And Al Gore stands to make billions from carbon-trading that will decimate the equatorial biosphere.
Unsupported hypothesis. He may have invested in the clean energy industry, but that was because he first came to believe that it was right. You are implying that he first found himself holding stock in clean energy and then decided to promote a hoax to make himself rich. Where is the basis for that? And you may not agree with carbon-trading as the proper response to global warming (I know I don’t). But you can’t use your opposition to carbon-trading to attack the science of global warming. You will have to do that in the political or ethical realm. The science is either right or it is not, and it should be addressed directly, not in terms of what people may or may not do about it. I’m not saying such a discussion is unimportant. I just saying that discussion has no part in the more basic question of what is actually happening to the climate.
Don’t tell me that your entire response is based off a generic google search…
Don’t like what I found? Well, I may not have found out everything there is to know about William Briggs, but I have no reason to believe that what I have found out is incorrect. Most of it comes from his own website.
Google funnels its money through Irish banks to avoid taxes.
Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument? I don’t get the relevance to the discussion at hand.
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?
We aren’t talking about them. Should we be? Why?
Briggs is probably more correct than even atmospheric scientists and their overly simplistic view of a complex planetary system.
The models used by climate scientists are some the most complex models there are, taking super computers to run them. I don’t know of anyone who has a more complex understanding of how climate works. They are far from simplistic!
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.
That does not diminish my point that the NIPCC is not comparable to the IPCC, even though they have similar names.
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.
Do you know exactly what data James Hansen faked?
Several NASA scientists asked him to step away from all this CC nonsense because it was ruining their brand.
I’m not sure what you want to do with this. Are you saying this to discredit all climate scientists? If so, which more trustworthy sources do you recommend to replace them?
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.
Then maybe you should correct the Wikipedia article about them that calls them a conservative and libertarian think tank. Anyone can correct a Wikipedia article, you know.
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.
What are you saying? That the organization called the IPCC is not composed exclusively of scientists? Well, they do need secretaries to answer the phone, and I guess there are many other non-scientific roles in the organization. But if you are claiming the those non-scientists are pretending to be scientists and putting out results without the help of real scientists, then say so, then prove it.
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.
Of course. I was not questioning his degree. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a 4.0 average. But getting a degree and subsequently working in the field for years are two very different things. I question the wisdom of taking his word over the word of the working scientists he is contradicting.
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…
That’s what Mr. Briggs article was supposed to be. So why wasn’t it more convincing?
Oh, so it’s global warming now, not climate change?
A distinction without a difference.
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.
Are you claiming that just because a scientific principle appears in a fifth-grade science book, it is unsuitable for application to advanced problems? Or are you saying that the scientists who are referencing albedo and heat traps from clouds are doing so without sufficient consideration taken for the complexities of the actual planet? If so, be specific and then we can see if you have a point or not.
