Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,605 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 790,416
Pageviews Today: 1,403,230Threads Today: 477Posts Today: 10,310
04:10 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence

 
Doom Naysayer
User ID: 74048
India
04/27/2006 07:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
[link to www.ncc-1776.org]
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science—whether for AIDS, or space, or climate—where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less—hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

[link to www.ncc-1776.org]

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 10/13/2011 09:17 AM
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 09:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less—hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

This guy is a professor at MIT???

Evaporation does not drive tropical storms. They are driven by the release of latent heat. The more humidity there is, the latent heat there is to drive tropical storms. He should study the basics before he accuses others of junk science.
XXX

User ID: 86313
United States
04/27/2006 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
[link to www.realclimate.org]


Lindzen: point by point
Filed under: Climate Science Reporting on climate— group @ 4:46 pm
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff (U. Maryland and one-time Lindzen co-author) provided a more detailed rebuttal of Lindzen's argument in the comments to our previous post. It deserves to be more widely seen, so here it is again.

Here's an effort at a point by point rebuttal. I would say that the central flaw in the op-ed is a logical one: if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual pursuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty.

In the opening paragraph, Lindzen states that others have claimed that there are connections between recent rare weather events and global warming, and asks where they would possibly get such an idea. It's not clear where his astonishment comes from though. Heat waves and increased lake effect snows seem like very reasonable expectations for a warmer world. Of course, attribution of any individual such event to presently observed global temperature change can only be fractional, but it's completely reasonable to say that events like the heat wave of 2003 will be more likely when the mean annual temperature of Europe is a few degrees warmer- this assumes only that the scatter of summer time temperature under global warming won't be much smaller than it is now.

In his second paragraph, Lindzen makes the uncontroversial claim that society sometimes funds science to address phenomena that seem to offer a threat of harm. Using the passive voice, he asserts a feedback cycle between scientific funding and scientific alarm. This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon-emission-free fuel sources. In fact Lindzen himself in his final paragraph seems to be calling for increased funding to address the question of climate sensitivity!

The third paragraph about drying up of funding for dissenting science has been addressed by others. I agree that I just don't see it. The particular anecdotes I have heard about political influence on the federal grant making process go in the other direction, where people are told that they should not pubish findings supporting large climate sensitvity, at least until after some election.

The fourth paragraph is another weird one. He starts by promissing an opportunity to grasp the "complex underlying scientific issues", but never really discusses anything complex- I take this as an effort to flatter the WSJ readers on their grasp of these erudite points, bolstering their confidence when they take on the tree-huggers at the water cooler. His rhetorical tactic here is to severely shrink the list of agreed-upon truths to those that we've known since 1980, while neglecting the fact that human responsibility for the 20th century warming of global temperature is quite well-established, and that various causes for alarm (for example, substantially reduced water availability in places that depend on snow-pack for their dry-season water) are also very well established. Then he moves the discussion to "outlandish" claims that contradict the "models". This is the first use of the word "models" in the article, and gets no explanation, which is a little odd for a discussion in a newspaper. He doesn't explain what the outlandish claims are, so we're left to wait for the next paragraph.

Here we discover that the outlandish claims involve something about more "excitation" of extratropical storms. I'm not sure where he's getting this- when I go to, for instance, Ross Gelbspan's website, the only references to storms I see is to tropical storms, and to more intense rainfall generally. Both are well supported by empirical studies. The increase in rainfall intensity (shift in distribution of rain from more light events to fewer heavy events) as a consequence of global warming is a robust feature of GCMs.

Okay, that's all I've got time for. It'd be nice if Lindzen gave his reader some way of checking the claims he makes about persecution- was Tennekes dismissed because he questioned the scientific underpinnings of global warming, or just after? In what context did Bert Bolin "tar" Aksel Winn-Nielsen? I think Alfonso Sutera's recent work on baroclinic neutralization is really interesting... is there some missing strand of his research that Lindzen thinks ought to be taken up again? It's hard to guess.

About the IRIS paper- I really can't see what he's complaining about. The paper was published, depite some rather "outlandish claims." For instance, in the IRIS paper, Lindzen argues that tropical surface temperature and polar surface temperature should be assumed to vary in exactly the same way as CO2 concentrations increase. This is based on the idea that baroclinic neutralization maintains a particular critical temperature gradient, an idea that had a brief period of fashionability in 1978. In any case, there's certainly been a lively debate about the paper, and if it's widely viewed as "discredited", then that's the judgement of the climate dynamics community. If we're a bunch of dummies, history will judge us harshly, but we can only do our best.

I see a lot of science in our community that's being driven by curiosity. At the recent European Geophysical Union conference, there were posters on banner clouds on the Zugspitze, the role of cubic ice crystals in high cirrus formation, and the role of global cooling in the fall of the Neanderthals. Some of this research is being driven by claims that it will address climate change. So maybe this helps to solve the riddle of what Lindzen is really concerned about. People who are really concerned about climate change don't agitate for more funding for our field- they agitate for funding for fuel efficiency research and carbon sequestration. It's the people who like curiosity-driven research in climate dynamics who have the real incentive to argue that there's a lot of uncertainty, because uncertainty allows people with strong intellectual curiosity to make the case that there's at least some tangential benefit of their work to the climate sensitivity problem.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 10:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Fantastic post, XXX!!! Thank you. You are a true oasis in the desert of crap being spewed about this subject.

