
From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.
If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.
Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.
Cordially,
Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar |
Here is an AEI response to the misleading media reports (imagine that)
Quote: February 2, 2007
NOTE FOR AEI SCHOLARS, FELLOWS, AND STAFF
Many of us have received telephone calls and emails prompted by a shoddy article on the front page of today’s Guardian, the British newspaper, headlined “Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study” (posted at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/c...rticle_continue).
The article uses several garden-variety journalistic tricks to create the impression of a story where none exists. Thus, AEI is described as a “lobby group” (we are a research group that does no lobbying and takes no institutional positions on policy issues); ExxonMobil’s donations to AEI are either bulked up by adding donations over many years, or simply made up (the firm’s annual AEI support is generous and valued but is a fraction of the amount reported—no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget); and AEI is characterized as the Bush administration’s “intellectual Cosa Nostra” and “White House surrogates” (AEI scholars criticize or praise Bush administration policies—every day, on the merits). All of this could have been gleaned from a brief visit to the AEI website.
But the article’s specific charge (announced in the headline) is a very serious one. Although most of you will appreciate the truth on your own, I thought it would be useful to provide a few details.
First, AEI has published a large volume of books and papers on climate change issues over the past decade and has held numerous conferences on the subject. A wide range of views on the scientific and policy issues have been presented in these publications and conferences. All of them are posted on our website. It would be easy to find policy arguments in our publications and conferences that people at ExxonMobil (or other corporations that support AEI) disagree with—as well as those they agree with and, I hope, some they hadn’t thought of until we presented them. Our latest book on the subject, Lee Lane’s Strategic Options for Bush Administration Climate Policy, advocates a carbon tax, which I’m pretty sure ExxonMobil opposes (the book also dares to criticize some of the Bush administration’s climate-change policies!).
Second, attempting to disentangle science from politics on the question of climate change causation, and to fashion policies that take account of the uncertainties concerning causation, are longstanding AEI interests. Several recent issues of our “Environmental Policy Outlook” address these issues, as does Ken Green’s “Q & A” article in the November-December issue of The American. The new research project that Ken and Steve Hayward have been organizing is a continuation of these interests. I am attaching the two letters that Steve and Ken have sent out to climate change scientists and policy experts (the first one emphasizing the scientific and climate-modeling issues addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the second, more recent one covering broader policy issues as well)—and invite you to read them and compare them with the characterization in the Guardian article. The first letter, sent last summer to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M (and also to his colleague Gerald North), is the one quoted by the Guardian. Ken and Steve canvassed scholars with a range of views on the scientific and policy issues, with an eye to the intrinsic quality and interest of their work rather than to whether partisans might characterize them as climate change “skeptics” or “advocates.” They certainly did not avoid those with a favorable view of the IPCC reports—such as Professor Schroeder himself.
Third, what the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI—and Brookings, Harvard, and the University of Manchester—to pay individuals at other research institutions for commissioned work, and to cover their travel expenses when they come to the sponsoring institution to present their papers. The levels of authors’ honoraria vary from case to case, but a $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest.
We should all be aware that political attacks such as the Guardian‘s are more than sloppy or sensation-seeking journalism: they are efforts to throttle debate, and therefore aim at the heart of AEI’s purposes and methods. The successive IPCC climate change reports contain a wealth of valuable information, but there has been a longstanding effort to characterize them as representing more of a “scientific consensus” than they probably are, and to gloss over uncertainties and disagreements within the IPCC documents themselves. Consensus plays an important role in science and scientific progress, but so does disputation—reasoned argument is essential to good science, and competition of ideas is essential to scientific progress. AEI is strongly opposed to the politicization of science, just as it is to the politicization of economics and other disciplines. On climate change as on other issues, we try to sort out the areas of genuine consensus from the areas of reasonable debate and uncertainty. Ken and Steve’s letter to Professor Schroeder was clear about this: “we are looking for . . . a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy.” The effort to anathematize opposing views is the standard recourse of the ideologue; one of AEI’s highest purposes, here as in many other contentious areas, is to ensure that such efforts do not succeed.
Chris DeMuth |
Once again...twits like iatebetho, and AB....talking about something they have precious little understanding of, and even less of a desire to actually get the truth.
Has the left wing blogosphere provided you with an explanation yet for the simple math errors in the IPCC paper??? Keep looking...I'm sure they'll come up with something...
and...this was the politician driven summary, NOT the IPCC report. which doesn't come out for a few months... why do you continue to lie and say otherwise>? |
|
|
|
|
|
