Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Glanced at the abstract. It's looks like yet another publicized item of marketing and deception from the Heartland Institute's paid representatives. Is there some reason I should pay more attention to it? Life is short, the authors have a track record of worthless reasoning and irrelevancy, is there some new factor to consider?

    You are being played by your sources. You are accepting, for instance, Curry's attempt to frame an issue of "conflicts of interest" on "both sides" of some kind of controversy or legitimate dispute over anthro global warming. That entire approach is conscious and intentional political spin, paid for by Exxon and Chevron and the Koch brothers and so forth. If you think for ten seconds there are "conflicts of interest on both sides" or anything of the kind, you're a sucker.

    Willie Soon does not have a "conflict of interest" - he's a paid representative of Exxon and Chevron and the Koch brothers, with their interests as his. Likewise Monckton. Likewise McKitrick (sp? the stat guy, Ross). And all the rest. Probably Curry, judging by her consistently deceptive presentation of issues and deep involvement in the political dogfight surrounding the coal industry in Australia. Follow them, if you must, as you would a marketing campaign for a bad product or a PR firm's efforts for a corrupt politician.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Truncated quote from much longer article: Note the ... spread out throughout.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I agree it looks like it was produce by same group that cigarette companies set up to pay "scientists" to make papers telling cigarettes did not cause cancer, heart problems and early deaths; but, perhaps not the motive or reason why, a Christian religious group, is behind paper "why models run hot".

    God, the clever designer, would not have made a climate system with positive feed backs amplifying the global warming made by green house gases. God would have a self regulating system that had negative feed back that cancel out the known positive ones.

    I. e. Cornwall starts with the assumption of God, the clever designer of all that exists. Thus God would not have a set up mainly positive feed backs, but a balanced system with off setting negative feed back too. They even give numbers showing these the effect of these negative feed backs, but don't tell where or how the numbers were arrived at. Possibly God reveled them or they got them for a dark and smelly place?
    zgmc likes this.
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Note the source, instead. A con site, once again.

    You are being played by professionals - paid representatives of commercial and political interests with no integrity, no expertise, and no boundaries on what they are willing to claim.

    The entire article you quote, just like your Curry source and every other such sewer you ladle from unto this forum, is an attempt to frame the issue as one of conflict of interest and bias of presentation on both sides of some legitimate debate - as if (specifically here) Kert Davies association with Greenpeace as a researcher was in some way a conflict of interest or evidence of bias, that this association had some kind of bearing on whether or not his detailing of Soon's ethical lapses were accurate depictions of reality.

    Just for starters: Davies has never concealed his funding. If you want to know who pays Davies for whatever he is doing some time, all you have to do is ask. That is not true of Willie Soon - or Monckton, et al - as you have been tripped by earlier in this thread.

    And reading farther: the article you reference, from the famously deceptive and agenda-driven media manipulation folks at wattsupwiththat, is actually - not making this up - comparing:

    1) Soon's failure to adhere to formal guidelines of publication in a scientific journal by omitting required funding disclosure, a formal ethical lapse with professional consequences,
    2) The omission from newspaper articles about ethical lapses as documented by a researcher, of that researcher's past employment history.

    This is presented smoothly, sleight of hand style, as if there were nothing strange about it - as if it were normal to expect newspaper articles about events of the day to be documented as if they were scientific publications of research findings incorporating outside research, as if there were no such things as fact checkers and so forth at one's local newspaper, as if reporters themselves were not expected to be checking facts as they proceeded with a given story.

    And this you do not even notice.

    They aren't. They're just welcoming material provided by the think tank central.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    One of the things that really strikes me as incredible with this issue is able to be evidenced really easily. IMO

    One only needs to go to wiki and read the articles on Permafrost. Note that:

    "According to IPCC Fifth Assessment Report there is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971–2010).[26] In Yukon, the zone of continuous permafrost might have moved 100 kilometres (62 mi) poleward since 1899, but accurate records only go back 30 years. It is thought that permafrost thawing could exacerbate global warming by releasing methane and other hydrocarbons, which are powerful greenhouse gases.[27][28][29] It also could encourage erosion because permafrost lends stability to barren Arctic slopes."


    and then ask the question, why no mention of causality is attributed to the inexplicable permafrost thawing as early as the 1980's?