Sad that a professor at MIT has such a poor grasp of the basics.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 10:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Why would anyone 'agitate' for funding for things that won't do a damn thing to stop the natural cyclic warming and cooling of the Earth that is caused by the Sun?

scratching
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 11:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Heaven forbid anyone accuse someone of contributing to global warming. That might make fat people who drive 2 ton SUVs to the mall feel uncomfortable. That would be a crying shame. Let's just blame it on the sun.
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 11:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"Sad that a professor at MIT has such a poor grasp of the basics."

No.

It is abysmal that some idiot AC on GLP and the race pimp XXX think they know more about climate than one of the top climatologists at M-fucking-I-T.

Idiots.

I have tried to see things from a lieberal viewpoint... but it is hard to get my head that far up my ass... Lieberals must be very flexible... and lack spines.
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 11:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Science makes no distinction between liberal and conservative. Those terms have lost their meaning anyway and are of little use except for dividing and conquering sheeple.

I stand by my statment that the professor has a poor grasp of the basics. It does not look good for a place like MIT to have someone like that on the payrole.
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 12:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"Science makes no distinction between liberal and conservative"

True, but so-called Global Warming is not based on science. It is speculation.

Also, if it is not political then why do lieberals scream to the heavans about it and conservatives denounce it?

The truth of the matter is that lieberal marxists see 'Global Warming' as a way to 'stick it' to First world countries like the US.

All a part of the march of Marxism.
BigDogsPukeBig

User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 12:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
>>>" Let's just blame it on the sun."<<<

Good...You are finally learning to accept the obvious...

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

If you still aren't convinced, then by all means...Please tell us exactly what it is that keeps the Earth warm...Is it 'moonshine'?...Underwater volcanoes maybe?...

dance
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"True, but so-called Global Warming is not based on science. It is speculation."

Anyone who knows anything about science and the philosophy of science knows that science is speculation. A scientific theory can be supported by evidence or it can be falsified by evidence. It will however always remain a theory or in your words, speculation.

Clearly you don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Come back when you know something.
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Another idiot, one of the many posted:

"If you still aren't convinced, then by all means...Please tell us exactly what it is that keeps the Earth warm...Is it 'moonshine'?...Underwater volcanoes maybe?..."

Try going to the moon. It lacks something that we call an atmosphere. Then you will find out what the hell it is that keeps temperatures on this planet at a level that allows us to survive.

Thanks for your stupid post.
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 12:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"Anyone who knows anything about science and the philosophy of science knows that science is speculation."

Ah! I simplified for brevity's sake and for that shortcut I got the standard "You don't know science" response from the clue-challenged marxist.

The COMPUTER MODELS used to predict global warming are flawed and do not represent verified, observed phenominum. Look it up, the top climitologists in the world DO NOT trust those models anymore.

Look it up.

Happy now, assbandit?
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
sinanju fails to get the point, again. The point is that the scientific consensus based on the best scientific evidence available states that global warming is being caused by humans and this will continue to increase. The models are not perfect and never will be but that does not change the consensus.

You try telling your moronic ideas to people who are losing their homes and their ability to grow crops and feed themselves because of global warming. They are a group that is increasing at an exponential rate, a group that you and your children may one day join.
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 12:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"The point is that the scientific consensus based on the best scientific evidence available states that global warming is being caused by humans and this will continue to increase."

Not anymore. Your much-vaunted opinion is now in question. It's called OBSERVABLE PHENOMINOM.

As for those poor people who cannot grow crops... IF, and that is a huge fucking IF, Global Warming does as you incorrectly insist it does...

Then Africa will finally have some fucking water... so will many of the deserts of the world which will INCREASE food production.

At least, that is what the COMPUTER MODELS say and we all know that those models are all you have as evidence.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
>>>"Try going to the moon. It lacks something that we call an atmosphere. Then you will find out what the hell it is that keeps temperatures on this planet at a level that allows us to survive."<<<

Why...It's the Sun that warms the Moon...And then when the sun goes down the part of the moon in shadow cools almost immediately...

Thanks for making my point...

Oh yeah...BTW...While you are telling us that Man is the sole cause of Global 'Warming', please explain how Man is also causing Mars, and Pluto to warm...

[link to science.nasa.gov]

[link to www.space.com]

rolleyes
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Here is some "OBSERVABLE PHENOMINOM."

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

[link to newssearch.bbc.co.uk]

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

I would say thats pretty "observable", though the likes of you would probably not admit it untill your house is inundated with water or you don't have enough to eat.
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
I read your links, AC 86336. They contain explanations for why the warming is taking place on those planets. What part of those don't you understand? Can I help?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 12:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
>>>"I read your links, AC 86336. They contain explanations for why the warming is taking place on those planets. What part of those don't you understand?"<<<

Oh-please, oh-please explain to me why Mars and Pluto are warming...

