P
Prodigirl
Guest
Since you “have all the facts” and claim to have science behind you on this one, tell me this:
how soon is “soon enough”? And it’s Prodigirl, not Prodgirl.
- Status
how soon is “soon enough”? And it’s Prodigirl, not Prodgirl.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
…and the United Nations is a political, anti-American organization with no scientific foundation, whose aim is to extort wealth from advanced nations for the benefit of the leaders of third world countries.
…yet even when every claim made by the IPCC has been proven wrong by the scientific community, you and other misinformed people accept it and promote it…why is that?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
“Soon enough” varies with individuals. It is dependent on how long it takes a rational person to realize a HOAX. Even then because of embarrassment it could take some time before the individual admits it. This pertains to scientists who have promoted the man made global warming hoax. They have a reputation to consider. The longer they take to admit their mistakes…the more their reputation suffers.
I apologize for my typographical error of you name.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
M
magnet
Guest
Are you saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong, and that one man with an agenda is right? Where is his credibility?
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The blogger quotes from the book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Dr. Tim Ball.
Dr Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.
But he is not alone.
Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as a lead author with the third IPCC report, stated that he thought the IPCC had “truly sunk to a level of** hilarious incoherence**” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,”
A am not a scientist but I read the Fifth Assessment Report. It is a joke.
Like the past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels.
So we give the UN dominion over mankind and the world will be a better place…
M
magnet
Guest
Third-party characterizations of Lindzen:
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.” Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen’s views “Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”[67]
A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen’s assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had “sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound.” Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a “formidable opponent.” William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as “courageous.” He said, “A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing.” He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen’s views as flawed, he said that, “across the board he’s generally very good.” John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are “relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is.”[3]
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[69][70][71] Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.”[72]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.” Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen’s views “Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”[67]
A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen’s assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had “sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound.” Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a “formidable opponent.” William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as “courageous.” He said, “A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing.” He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen’s views as flawed, he said that, “across the board he’s generally very good.” John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are “relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is.”[3]
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[69][70][71] Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.”[72]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
OK, OK Magnet, we can play this game for days. I can match your scientist and raise you a scientific study on and on…
Let us cut to the chase. Al Gore told the world that the globe was warming because man was increasing the levels of C02 in the atmosphere and if we didn’t do something all sorts of terrible things would happen…you believed him.
Not long ago Al gore had to change the crisis to “climate change” because the Earth was not warming…you still believed him.
As of this moment…there is not one shred of scientific evidence proving that man caused C02 is causing our climate to change.
Let repeat that: there is not one shred of scientific evidence proving that man caused C02 is causing our climate to change.
So come on Magnet show me…scientific proof…not computer models (that have been proven wrong)…not some wacko scientist’s opinion based on political science…not articles written by biased reporters…show me the scientifically acceptable experiment PROVING that man made C02 causes climate change.
I’m waiting…
M
magnet
Guest
You and Lindzen and Ball like to make opinionated assertions and then follow agendas to prove your point. That is not science. Gathering data, studying them, detecting patterns and then making preliminary estimates of the causes of these patterns is what science is all about. As a college student, I wrote lab reports analyzing data recorded during our experiments. No absolute conclusions were made, but there certainly were efforts to try to explain what we were observing. That is the stage at which panels on climate change are at these days. It is the way evolution was first observed. Nobody knows for sure about climate change, but there is a lot of data to support that conclusion.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is really special, Magnet. But not the PROOF I need… and you, as a college student, should have demanded.
**“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” **― Galileo
Or as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history.
- Status