LeafByNiggle
- The article was published as an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune. Pittsburgh, being in the heart of coal country has a vested interest in refuting global warming.
And Al Gore stands to make billions from carbon-trading that will decimate the equatorial biosphere.
- The author of the article, William M. Briggs, is a highly-opinionated statistics consultant, who only got his masters degree after going quite public with his opinions. He is not a working scientist in the field. Just Google his name and “climate” and you will find plenty of refutations of his “expertise”.
Don’t tell me that your entire response is based off a generic google search…
Google funnels its money through Irish banks to avoid taxes.
Do you realize how many people I have to deal with who have law or humanities degrees who think they know about climate science and haven’t even taken one thermodynamics class?
Briggs is probably more correct than even atmospheric scientists and their overly simplistic view of a complex planetary system.
- He cites the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” which sounds official, but is just a special-interest group pushing their own agenda.
Well, that’s a trick used by left-groups. NOW, the NAACP and various GLBTQ groups are just institutions that exist to get the Democratic Party of the USA votes.
The climate alarmists like James Hansen and others have been caught red-handed faking data, and if it didn’t support a Western liberal idealistic cause would have ended his career.
Several NASA scientists asked him to step away from all this CC nonsense because it was ruining their brand.
It has no scientific standing. They picked a name to rival the IPCC. They are an arm of the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian think tank. Hardly the kind of place to go for unbiased scientific work.
The Heartland Institute does have scientific standing, and it’s uncharitable and slanderous of you to say they don’t just because they don’t conform to your narrow, linear and yes, incorrect view.
Just like all these liberal academic institutions that have to make-up or exaggerate anthropogenic to get grant money and pad their CV’s instead of solving REAL problems.
- Mr. Briggs say the NIPCC has cited 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles that contradict the IPCC’s claims. They may have cited 5,000 articles, but without seeing them, one has to take their word for it that they contradict the IPCC’s claims. It is more likely that it requires misunderstanding of the IPCC’s claims to come to that conclusion.
Many of the people on the IPCC are not real scientists and don’t know nearly as much as they think about climate change modeling and the errors in the forcings that are used.
- The article says Mr. Briggs has a masters degree in climate science from an “Ivy League university”. First, isn’t a little strange that they did not name the university? And second, what has he done in the field since getting his degree? Has he worked as a scientist? Done original research? Or did he get the degree just so he could make his pre-conceived notions in his blog and opinion pieces sound more authoritative?
Ah yes. Dotting all your accusations with question marks to avoid liability and because you can’t find the answers on google. Classic blogging technique.
First of all, a lot of people get degrees without doing original research. Many Master’s programs, which is the degree William Briggs has, has options for just taking coursework.
Furthermore, there has been numerous research done that counters the overrated problem of man-made climate change, but it’s not too popular in academia because people see it as a threat to their funding stream and the credibility of left-wing Western political parties whose real goal is command and control and the destruction of the Catholic Church.
- Most of Mr. Briggs appeals are to the emotions rather than to the facts.
I think you need to understand two things:
- Briggs seems to be nowhere near emotional on this
- Not everyone uses left-wing tactics like made-up academic credentials or getting angry and sad every time one doesn’t get his/her way.
For instance he humorously observes that global warming seems to be a threat to all the “cuddly, cute, delicious or photogenic” species, while favoring the species that " stings, bites, pricks or stinks".
Oh, so it’s global warming now, not climate change? :ehh:
Sounds like a clever pitch. Bet it he worked for thinkprogress, you’d have a different take.
This is no way to do science.
Neither is using the concept of albedo and heat traps from clouds that are found in fifth-grade science books to model an ENTIRE planet.
Or basing someone’s science “expertise” on how much they “care” because they have a sociology or law degree in truth b/c they wanted to a vet, doctor or engineer but didn’t have the motivation to take advanced science and math.