I dare ya...
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 12:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
The warming on mars was on one hemisphere because of seasons changing. The warming on Pluto was because "The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees."

If you bother to read further it says: "Interestingly, while Pluto's atmosphere has been growing warmer in recent years, astronomers have argued that a Pluto mission must launch by 2006, lest it miss the opportunity to study Pluto's atmosphere before it completely freezes out for the winter."

So they think Pluto will start cooling again...

Why did you post those links without bothering to read them? Where you trying to make yourself look stupid on purpose or are you just lazy?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5855
United States
04/27/2006 12:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
one of the deans of the "global waraming" movement is james Hansen.

Here's what Hansen wrote in 2003 in the Journal Natural Science.

" Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. "


in other words .... i was OK to lie about how bad global warming was ( or wasn't ) as long as - in the end - the policy-makers were scared in to forking over lots of money to us.


This seems to be the central point of the MIT guys op-ed .... the "global warming" alarmists continue to alarm in order to get increased funding for whatever project they have oon the back burner. this is simple, common behavior in government. problems that require government funding to fix never go away. they ALWAYS get worse and worse and require yet more funding. ( does ANYONE remember ANY problem that was supposed to be fixed by government that ever WAS FIXED?!!??? )

any dissident who has the temerity to suggest that global warming is not a CATASTROPHE is suggesting that lots of the global warming researchers could stop feeding at the public trough and the environment and the climate would still be safe. this is a position that those funded by the public coffers can NEVER allow.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 300
United States
04/27/2006 12:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
If man is causing global warming then how come the last ice age ended? Shouldn't there have been glaciers down into the midwest US until the last 100 or so years if man was the cause?
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
You are very good with googling BBC news articles.

Perhaps you can google us up some of the precursors to Ice Ages.

Dumbass.

You tout this crap that other people have told you. The only reason that you do is to oppose those you see as conservative.

I may hate you marxist fucks with a passion... but when you are correct (see: Terri Schiavo) at least I am human enough to admit it and not keep grasping disproven ideas in the hopes that people will forget why the ideas were disproven.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 12:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
>>>"So they think Pluto will start cooling again..."<<<

Golly...You aren't as dumb as you acted earlier...

So what heats up can cool all on it's lonesome...

Gee...Ya think maybe that is what has been happening to the entire solar system due to the fact that the sun is the most active that it has been in the last 1000 years (as far as we can guesstimate as we only have fair records for 100 plus years)?

[link to www.news.harvard.edu]

I am still wondering you equate all the cyclical changes of this rock over the last umpteen million years to the environment changing the environment...Ice ages never happened before Man?...The planet never warmed before Man?...

Talk about pseudo-science...
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"I am still wondering you equate all the cyclical changes of this rock over the last umpteen million years to the environment changing the environment"

Because a NATURAL cycle would not enable this little socialist to influence behaviour of others.

The ONLY reason for the whole 'man-made' global warming argument is sothe marxist fucks can socially engineer society to their likings.

Read the Kyoto Treaty.
AC
User ID: 11632
New Zealand
04/27/2006 01:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
Thanks for your post, 5855. It is rational and it makes sense.

If people don't want to learn they won't. sinanju and the likes of him will find out the truth for themselves soon enough.
Sinanju nli
User ID: 85936
United States
04/27/2006 01:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
"sinanju and the likes of him will find out the truth for themselves soon enough."

Fair enough.

Now shut the fuck up until we do. There is no way that you will convince people like me with faulty science and fake computer models and the sky is falling rhetoric.

So stop trying and sit smugly knowing you are right... until you are PROVEN wrong.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84505
United States
04/27/2006 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
this was why they instituted the persistant contrail program over the northern hemisphere
to melt the arctic
and force the USA to sign the Kyoto Treaty
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 300
United States
04/27/2006 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
If we ended all man made gas emissions today and used some super filter to clean all existing man made emissions from the atmosphere, the current trend would continue anyway.
All the difference it would make is like saying instead of getting hit by a train in 5seconds you're going to be hit in 10seconds.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5855
United States
04/27/2006 01:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
hmmmm ... perhaps i didn't make my point as clearly as i'd hoped.


I think the MIT guy and his OP ED are spot-on. i think the whole "global warming" - kyoto - thing is ... if not a hoax, then at least a drastic exageration. and the op=ed by the MIT guy basically says that.

the "global warming" afficianados have to have the problem keep on getting worse so that they can keep on getting free money. add to that the fact that they get to bash capitalism and it is a win-win scenario.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86336
United States
04/27/2006 01:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence
>>>"Thanks for your post, 5855. It is rational and it makes sense.

If people don't want to learn they won't. sinanju and the likes of him will find out the truth for themselves soon enough."<<<

Rational, makes sense and completely blows your childish, simplistic arguments out of the water...You are agreeing with the 'truth' from someone that just disagreed with you...

rolleyes

>>>"The ONLY reason for the whole 'man-made' global warming argument is sothe marxist fucks can socially engineer society to their likings."<<<

I don't give a rats ass what the political bent is of those that are 'positive' that it is Man causing global warming...All I know is that they are sheep without a brain of their own that immediately call anyone that disagrees with them 'idiot'....





GLP