    The wiki fails to include any causation for the historically recorded perma frost thaw. This lacking to me is very telling, as in the 1980's global warming would be insufficient to cause the perma frost thaw in the 1980's.

    Any one know what was the cause of permafrost thaw in the 80's please post away...

    (given that the temperature of PF at depth is well under 0C, a 2-3 C surface temp increase would typically be insufficient to cause a major thaw as far as I can fathom.)

    This is why I hold to the view as some others ( inc. PHD's) silently do that the perma frost thaw was/is due to planetary inner heating and not atmospheric green house effects.

    There is I believe ample evidence to support the notion that polar ice is predominantly thawing from heat coming from below and not from the atmosphere.
    Combined with excess anthropogenic GHG's and we have a nasty picture emerging.

    (Possible reason why scientific opinion is so confused is that they can't make the figures make the internal temp issue disappear.)

    Of course over heating planet will generate greater GHG volumes especially CH4 from thawed permafrost in the 80's on wards...

    Also internal planetary over heating could be causation for the currently inexplicable large sink holes appearing in Arctic Russia as previously posted.

    Further I would suggest that GHG's alone would not account for the significant change in weather dynamics where as internal planetary over heating may.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The permafrost is melting from above to below, and from the south toward the north, and from the ocean toward the inland areas. The deeper permafrost is melting last, not first. Permafrost buried under unfrozen dirt, which traps heat from below while insulating against heat from above, is melting much more slowly - not quickly - than permafrost exposed to the sky.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    can you support your assessment?
    that the perma frost is melting from above and not below, where thawing from above would normally be the intuitive case? (referring esp. 1980's)
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Antarctic mystery:

    The British Antarctic Survey, which has undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research in the area, has the following positions: [1]

    • Ice makes polar climate sensitive by introducing a strong positive feedback loop.
    • Melting of continental Antarctic ice could contribute to global sea level rise.
    • Climate models predict more snowfall than ice melting during the next 50 years, but models are not good enough for them to be confident about the prediction.
    • Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
    • There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.[23]
    • The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3 °C. The cause is not known.
    • Changes have occurred in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica.
    Researchers reported December 21, 2012 in Nature Geoscience that from 1958 to 2010, the average temperature at the mile-high Byrd Station rose by 2.4 degrees Celsius, with warming fastest in its winter and spring. The spot which is in the heart of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth.[26][27][28]


    in other words, to me, it appears that changes to the Antarctic are not as uniform as predicted or expected.
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Certainly there is net flow of heat from the deeper layers of the Earth (and thru the crust) to the surface. This thermal energy has two main sources as the twice daily tiny tidal flexing of rocks is mainly elastic with little dissipation. I.e. is much smaller heater of the interior. I don't know which of the two significant ones is greater. One is the original gravitational energy released as earth contracted, became mainly a solid AND the other is the decay of radio active isotopes (Now mainly K40 and U238, I think from memory).

    Main point to note is both were stronger heat sources in the past - did more heating of the surface than now yet there were many ice-age cycles. Those in the last 800,000 years we know quite a lot about - how long they lasted, and how intense they were and how the temperatures varied within each cycle. Thus, certainly now, and for last 800,000 years it is the climate, including solar variation* not interior heat flow to near surface that is dominating ice formation and melting. To think other wise is foolish nonsense - worse than unsupported speculation - it is in conflict with facts.

    If some irrational Ph. D. believes heat from the deep interior is now of importance, he is delusional but wise to keep silent.

    * Sun is a slowly an increasing heat source; yet long ago, when the interior heat sources were more intense the sun / climate was still dominating the interior heat source, even though sun was then a weaker heat source than it is now. If sun was dominating the formation of ice ages back then, it surely is now that it is stronger and interior heat sources are weaker. Furthermore (as another nail in QQ's silly theory's coffin) there is no cycle variation in ether thermal cooling or radioactive decay, yet the ice ages come and go and why is reasonable well explained by the know variation in earth orbit and spin axis.

