Ah so only people that disagree with AGW hypothesis should be allowed to voice their opinions in public? yay for free speech.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
:lol: Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poor durpy Pete. Hope you don't project on others around you in your home, in your community...8O
The sky is falling:
Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere
Apparently, the message has done a 180 degree turn.
I guess that some folk just can't accept that.
Uh oh...
Discovery Channel‘s ’Frozen Planet‘ Won’t Blame Man-Made Global Warming — And Enviros are Upset
Since mid-March, Americans with access to the Discovery Channel on Sunday evenings have perhaps been tuning in to the wildlife documentary “Frozen Planet.” The series finale was extended to end on Earth Day — Sunday, April 22 — with its final episode detailing the effects of climate change on the harsh yet fragile ecosystem of the Arctic.
According to environmentalists and some scientists though, there was something missing from last night’s episode “On Thin Ice.” That is, what is causing these effects.
On Friday, the New York Times reported the show was being criticized by some in these groups for being too accommodating and “afraid” of upsetting “dismissives,” or those who don’t consider global warming a man-made problem:
“Many organizations, and it sounds like Discovery is one of them, appear to be more afraid of being criticized by climate change ‘dismissives’ than they are willing to provide information about climate change to the large majority of Americans who want to know more about it,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
more
‘Frozen Planet’ Leaves Causes of Global Warming Out of Series | TheBlaze.com
Discovery Channel‘s ’Frozen Planet‘ Won’t Blame Man-Made Global Warming — And Enviros are Upset
Since mid-March, Americans with access to the Discovery Channel on Sunday evenings have perhaps been tuning in to the wildlife documentary “Frozen Planet.” The series finale was extended to end on Earth Day — Sunday, April 22 — with its final episode detailing the effects of climate change on the harsh yet fragile ecosystem of the Arctic.
According to environmentalists and some scientists though, there was something missing from last night’s episode “On Thin Ice.” That is, what is causing these effects.
On Friday, the New York Times reported the show was being criticized by some in these groups for being too accommodating and “afraid” of upsetting “dismissives,” or those who don’t consider global warming a man-made problem:
“Many organizations, and it sounds like Discovery is one of them, appear to be more afraid of being criticized by climate change ‘dismissives’ than they are willing to provide information about climate change to the large majority of Americans who want to know more about it,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
more
‘Frozen Planet’ Leaves Causes of Global Warming Out of Series | TheBlaze.com
Clang, clang, clang went the trolley....
Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online
Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online
He was alarmist, there's no question about that at all. That scenario he was pushing is highly unlikely. At least he now realizes it. Try to find any scientist actively researching climate who claims anything close to this:
Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
There may be such a quote out there from active researcher(s), but that view would certainly be in the minority.
That is partly right. At least a billion of us will die of old age before the century is over.
No, it wasn't partly right at all. Of course billions will die. But when he says the 'few remaining breeding pairs', he is not implying that people will simply die from old age. The implication was that climate change would leave us with a tiny portion of our current population.
Interpreting a quote out of context does not reflect on the truth of the selective quote at all, as that is not what he was saying.
Lovelock did indeed exaggerate in his first book. Whether that proves to be just an error of timing is, as yet, uncertain. Of course, since this is a Daily Mail story it is uncertain whether Lovelock is really retracting his belief (belief since he has done no research for decades).
Gore and Flannery also exaggerated a little in their early work of conveying a message, not of giving their research. But it was a little and, given the still uncertain knowledge of the times, not surprising that they were not 100% accurate. Evenets have shown them to have also been too conservative in some ways.
Everything discovered and published in peer reviewed research since, shows a trend to more rapid deterioration of the climate system than was thought likely a decade ago.
Gore and Flannery also exaggerated a little in their early work of conveying a message, not of giving their research. But it was a little and, given the still uncertain knowledge of the times, not surprising that they were not 100% accurate. Evenets have shown them to have also been too conservative in some ways.
Everything discovered and published in peer reviewed research since, shows a trend to more rapid deterioration of the climate system than was thought likely a decade ago.
Peer reviewed and everything, eh?
Forgive me if I don't find that terribly compelling
OK next time I will remember to use purple so you can figure out what is sarcasm.
Those who deny would not find peer review compelling. There is no contradictory research that is peer reviewed so it is not surprising that they would want to downplay the significance of the central tenet of scientific validity.
Tell ya what, how about you provide the research and I'll organize the peers. I'll wager that the research doesn't get the wholesale support that the AGW movement claims as their birthright