-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Climate Change Denial (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Simon M
- Start date
fugl, in this discipline it's always worth looking for an opposing take on events. For example, here is (professional climate scientist) Roy Spencer's take on this 'scandal':
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/
Incidentally. in that blog post Spencer refers to a debate he took part in with Scott Denning, a more 'consensus' point of view climate scientist. For anyone with an hour to spare, you can watch the debate on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/
Incidentally. in that blog post Spencer refers to a debate he took part in with Scott Denning, a more 'consensus' point of view climate scientist. For anyone with an hour to spare, you can watch the debate on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg
Last edited:
Thank for the link. Didn't get very deeply into it, but just the usual paranoid drivel as far as I can see.
Imaginos
Well-known member
Because scientific questions are always best resolved by a stand up debate |^|
Why do those who don't accept the science not go out & do their own research to disprove it? Why do they continue to insist on public debates where untruths can be glibly tripped off the tongue at such a rate that any opponent trying to explain the truth is unable to keep up? Why has Steve McIntyre not published his own reconstruction of Paleoclimatic temperatures when he has had the necessary data for years? Why does Roy Spencer have to keep correcting his satellite-derived temperature data upwards as more 'mistakes' are identified?
Squonk, if you had an hour to spare, surely you would have been better reading some primary literature, rather than further reinforcing your prejudices?
Imaginos
Well-known member
As may be clear above I don't go in for blog posts over the actual science much but for those reading the thread who may still be unclear a friend has pointed me towards this blog post by Grant Foster aka 'tamino'.
He starts: "This post is especially for those who aren’t sure whether global warming is real or not, whether it’s man-made or not, whether it’s dangerous or not. Let me tell you what made up my mind."
And concludes: "When I studied these data sets, I didn’t just look at a graph and take somebody else’s word for the logical conclusion. I analyzed it myself.
You know what?
I found out that the mainstream climate scientists had the right interpretation. Every time. The ones who keep telling us that global warming is real, is man-made, and is dangerous — they’re the ones who were right about what the data indicated, not the so-called “skeptics” who claimed otherwise. Every goddamn time. Of course, I can only testify about the data I’ve actually analyzed myself. But rest assured that’s a helluva lot.
The results are consistent: confirming global warming. Every time."
The bit in-between is well worth perusing, if you had an hour or less to spare.
He starts: "This post is especially for those who aren’t sure whether global warming is real or not, whether it’s man-made or not, whether it’s dangerous or not. Let me tell you what made up my mind."
And concludes: "When I studied these data sets, I didn’t just look at a graph and take somebody else’s word for the logical conclusion. I analyzed it myself.
You know what?
I found out that the mainstream climate scientists had the right interpretation. Every time. The ones who keep telling us that global warming is real, is man-made, and is dangerous — they’re the ones who were right about what the data indicated, not the so-called “skeptics” who claimed otherwise. Every goddamn time. Of course, I can only testify about the data I’ve actually analyzed myself. But rest assured that’s a helluva lot.
The results are consistent: confirming global warming. Every time."
The bit in-between is well worth perusing, if you had an hour or less to spare.
angusmcoatup
Paul
In addition to Fugl's post is this in today's Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...e-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute?intcmp=122
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...e-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute?intcmp=122
Simon M
Well-known member
Anyone one to make guesses on who the 'anoynmous donor' is?
My bet's on Rupert Murdoch.
Imaginos
Well-known member
Nah, he's got Fox & Sky to disseminate for him, what need he for Heartland?
Simon M
Well-known member
Just a complete guess to get the ball rolling really... I'm sure Murdoch's not above expanding his portfolio of reality distortion though..
John Cantelo
Well-known member
An interesting article in yesterday's Observer (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy) sheds some light on the point I made earlier. Science, of course, can never be wholly 'pure' but there are those who seem willing to muddy the waters, in pursuit of personal gain or political theory, undaunted by the weight of evidence or past failures,
Lots of useful contributions to the debate here
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_warming
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Climate_change
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_warming
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Climate_change
MJB
Well-known member
John,
Quite a frightening article! My view is:
Always be wary of anyone who appears to believe that assertions made endlessly (without citing any evidence) can disprove conclusions supported by hundreds of thousands of man-years of scrupulous research.
Be even more wary of those who are accustomed to make assertions in that way, but don't believe them themselves! The root of the problem is that ordinary decent people who have no scientific education of any form (so much of science now falls into Arthur C Clarke's warning definition "When science becomes so complex, it becomes indistinguishable from magic") often discuss and debate matters by assertion and counter-assertion; politicians are either well aware of this or are unable to make their argument any other way.
MJB
Last edited:
tittletattler
Well-known member
Just seen this thread.
Its odd as I would have thought you would bat for the other side in this instance.
I would add two things to the debate.
1) Never trust links to websites backed by wealthy capitalists.
2)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/02/Figure3.png
Cheers, Andy.
angusmcoatup
Paul
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax
Something else of interest from The Guardian.
Something else of interest from The Guardian.
MJB
Well-known member
Andy,
Accepting that this graph is from reputable sources, it would be even more concerning if the mean seasonal ice thickness over the same period were also plotted on it or in parallel.
MJB
Simon M
Well-known member
Why?
MJB
Well-known member
A nice civilised response from the scientists named: I'm not counting my chickens that the Heartland Institute will respond accordingly.
The IRS have become quite sophisticated in their pursuit of misleading tax status - they tend to scrutinise the personal accounts of individuals whose group is under investigation.
MJB
The graph is from a reputable source, original is here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Against that, there is a slight uptrend in the Antarctic ice.
Have to say, I'm rooting for Heartland on this one, if they can get results for so little money, they should be cheered by the government, not bashed.
tittletattler
Well-known member
Sorry, I think I may have misread your posts....
Similar threads
