Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[DinoDoc]

Consensus isn't science and science isn't consensus. I'm not sure why that little canard keeps getting trotted out.

[ricketyclik]

Consensus isn't science and science isn't consensus. I'm not sure why that little canard keeps getting trotted out.

It keeps getting trotted out because all of the scepticism is coming from unscientific quarters. The scientific community is in agreement. Who do you think has a better idea of what's going on?

[HalfLotus]

Scientists are in agreement that humans are making the earth warmer. The point of contention is whether or not it will have catastrophic consequences.

As documented in this thread, the dire scenarios presented by the IPCC are often exaggerated.

[ricketyclik]

Fork in the road. One way might get us there 1 % faster (restricting warming to 2 degrees will cost approximately 1 % of GGP) but some people say leads off a cliff. The other way will get us there, but will be about 1 % slower.

Which way do you pick?

[ricketyclik]

Sorry, I should have said "... will reduce GGP by 1 %".

[HalfLotus]

Lindzen in the Boston Globe today:

CLIMATE CHANGE, THE FACTS, AND THE FEARS

The Boston Globe
The sound of alarm
February 19, 2010

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.

The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.

Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description - at least for scientists supporting such alarm.

Richard S. Lindzen
Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[Theben]

While I could go into detail about why yet another op-ed piece has little to no value in this debate, I'll just quote Mike instead...

boring post with boring non-facts that have been disproved long ago. nothing new.

[HalfLotus]

It's amusing watching the catastrophist ship sink with its passengers unawares. Don't worry, you'll live.

[Theben]

I'll try to remember to throw you a lifesaver.

[Kidlicious]

Scientists are in agreement that humans are making the earth warmer. The point of contention is whether or not it will have catastrophic consequences.

What do you consider catastrophic? We don't really know what the consequences will be. Therefore we're responsible for avoiding them.

I'm willing to accept the argument that we shouldn't go overboard trying to avoid consequences, but to just take risks with the earth and people's lives is totally unacceptable.

[Spinko]

What do you consider catastrophic? We don't really know what the consequences will be. Therefore we're responsible for avoiding them.

No global warming since 1995 according to ex-scientist and CRU Data-Manipulator-in-Chief Phil Jones.

If he can accept that then surely the duped alarmists should be able to.

[HalfLotus]

Let there no longer be any doubt that catastrophic global warming is a politically driven, partisan issue, not a scientific one.

"top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics."

We knew the warmists would be responding with a huge propaganda campaign following the credibility-gutting events at CRU and IPCC, and it sounds like it's gonna be a doozy.

Of course the Wash. Times frames this development around those poor, poor climate scientists who are "under siege" from skeptics. Such balanced language from the msm. Talk about drama queens.

Let the sympathy floweth from the always gullible public, as they continue to pour millions, and eventually trillions, into the coffers of Big Climate and their billionaire, carbon trading, corporate patrons.

Also quoted in the article is career doomsayer Ehrlich. He's a fool, and a sissy warmist of course. How many catastrophes has he been wrong about, and people still take this type of fear-mongering seriously? Suckers.

[Theben]

The only corporate tools in this thread are you and your ilk. With the exceptions of the glacier incident and loss of CRU data, you guys have nothing, which has been pointed out over and over in this thread.

[Spinko]

Steve McIntyre broke the hockey stick - you need to pick up a copy of A W Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" rather than keeping your head in the sand.

[HalfLotus]

The only corporate tools in this thread are you and your ilk.

Yes, I run a handful of oil and dirty coal coal companies in my spare time. How'd you guess?