How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Notice how the sun line is thinner than the others and is not as sharp. This is a sloppy psych poster, crayonish.
beav, beav... as deep as you are, this is nothing more than a "crayonish widget"! And here I thought you might chew on the temp-CO2 correlation!
Look, first you get the heat then you get the CO2. NAUSIA has the undoctered graphs. You don't subscribe to the right agencys.
because a google indoor scarfer says so and those that want to be in the relevant club with the popular kids clap away. :lol:
In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”
While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.
more
Google goes off the climate change deep end | Watts Up With That?
In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”
While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.
more
Google goes off the climate change deep end | Watts Up With That?
I expect in the sequence of posts, your post is targeted towards me; in that regard:
please member petros - my request is intended to help bring a semblance of, IMHO, increased respectful order to the board. I trust you would agree that the use of blatant insults and inflammatory language is not conducive to a well functioning forum. Thanks for your consideration in this regard.
I completely agree on Schmidt with this one, and good for him for speaking up. It doesn't escape most people that the alliance against global warming is mostly made up by very strong right-wingers,m whereas the alliance in support of AGW is made up of most scientists. It's pretty obvious the opposition is primarily ideological. Right wingers don't like the proposed policy remedies to climate change because it includes a lot of UN/world governance stuff. That's anathema to libertarians, neo-cons and teabaggers.
That said, I can't say I'm too crazy about any global solution given the endemic corruption of the UN. Or the naive and ultimately horrific proposals put forth by the "let's give up oil and frolic in the meadow" Gaians.
Doesn't mean there's no global warming though.
and just "who/what" are legitimate examples of persons/groups putting forward such "proposals"... and what actual credence, if any, do they have in this regard? Of course, legitimate proposals recognize fossil-fuels will be a part of the mix, but propose a diminishing reliance on fossil-fuels within that mix... perhaps you're speaking more to respective proposal's "aggressiveness" in reducing that reliance???
There is a large part of the reason to deny AGW. The people pushing the scam have other interests than lowering the temperature. If they had stuck with a simple message of pick up your sh it instead of lying about the extent of the problem and insisting on complete destruction of our economy things would be very different.
you're incapable of recognizing a distinction between the science and presumed purveyors of "self-interest"?
a constant theme in your posts is one of a presumed "economy wrecking"... in this latest case you speak of "complete destruction of our economy". You also liberally throw around the term 'Alarmist', yet you appear not to see your own contradiction. I asked you to provide examples of 'economy wreaking' policy/proposal put forward by legitimate sources... the best you could do is provide me a 'go fetch to the Fraser Institute'. Recently in a CC thread, a simple narrow example like the B.C. carbon tax was discussed to a somewhat extended level, yet you chose to simply ignore all manner of positive review of that initiative. At some point you'll need to actually bring forward real case examples of your concern...
You got any proof that it won't destroy our economy?
The only positive reviews of the BC carbon scam have been from the left as usual.
you'll need to first define what "it" is... it seems most of those objecting to "something", rarely, if ever, actually state definitively, absolutely, precisely..... just what it is they're so objecting to!
from that thread discussing the BC carbon tax, I recall a few critical statements about the initiative; however, as I recall, it seems no one offering those negative critical statements/summations actually bothered to provide accompanying supporting substantiation.
NOAAgate: how 'ocean acidification' could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann's Hockey Stick - Breitbart
JunkScience.com @JunkScience
Perpetually wrong gloom-and-doomer @PaulREhrlich now forecasting end of California almonds — quick by almonds!
JunkScience.com @JunkScience Perpetually wrong gloom-and-doomer @PaulREhrlich now forecasting end of California almonds — quick by almonds!
Breitbart!!! :mrgreen: Locutus, you must think you have a real winner here... this is at least the 3rd time you've posted on this particular item now. Just because you pick a different denier blog/shyte-house rag each time, does that give you the latitude to... simply repeat the same schlock?
in any case, I'll follow your lead and repeat my same reply here:
the related article/paper as published within the journal 'Oceanography'... inclusive of detailed chemistry and a related (data sourced) table of "average concentrations of carbon system parameters and temperature-and-salinity values for surface waters of the major ocean basins based on the global ocean data analysis project data set."
this 'event' has certainly reached the upper echelon of denier hype! What's lost in any denier articles is the, in my understanding, the reason the targeted data begins around 1990 is that it coincides with the availability of more reliable data based on alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at pH... that the 'ocean community' began to rely less upon the older dated 'pH bulb meters' and moved to rely upon other more reliable methods to determine ocean pH.
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
It’s possible that much or all of this post-1988 data was not recorded using glass electrode pH meters. As my earlier posts document, the ocean science community has moved away from glass electrodes starting about 1989, although other parts of the water scientific community and other industries continue to use glass electrode pH meters for all ranges of ionic strengths.
of course, none of the articles I perused across the typical denier blogs have Wallace including this little ditty in his article - go figure!I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!