Reply With Quote
Global warming is real, and it's anthropogenic.
willful "sloppiness" is the Repugs justifying and executing wars.
Capitalist-tool Forbes is pro-business, aka, anti-climate, anti-human, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-employee.
The Global Warming Establishment Needs More than Cosmetic Fixes
The last few paragraphs:
Even more ridiculously, the academy concluded that IPCC’s sloppiness could be better handled if it had a permanent executive committee, something it currently lacks, a suggestion that Pachauri – surprise, surprise! – whole-heartedly embraced. But the idea that another layer of bureaucracy will solve the panel’s problems is absurd. Equally absurd is the academy’s suggestion that the IPCC enhance its “media-relations capacity” in order to communicate better with “audiences beyond scientists and governments” – as if its real problem is getting its message out given the legions of compliant journalists who happily regurgitate its line for free.
But none of the academy’s suggestions – good or bad – address the IPCC’s fundamental problem: It has every incentive – financial and otherwise — to buttress the global warming orthodoxy and none to challenge it. In every other discipline, scientists earn fame and fortune if they successfully debunk its reigning theories. They are feted at conferences, cited more often, offered more jobs. In climate science, by contrast, debunkers invite an onslaught by the entire global warming juggernaut that can leave their academic reputation in ruins. Debunkers get branded as deniers. And as this Australian blogger points out, they get investigated by Desmog, Exxon Secrets, or Sourcewatch, websites dedicated to exposing any connection the researcher might have with the fossil fuel industry – no matter how old or tenuous.
So how could the problem be fixed? First and foremost, IPCC’s Working Groups 2 and 3, neither one of which has the slightest thing to do with science, ought to be disbanded. Group 2 speculates about the larger impact of global warming and Group 3 offers mitigation options to policy makers, all of which inevitably pushes the panel toward advocacy, something the IAC said it shouldn’t do. In their stead, Working Group 1 that deals with the scientific issues ought to be expanded to include departments dedicated to exploring the full range of possible explanations for the observed warming beyond human emissions such as natural variability or sun spot activity – all of which have become anathema to the global warming establishment.
The case for anthropogenic warming might indeed become airtight one day. But in order to get there, it has to withstand constant attempts at falsification. That’s what fundamental change would require. Anything less is purely cosmetic.
Global warming is real, and it's anthropogenic.
willful "sloppiness" is the Repugs justifying and executing wars.
Capitalist-tool Forbes is pro-business, aka, anti-climate, anti-human, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-employee.
This thread sounds su iously like the thread proclaiming "Another Death Blow to the Official 9-11 explanation".
"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago." -Keith Briffa (East Anglia emails)
Also, look into William Connolley, Wikipedia admin and AGW cultist who wrote some 5000+ entries about global warming and deleted some 500 articles he didn't like. He removed articles about the little ice age and the medieval warming period. Hide the decline.
That above article is pretty much just a load of but thats par for the course.
If it has received so many death blows one would think it would actually be dead by now.
Not with the ultra lucrative field of getting huge government grants! I know I'm studying meteorology in order to get rich off those grants!
If all else fails, there's always PhotoShop
It's in a coma, if not completely dead. Heard any Dems campaining on the issue lately?
Um exactly how does the political effectiveness of an issue directly relate to the science of an issue? What a stupid statement to make.
Death blow, sweet baby!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
