Moderator: Jon Estes
David Flick wrote:.
.Amazing... Almost unbelievable... Incredible... Dr Judith Curry once was known as the "High Priestess of Global Warming." No longer. She is in the process of moving away from being a warmist. She definitely has no use for the IPCC. She now admits to being duped into being a supporter of the IPCC. News about her hit the blogosphere yesterday (10/25/10) when she published the following article on her website: "Heresy and the creation of monsters".
. . . . . . . . .Judith Curry
The world of global warming alarmism is coming apart at the seams. This is evident when scientists of the stature of Dr. Curry disavow the propaganda of the IPCC. Here are some additional articles about her:
Judith Curry wrote:Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.
What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.
David Flick wrote:.
.My mistake... I posted the wrong url to Judith Curry's website. I've edited the two posts above. Here's the correct one:Judith Curry wrote:Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.
What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.
Article from the Scientific American:
Jim wrote:You’re doing yeoman’s work in pointing out the fraud connected to manmade global warming/manmade climate change. My congressman voted for cap-and-trade and you should hear him spout the “line.” By the time the healthcare bill came around he had seen the light and voted against it but I think he may lose in this heavily democratic district anyway. Of course, he hadn’t read either bill so what’s new? Curry perhaps is hammering the final nails in the alarmist coffin. I admire anyone who admits a mistake and especially so if she attempts to straighten it out.
David Flick wrote:Jim wrote:You’re doing yeoman’s work in pointing out the fraud connected to manmade global warming/manmade climate change. My congressman voted for cap-and-trade and you should hear him spout the “line.” By the time the healthcare bill came around he had seen the light and voted against it but I think he may lose in this heavily democratic district anyway. Of course, he hadn’t read either bill so what’s new? Curry perhaps is hammering the final nails in the alarmist coffin. I admire anyone who admits a mistake and especially so if she attempts to straighten it out.
Thanks, Jim. AGW alarmism is falling apart slowly but surely. With the breaking of the Climategate scandal last November and the total failure of the COPENHAGEN Climate Conference 2009, I thought the movement would fall more rapidly but the warmists keep hanging on for dear life. I believe it's only a matter of time before the general public wakes up.
I suspect that you are keeping watch on the best source for climate change news. For lurkers who are interested following the latest news (from both sides), here's the link to website on the internet:
Jim wrote:Here’s one of the funniest accounts I’ve seen lately (off that web-site, incidentally). Gore Frantically Saving the Planet. Also discovered that climate-change-alarm is going south while the new project for the UN is biodiversity. Perhaps the problem could be solved by having each country hold a lottery and simply offing the losers according to a certain percentage in order to keep too many people from using up the earth.
David Flick wrote:Jim wrote:Here’s one of the funniest accounts I’ve seen lately (off that web-site, incidentally). Gore Frantically Saving the Planet. Also discovered that climate-change-alarm is going south while the new project for the UN is biodiversity. Perhaps the problem could be solved by having each country hold a lottery and simply offing the losers according to a certain percentage in order to keep too many people from using up the earth.
That was hilarious. Gore's hypocrisy is mind boggling. Speaking of interesting articles, here's one about the 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London. You may recall that the first "Climate Fool's Day" ocurred in October of 2008 when the British Parliament adopted a Climate Change Act that committed Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades. On very day the Act was debated a massive snow storm occurred in London, which, BTW was the first October snowfall since 1922. (Source...).
Here's the link to the afore mentioned article:
David Flick wrote:.
.Here's a followup article about Gore and the idling car. It's from a Swedish newspaper:
Breaking News! The earth is warming! No wait, it’s cooling! No wait...
By Troy Media Thursday, November 4, 2010
-Art Horn, Meteorologist and Michael J. Economides, Editor in Chief, Energy Tribune
Warnings of global warming have been with us now for two decades, courtesy of the news media. And surely these respected and long-lived newspapers, magazines and television networks can be trusted to tell us what the current state of the climate is and what it will do?
A least one would think so.
Interestingly, the history of climate reporting is not unlike the reporting of so many other doomsday scenarios, from the “population bomb” which should have caused the death of two billion people by the 1980s, to aids which should have infected the majority of Americans by 2000, to the Y2K disaster that never came to be.
Could be a comedy routine
A careful look back at the history of climate stories in the media presents the re-occurrence of a remarkably consistent theme. It borders on a comedy routine, had it not had such a massive public impact during the last few years.
All of the recent media reports of unrelenting global warming and its dire consequences are in fact old news, a mere regurgitation of decades old stories. As the global temperature has cycled over the last 115 years from cold to warm to cold to warm again, the media has simply been following in almost lock step with it. In fact, media cycles of climate doom, which mirror the climate cycles themselves, have roughly a 10- to 15-year time lag. It seems whenever the world warms up, the number of global warming stories increases to match the trend; conversely when the climate cools down, the media pull up on their long johns and warn of the next ice age.
