http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Hock-Soon.htmlBut newly released do ents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The do ents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Your comment is nothing but ad hominem. Self irony is amusing though.
Whoop-t-do.
How many billions have funded researches to support the AGW scare.
There are effectively two types of funding. Funding given because they agree with what a researcher is proposing, and funding to move an agenda.
I think yo are a complete fool to assume the latter without proper evidence.
The NYT was just quoted saying he was taking money from oil companies for what he testified to Congressional committees calling it a 'deliverable.'
You cry about a supposed global conspiracy and exclusion dubbing it 'pal review' whereas I have actual scientists with actual oilco ties interfering in the political process and submitting conflicted work under false pretenses.
And you trust the NY Slimes?
LOL...
That is besides the point, dip . They are part of AP's verification network and that article is over a year old. Critical thinking skills are hard.
You were peddling that all the national academies were part of your supposed conspiracy before.
I simply don't know what to say about your stupidity in just a few sentences. Not going to take my time to elaborate as it's plain as day for everyone to see anyway.That is besides the point, dip . They are part of AP's verification network and that article is over a year old. Critical thinking skills are hard.
You were peddling that all the national academies were part of your supposed conspiracy before.
Billions?
ROFL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienc..._United_States
Look at the pie chart.
That is for the US, one of the worlds richest countries.
Your conspiracy theory is ed pseudoscience, if you are going with "they are in it for the money".
Logical fallacies do not prove anything except that criticisms are invalid.
If the science is that conclusive then one should not have to resort to obviously flawed arguments.
"I don't need to wear seatbelts, because penguins would be cold.".
Non-sequiturs are not the way to determine the truth of something.
Second time:
Do companies that produce burnable hydrocarbons have a direct interest in denying that the use of their products is harmful, even if that is not true?
Interesting example of feedback loops.
Let's get back to science then. Out fo the realm of conspiracy theory.
While the current El Niño event is also becoming monstrously strong, it’s only now reaching its peak intensity, and there’s an approximately 4-month lag before changes in El Niño are reflected in global surface temperature changes. Thus, the El Niño of 1998 had a greater warming influence than its 2015 counterpart. 2015 was nevertheless more than 0.2°C hotter than 1998, due to human-caused global warming.
As the animated graphic below shows, there’s a consistent warming trend among El Niño years, La Niña years, and neutral years. Over the past 50 years, there’s a 0.16°C per decade trend among each category, and individual years fall close to those trend lines. That underlying human-caused global warming trend is what’s causing annual temperatures to so frequently break records, with 4 new record-hot years in the past decade.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Been a while since we had a good old-fashioned blog-off.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/2...odeling-claim/
The rebuttal.
Not overly convincing.
"[science.]"
Response: "[nuh-uh]"
Really?
LOL...
Shows the stupidity of the faithful.
It only takes one example to disprove a theory.
Now for a bit, I will call Exercises in Sophistry, part the first.
Going back to the OP, let's examine how the deniers use bad logic and arguments to get from a base of what should be honest skepticism, and go into active dishonest denial.
So let's start with the essay at this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/2...r-for-climate/
watts is a fairly good standard of "climate change skepticism" and posts a lot of stuff that is quoted here.
Let's give it a good shake out to see if the criticisms are valid.
"2015 Global Temp, Or How Some Scientists Deliberately Mistook Weather For Climate"
Right off the bat, you have what amounts to an ad hominem. "deliberately mistook", implying, without any evidence in the article that what the author takes as a mistake was "deliberate".
Moving on, let's get to the actual meat of the article.
Basically:Despite what some scientists have said the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it. 2015 was the year of the El Nino which boosted the year’s temperature. (In the Nasa press conference about the 2015 global temperature see how long it takes the presenters to mention the El Nino)
"Some scientists have claimed that the increase from 2014 was due to man-made global warming."
The problem here is that is not what "some scientists" are saying.
The author never really provided a link showing what "some scientists" said. Let's find out what "some scientists" said.
First, the scientists themselves:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Keeping digging...
We find some science news.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...d-heat-records
.74 degrees over average set in 2014.That’s well above the previous record of 0.74 degrees above average set in 2014 (SN Online: 1/16/15). The 0.16-degree difference between the two years is the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has ever been broken.
