It was only a matter of time, I suppose. Read more here... Read more here... Look at that, a presidential candidate who doesn't know his arse-hole from his elbow.
"The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide." http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
first of all, i would like to state that getting information from an article or a blog over direct from scientific studies is a good way to collect biased and stupid quotes and wrong information... case in point: in the linked article above, the PhD states so, right off the bat he is quoting stupidity as well as pushing a political agenda (and conspiracy theory) there IS plenty of scientific evidence supporting AGW and the human contribution to the problem which is "scientific proof of the AGW Theory" - not hypothesis, but a full fledged theory NOT GOOD for a phd... it ruins their credibility... worse yet, his next comment: Ok, WTF? no "believer" says this... the SCIENCE says they can predict probabilities and it is all backed up with not only hard science, but also with pretty accurate historical predictions to date. Notice i said probabilities. that is the key word... the phd is using specific wording to inflame and obfuscate the science because he has an agenda worse still he segue's into a horrible and stupid myth: REALLY? i decided to stop reading here because so far he is simply using tired old debunked arguments that are proven wrong as well as demonstrated to be rather stupid from a scientific standpoint (and as i looked quickly over the rest of the article, i saw where he was making a political argument from a paid for perspective as a lobbyist to industry) the scientific standpoint is where we should be coming from - and i point that stupidity finger straight at the idiot PhD who is pushing myths and stupidity for personal/other financial gain don't believe he has a vested interest in obfuscating the science? from his BIO: this part shows he is being paid for by the industry with a HUGE vested interest in keeping the status quo so that they can become stupid-uber rich off the gullible and scientifically illiterate (he's a freakin lobbyist for industry... how much more biased can you get?) then more proof comes in at the end so he does not comprehend the physics at all, and should also stay out of the climate change argument there is no scientific data or arguments in that article link So, then we get to the arguments he is using which are ALL POLITICAL as well as BIASED in favor of INDUSTRY and the major contributors of CO2 epic fail for the doc His argument can be refuted with another site, except that the site i will link uses studies and references to support their position and argument and it directly refutes the comments made by that paid for hack phd: http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm basically it comes down to a simple observation: IF you are getting information from a blog or site then you are getting a BIASED perspective and someone is selling a point of view, NOT SCIENCE there is only one way to get the science and that is direct from the source: STUDIES Anyone making an argument from a political, religious, non-scientific or other standpoint is arguing from ignorance, not from reality there is a good study that points out the problems with allowing a perspective to overwhelm the ability to think clearly and is relevant to the topic: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF Phys.org has some articles that point to the problems with conspiracy and climate change as well: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html#firstCmt personally, the doc should be ashamed of his position because it is an epic fail for his credibility
I would also like to add this: There is an overwhelming preponderance of scientific studies and information which not only support AGW but are also empirically proving the climate change we are seeing... and some are highly predictive and have been vindicated (like Francis- arguing her point for decades: http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf ) When someone chooses to accept a blog, site, article or perspective over the science, then they are actively choosing ignorance (sometimes this is stupidity because they DO know better, but choose to support the opposite anyway) this is something studied in the above linked study: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF The best method for determining a position on a scientific issue is to go to the source. not a blog. not an article. not a site. the source. the studies. the science. if you are going to argue science, then it should be science: not politics or religion or a faith http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...refuse-to-accept-climate-change-ill-informed/
higher amplitude fersure, however causality remains in doubt beware instrument bias here's a link to view the global wind patterns set at 700hPa http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-90.48,80.03,588 enjoy
You mean like this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! CMIP most robust climate models. Somethings gone terribly wrong with the theory.... BTW what is the +/- for any day of the year, any year for natural variablity....
Can you direct me to more on the 5%? ................. curious that all the included models show a continued warming trend while some solar physicists think we are headed into a grand solar minimum with decades of cooling ......... who selected the included climate models shown?
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/publications.html Have fun! http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html
Opinion Piece I just stumbled across: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...as-the-right-to-challenge-scientific-experts/ A different piece by the same author: A Dig through Old Files Reminds Me Why I’m So Critical of Science http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...les-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/ And Because this is the climategate thread and Dr Emanuel is mentioned throughout the emails, an interesting article via link below quote: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/eye_storm.pdf One could also wonder how much he will profit from such an association. Why bring this up? Well there was some stir awhile back with Willie Soon. Not to be outdone, Bishop Hill presents another view: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/19/waiting-for-a-guardian-outcry.html Pielke is one of the people Rep. Grijalva of Arizona is asking about. Good news from NSF (and long overdue) http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/nsf-open-access-2015/ All taxpayer funded research/papers should be freely available.
Yes this BLOG does assert that: (1) "It seems that Dr Emanuel was brought on board to give a scientific stamp to the risk underwriting decisions relating to projected extreme weather events. As the success of such funds is dependent upon the insured risk not taking place, one can only assume that he doesn’t believe all his own rhetoric." AND (2) "We know that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer." On (1): Assuming that is not correct logic. Normally insurance companies expect that they will need to pay out and take some loses on particular policies they grant. Apply your logic to life insurance and you can conclude that those insurance companies don't really believe the people they insure will die! Insurance companies, of all times, try to charge for their policies so the profits from some more than cover the losses of others. On (2) A blogger can assert anything he likes but when no supporting evidence is provided, you can certainly reject his claim, especially when his bias is clearly shown - In this case by becoming illogical on point (1) to make an attack on the same person his point (2) CLAIM was about. If someone is an expert on risk evaluation, that does not mean he must not use his expertize in some firm he works in or has financial interest in. My daughter is an expert, in financial risk/ benefit analysis. One of a few owner of an investment firm, that manages money for people so rich that losing a million dollars one month is of little concern to them. Is it wrong that she has used her skill to make for herself many millions of dollars too?
That's because the models - unlike "some solar physicists" quoted in wingnut world- have to agree with observation and evidence, and base their projections on cause and effect, stuff like that. The observations are of a warming trend, see? One that has not been matching the solar changes, one that does not show any sign of becoming decades of cooling, and so forth - apparently because of all the suddenly appearing extra CO2 which is still there, for Photizo to celebrate. Sure. But that doesn't mean they can actually do it. Challenging a scientific expert requires reasoning and information. Harassing and assaulting and ignorantly ranting doesn't "challenge" anyone, except maybe Miss Manners as she searches for gentle and civilized responses to these miserable situations.
Its so typical that you try to reply without reading the links for the whole story... I hope you read the two scientificamerican links: But I doubt it.
Pharrell brings "Happy" message on climate change to U.N. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharrell-brings-happy-message-on-climate-change-to-u-n/
Well you are wrong. I read all the links in full, to be sure I could say that there was not one shred of evidence supporting the Blogger's claim: "that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer." As I explained, I began to not trust anything that blogger put up in his blog, when he ignored the way all insurance companies operate and invented, with false logic, an attack on Dr Emanuel. - The claim Dr Emanuel did not believe what he wrote in his paper about the risk of AGW, but only did so to profit in a company he had financial interest in. Soon was a "contract scientist"- gaining about a million dollars in total from big oil interest. They even paid him only when he wrote and published his "deliverables" as they called his papers. - Soon has admitted* this and offer as defenses that in some of his papers he did note that he had received financial support from the oil industry. *only after it was proven.
Yes. from your link: "Penelope Danielle Anastasia Latrique, the daughter of a U.N. staff member, goes to the Growing Up Green Charter School, which focuses on climate change. "Pharrell is inspiring; he makes a happy day happy about the climate," she said. Ahmad Alhendawi, the secretary-general's envoy on youth, told CBS, "What is happening in climate change is affecting young people's lives; this year is very important and the outreach that celebrities have is vital." That all may be true, but it will be more than a decade before they can even vote, and three or more before any of them can cause any needed change. By then it will very likely be too late to avoid their probable deaths from AGW instead of "old age." Unfortunately it may already be "too late." CO2 rate of release is increasing as is that of CH4, and its half life in air is too (0.3years each year) Both driving 23 other positive feed backs leading to non- viable conditions for life on most of the Earth, even if CO2 release rate could be capped at the present level.