Whatever is popular will be immediately copied and embellished to fit each media outlet’s particular brand. It is simple really: whatever sells it, sells and if it “bleeds, it leads.” Reporting on climate is no different and history proves it. [Continue reading...]
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed; David
Under
https://mail.google.com/mail/?source=na ... 3a13b903b1
Find
# 2. Chevy Volt Ripped as an ‘Electric Edsel’
The writer makes some great points but I sort of resent the Edsel slam. I had a 58 that I bought in 61, loved it.Ed, I didn't find the article under the url you posted above. But I did find an article by the same title under this url: Volt ripped as an "Electric Edsel". I agree with you with respect to the Edsel. My favorite model was the last one Ford made. I loved the 1960 Edsel Corsair which came out a year after I graduated from high school. I believe Ford discontinued the Edsel in mid-year of 1962. In my opinion, the Edsel was one of the most beautiful cars Ford ever made. If I had the money to afford it, I would purchase a restored Edsel of any year.
#1. On wind farms is also interesting.I didn't locate a story about wind farms. Guess I must've found the wrong article...
Ed Edwards wrote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
1This item is called: Climate Heretic
Sub topic: Why can't we have a civil converstaion about climate?
// Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown. \\
2And I really have a problem with die-hard Young Earthers (YE) when I say this:EdE's quote: The world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 Million years to 'cook'.
And the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years -- the
rest of the World has taken notice
David Flick wrote:Ed Edwards wrote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
1This item is called: Climate Heretic
Sub topic: Why can't we have a civil converstaion about climate?
// Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown. \\
2And I really have a problem with die-hard Young Earthers (YE) when I say this:EdE's quote: The world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 Million years to 'cook'.
And the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years -- the
rest of the World has taken notice
1) The answer to why we can't have a civil conversation about the climate lies squarely with the alarmists. They are pushing two false ideas: a) The idea that CO2 is a polutant that drives climate change (global warming). And b) the idea that man (through human activity) created global warming (AGW) by excessively burning fossil fuels.
Both ideas are patently false. First, carbon dioxide does not drive climate change (global warming). It never has in the past, doesn't in the present, and will not in the future. That myth has been perpetrated by the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, their numerous true-believing friends, and the amazingly loud alarmist blogosphere. Secondly, in the history of global climate change (global warming & cooling), man has had absolutely no impact on climate change one way or the other. The arrogance of those who believe that man can cause climate change by creating excessive amounts of CO2 through burning fossil fuels is palpable. The notion that human activity is the driver of climate change is false. The reason it's impossible have a civil conversation about climate change is that the alarmists (warmists) refuse to acknowledge that it's impossible for man to affect, influence, or otherwise control climate change. So long as the alarmists continue to push these two false ideas, there will never be peace between them and the skeptics. It may take a few more years before the alarmists come to their senses, but the day will come when, as Roy Spencer predicted: "... at some point in the future we will realize that the fear of catastrophic climate change was the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known."
2) Ed, you have no earthly idea whether or not: a) the world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 million years to 'cook', or b) the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years. In the first place you have no idea what the total amount fuel God cooked is. How in the world can you determine what the total amount is? To suggest that the world has used up half of the existing fuel is wild speculation. Virtually nobody knows that figure. God alone knows that figure and he ain't said a thing to anybody I know about what that figure is. Secondly, since you have no earthly idea what the total existing amount of fuel is, you have no idea whether or not the USA has used 1/4 of it all in the past 60 years. Again, that's a majorly wild speculation on your part.
KeithE wrote: ...
Ed, I believe you are also right about being past "Peak Oil" and that the US is responsible for >1/4 of it. But it will take more time than I have right now to provide the DATA to make sure. But you can start with first graph on the last link.
KeithE wrote:Ed, I believe you are also right about being past "Peak Oil" and that the US is responsible for >1/4 of it. But it will take more time than I have right now to provide the DATA to make sure. But you can start with first graph on the last link.
KeithE wrote:David's quick dismissal of Ed's points is "hot air" , "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked".
David Flick wrote:KeithE wrote:David's quick dismissal of Ed's points is "hot air" , "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked".
Keith droned on about my points to EdE, dismissing them as being "hot air", "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked", all the while using Wikipedia articles & graphs which are notoriously inaccurate unreliable. I'm surprised that a man as intelligent as Keith would trust Wikipedia as a reliable source when most credible university professors refuse to allow their students to cite Wikipedia at all. I don't have time at the moment to respond to this post or the Abaraham vs Monckton post but will do so in the next couple of days.
In the meantime, however, I'm posting a link to an article that Keith's crosstown neighbor, Dr. Roy Spencer, wrote yesterday. It's a very interesting article about how a significant number of AGW alarmists are falling all over themselves planning a campaign against the skeptics. Alarmists everywhere are waking up to the fact that they are losing the debate big time. Here's the link. Enjoy...
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests