Climate scientists call out the cranks

cawacko said:
This column has you written all over it SF.


http://blog.sfgate.com/sheilig/2012/02/01/climate-scientists-call-out-the-cranks/
Click to expand...

LMAO... that was funny... it could have been written by the buffoon brothers Mutt and Cypress

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record.
Click to expand...

Except it hasn't continued in the past decade. The second sentence shows the author is an idiot. Saying 'in fact it was the warmest decade on record' means NOTHING when discussing whether the warming trend has continued. If I see increases throughout the 50's-late 90's and then it stagnates at the top, then it can be the warmest decade on record (and by that they mean the 132 years the earth has been in existence according to fear mongers, not the 400,000 years of ice core data) even though the trend has not continued up the past decade+. It has flatlined over that period. If there is no statistical difference in 1998, 2005 and 2010, then do explain how the warming trend could have continued over the past decade.

Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.
Click to expand...

Yes, from the 50's until 1998, the data does indeed show that. The argument is not whether warming occurred over that period, but rather is MAN the primary driver of it.

And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.
Click to expand...

Here we have a feeble attempt to say, 'hey, we know we aren't seeing a significant increase right now, but we really promise it is'. The computer models showing how much temps would increase the past decade blew up. They weren't even close.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree there is a lack of observing systems. Which is another reason their extrapolations likely resulted in failed computer models.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... and the bolded above is the part that made me think of the buffoon Cypress. He trotted that out time and time again. Like the author, he dismissed those other 'non-climatologist' scientists and pretended they couldn't possibly understand as they were mere dentists talking about cardiology. THEN the author goes on to proclaim that "major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists... blah blah blah". AS I pointed out to the moron Cypress and his lapdog Mutt time and again. Take a look at all those National Academies of Science from around the world and the backgrounds of the scientists. The vast majority of the Academies that 'signed on' to the AGW theory... HAVE NO CLIMATOLOGISTS WORKING FOR THEM. Outside of the UK and US... the bulk of the countries had NONE... yet they and other 'authoritative' (translated: government) bodies signed off on the theory anyway.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.
Click to expand...

The above is where they get their '97%' number... note how they qualify it... 'actively publishing'... hmm... I wonder how that might skew the numbers.

It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
Click to expand...

Translation: 'Um, we have invested a lot in the carbon-trading scheme and we are going to lose if you all don't force feed this to the world.'
 
cawacko said:
The author responded in the comments section:


Update (but alas, not a shocking one):
"Half the authors of a controversial Wall Street Journal opinion piece denying the Earth's warming trend have ties to the oil and gas industry, a DailyClimate.org investigation finds": http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/02/industry-influence
Click to expand...

Cawacko, you are really coming along as a liberal apologist - are you bucking for a promotion? You're on track for one, I can tell you that.
 
Darla said:
I wish you'd keep these things to yourself. TMI!
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to throw her under the bus like that. I almost never talk politics with her. Haha. She is real good people except for that major annoying fault of liking Friends.
 
cawacko said:
The author responded in the comments section:


Update (but alas, not a shocking one):
"Half the authors of a controversial Wall Street Journal opinion piece denying the Earth's warming trend have ties to the oil and gas industry, a DailyClimate.org investigation finds": http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/02/industry-influence
Click to expand...

Half of the 16 scientists who penned a controversial Wall Street Journal opinion piece proclaiming there is "no need to panic" about global warming have ties to either the oil and gas industry or groups dedicated to debunking climate science, a DailyClimate.org investigation has found.
Click to expand...

funny how he cut out the latter part....

then...

The Journal noted that 16 scientists co-authored the article. But in listing their affiliations at the end of the piece, the paper didn't mention half of them have ties to groups and businesses that often cast doubts about man-made global warming.

One example: The Journal credits William Happer as a professor of physics at Princeton University. Unmentioned is his role on the board of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank that assesses scientific issues impacting public policy.

The institute has long rejected that humans can influence the planet's climate. Newsweek in 2007 described the organization as “a central cog in the denial machine.” The group has previously listed support from oil giant Exxon Mobil on its website.
Click to expand...

Ok... so the professor of physics should be discredited because he serves on the board of a conservative think tank that assesses scientific issues... because Exxon has donated money to the think tank?

So all climatologists that have any environmental groups that donate money to them are automatically to be discredited as biased as well? NAH...
 
This author is working hard today. He adds another nuget in the comments section.


Yet more:

Texas Tech scientist sees intimidation effort in hate mail. At Texas Climate News' request, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe provided a sample of recent emails to illustrate the exponential escalation of the "virulence, hatred and nastiness." Caution: Some of the language is offensive. Texas Climate News, Texas.
http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/?p=4153
 
cawacko said:
This author is working hard today. He adds another nuget in the comments section.


Yet more:

Texas Tech scientist sees intimidation effort in hate mail. At Texas Climate News' request, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe provided a sample of recent emails to illustrate the exponential escalation of the "virulence, hatred and nastiness." Caution: Some of the language is offensive. Texas Climate News, Texas.
http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/?p=4153
Click to expand...

I can't believe you gave SF this poor woman's email address...I mean, I didn't want to think it, but the very first email starts out "LMAO you F***ing MUTT" and you know...
 
cawacko said:
I didn't mean to throw her under the bus like that. I almost never talk politics with her. Haha. She is real good people except for that major annoying fault of liking Friends.
Click to expand...

Cawacko, all I can say is, I knew a Texas Republican once, before I took my "sorry darling I just can't love a Republican" vow? (I have that on a refrigerator magnet btw, it's awesome). I think I may have filled you in on a little of that debacle? I only hope you have better luck! Well, she is a woman, so right there that is points in her favor...
 
Darla said:
I can't believe you gave SF this poor woman's email address...I mean, I didn't want to think it, but the very first email starts out "LMAO you F***ing MUTT" and you know...
Click to expand...

Obviously poet has been writing to her....

I read your whiney comments about researching for a rejected book chapter instead of spending time playing with your baby. Perhaps you should take responsiblility how you choose to use your time. In my opinion, the problem with America is women refuse to stay at home taking care and nurturing their offspring while prioritizing their selfish ambitions attempting to carve out a career for themselves. Be a good mother or be a good researcher.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how hard it would be for other liberals to send her emails pretending to be opponents of AGW fear mongering and using hate speech etc...????

Probably really hard. Plus I would bet Texas Climate News actually checked out the email account owners and confirmed they were indeed from AGW opponents.
 
Superfreak said:
I wonder how hard it would be for other liberals to send her emails pretending to be opponents of AGW fear mongering and using hate speech etc...????

Probably really hard. Plus I would bet Texas Climate News actually checked out the email account owners and confirmed they were indeed from AGW opponents.
Click to expand...

Oh please.
 
Darla said:
OMG that is so gross, I was just joking I hadn't gone to the link. There are so many neanderthals out there. Ech.
Click to expand...

Damn you... I went and read that crap because I was like... 'No way did someone call her Mutt'... apparently the 'opponents' called her much worse. Probably Al Gore trying to drum up empathy for those who cling to a failed theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top