"as much as .15" of that was due to the El Nino.The current El Niño, among the strongest on record, contributed as much as 0.15 degrees to the new record, estimates Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
I couldn't find any one saying that the ONLY reason for the temperature increases was simply human-caused.
So basically:
"nature + man = record hot"
Misrepresenting someone's assertions and statements is dishonest.
The huge red flag is "some scientists", without a link to see for ourselves what "some scientists" were actually saying. Whether deliberate or accidental the omission should set you to be skeptical of the author. Deliberate means an active intent to lie, accidental means sloppy thinking. Neither of which will get you to good conclusions.
No, actually, that is incorrect.
Why can I claim that?
Verification is a key tenant of science. Nullius en verba.
tenet
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next,” said Prof Michael Mann at Penn State university in the US, who led the new study. “That makes it more challenging to accurately assess the likelihood of temperature records. Given the press interest, it seemed important to do this right, and address the interesting and worthwhile question of how unlikely it is that the recent run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance alone.”
15 Florida Mayors to Marco Rubio: We’re Going Under, Take Climate Change Seriously
Fifteen South Florida mayors released a letter Tuesday that was sent to Sen. Marco Rubiorequesting a meeting with the presidential candidate to talk about the climate change risk facing the state’s communities. The mayors underscore the economic burden of climate change in South Florida, urging Rubio to “acknowledge the reality and urgency of climate change and to address the crisis it presents our communities.”
“Anyone who thinks that the topic of climate change is a partisan issue is not focused on the reality which we as public officials and citizens are dealing with. This is a crisis that grows day by day,” Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado said, asking Rubio to “help us face and tackle this urgent issue—and the risks associated with it—so we may deal with it head-on.”
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/28/flori...0ab45-85879165
Rubio, etc listen ONLY to donors' $10Ms, not to a bunch of S. FL mayors. How naive.
You told me you disliked me because I'm 'a pompous ass' yet this speaks of something else. Most people that do this type of thing do it because they have their own issues. I'm just the lodestone.
Syracuse geophysicist questions stability of Antarctic ice sheet
A professor in Syracuse University's College of Arts and Sciences is joining the growing debate over the fate of the world's largest ice sheet, whose sudden melting is sending shockwaves throughout the geophysics community.
Robert Moucha, assistant professor of Earth sciences, is the co-author of a recent paper in Geology (Geological Society of America, 2015), examining the impact of the deep Earth on ice-sheet stability. Particular emphasis is on the retreat, or melting, of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, one of two massive ice sheets in the South Pole and the largest in the world.
Moucha and his colleagues contend that by studying other periods of global warming—namely, the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period (MPWP), which occurred approximately 3 million years ago, scientists can better understand the potential impact of today's warming trendings.
"While data analysis and ice-sheet modeling indicate that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted during the MPWP, concern over the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet continues," Moucha says. "The stability of a grounded, marine-based ice sheet depends on the elevation of the bedrock on which it rests."
"We found that regions with sub-glacial topography, such as the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, were at a lower elevation during the mid-Pliocene," Moucha says. "This had a profound effect on the retreat of the modeled ice-sheet grounding line [the point at which glaciers begin to float, instead of resting on bedrock], raising the global sea-level by a few more meters than would happen in a scenario involving present-day bedrock elevation."
These findings agree with geochemical analyses of offshore sediment cores, suggesting a more retreated ice sheet in the Wilkes Basin, but, until now, they have been difficult to show in ice-sheet simulations. "This implies that the ice sheet in the Wilkes Basin may be more stable today than during the MPWP because it rests on more bedrock," Moucha says.
Given the urgency of this kind of work, he anticipates more interdisciplinary collaborations between tectonicists and climatologists: "It's the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and exemplifies how different disciplines in the Earth sciences can come together to unravel the geological record, while providing a glimpse into the future."
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-syracus...rctic-ice.html
Au revoir, Florida.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016...d-of-ignoranceProctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.
Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.
Shockingly enough the fossil fuel industry took a page from the cigarette companies.
The internet makes it easy for useful idiots to take the propaganda from there.
Speaking of propaganda, check out this Loose Change style video
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