    QQ: I have shot your silly theory down more than once already ! - Don't make me do it again to protect innocent readers from being mislead by it..
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2015
  15. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    LOL --

    Willie Soon's eeevil fossil fuel funding turns out to be heavily invested in Green Power... jeez did no one take the time to look!!

    Running an Electric Car? This Eeevil fossil fuel funder gives rebates to customers to help install charging units.

    Repost Quote from WUWT:
    And finally:
  16. zgmc Registered Senior Member


    Thats nice and all, but does any of his science have any merit?
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Here's several "scraps" from 2007. I guessed they missed this in their zeal to deny.

    Analysis by Michael MacCracken of the paper
    “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
    by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon

    (published in Journal of American Physician and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90)


    Expanding on a paper first presented ten years ago, the authors present a summary
    of climate change science that finds fault with nearly all of the internationally
    peer-reviewed findings contained in the comprehensive scientific assessments of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In particular, the authors
    find fault with IPCC’s conclusions relating to human activities being the primary
    cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that
    they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in
    solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes
    in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.
    After many scientific misstatements and much criticism of IPCC science, the
    authors conclude with a section on the environment and energy that argues for
    construction of 500 additional nuclear reactors to provide the inexpensive energy
    needed for the US to prosper and to end importation of hydrocarbon fuels
    (particularly petroleum). Taking this step, along with the beneficial effects of the
    rising CO2 concentration, will, they argue in complete contrast to the prevailing
    scientific views, create a “lush environment of plants and animals” that our
    children can enjoy.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's taken for granted by everyone, so they don't make a big deal out of recording the fact, but it's visible in the data they do record (if you look at the one meter temperature graphs, the explanations for the occasional catastrophic local meltings, etc).

    The execrable Soon has been financed by the usual variety of shell sources and foundations that trace back to the usual suspects for many, many years.

    And it's not the funding that's evil: it's the concealment of it, which is against the clear rules of the publications whose respectability he is embezzling; and it's what he provides for it, which is an aura of scientific legitimacy for the media spin that is its sole effective contribution to the public debate.

    Uh, no, if you go back over the years you will find many examples of people taking apart Soon's arguments and assertions on their technical failings - and notice how narrowly your source their defines what must be shown to indict Soon for his unethical behavior: on those grounds even the flat out lying done by the OP launchers (the quoting of emails out of context and deliberately misinterpreted for a gullible public, for the purpose of slandering honest researchers and thereby casting doubt on what are otherwise incontrovertible findings) would not be removable from the respectable discussion of these matters. He's trying to spin Soon as making legitimate arguments from honestly considered evidence.

    At this point its the financiers of Soon's efforts who are acquiring guilt by association - with Soon. Nobody pays that guy for actual informative research.

    Completely bassackwards. You've got this bizarre take on things where you think Soon and Monckton and Curry and the rest are being despised and dismissed for being funded by Big Oil - you even post links in which some asshat claims researcher X has been funded or employed by Greenpeace thereby displaying some kind of countervailing bias. The inference is otherwise - the funding explains the otherwise inexplicable flaws, the willingness to provide the flaws consistently explains the otherwise inexplicable funding. They do not cause each other, they explain each other.

    Of course BP funds legitimate science - they're an oil company with big money on the line, they need actual information. That's not why they fund Soon - they have other needs as well.

    You are being played. And it's no longer passing as ignorance - you've been informed. Everything you've posted in this thread is evidence of your personal gullibility and lack of critical thought.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  19. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Climate-gate V2
    Photizo likes this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Why are you calling that "climate-gate"? Are intending to lie about what it means, or use it to slander MacCracken or Folland, as the original C-gate purveyors did with their stolen emails?
  21. zgmc Registered Senior Member

  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    well perhaps you could offer a hypothesis to explain the significant Arctic perma frost thaw in 1980's so we can all have a go at shooting it down as well?

    My bet is on sudden internal planetary over heating.

    What's yours?
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    grand solar maximum

Share This Page