How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Does this strike you as convincing Walt? Many stock prices had been dropping, well before the stolen emails. The serious falls were actually well before the stolen emails, much the same as many stocks across the planet experienced.
Yeah...that must be due to the stolen emails...and Lord Oxburgh was picked by UEA why? How was the selection process influenced to pick Oxburgh?
Conspiracy theorists. You're swallowing material as tangential as the 9/11 twuther facts! :lol:
The lists that those scientists themselves signed...so if you don't want people to know what your views are, then don't sign your name to a document. By using lists they themselves signed, it removes bias from the methodology of that paper.
But then again, who cares about methodology...oh right, scientists do. Politicization is the specialty of naive fools like Corcoran.
But then again, who cares about methodology...oh right, scientists do. Politicization is the specialty of naive fools like Corcoran.
James W. Prall, a system administrator and tech support contact for all research computing at the Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Toronto. That’s his day job. When not doing that, Mr. Prall spends his free time developing and maintaining a list of some 2,100 climate scientists and ranking them according to whether or not they are climate deniers. Mr. Prall’s academic background is unclear, although his blog site informs he is a Virgo...
... So now, how do you create a blacklist? First you need a doctrine against which to draw the blackist of non-believers. In their paper, our pool crew first created a list of good scientists, those who “support the tenets of [anthropomorphic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Doesn't appear that anyone "signed-up" for the list, more like they were appointed.
You sign up for something every time you sign your name to a document. You are signing for your support of what the document entails. Nobody appointed them their opinions...
He ranks them by citation index, and he classifies them by the types of documents they have signed. Those who sign documents in the climate field are either supportive of the anthropogenic theory, or they are not.
The signatories in question attached their name(s) to a document and the principles within, whereas the individual that has compiled the denier list applied their own subjective interpretation and generated the list without the consent or individual authorization of the original signatories.
An interesting conundrum does exist however. One of the links from Walter provided an analysis of amazongate wherein a researcher states that the IPCC's position on the amazon was alarmist. The condundrum is that this individual is (generally speaking) a supporter of the IPCC ideology... One can't help but wonder where this person fits in relative to the denier list.
No, there is no subjective interpretation here. The claims of those lists are that they are unconvinced of the anthropogenic theory, which is exactly how the paper classified them.
The Leipzig declaration, states outright that there is no evidence at all. There's nothing subjective about saying those authors who signed that document are unconvinced of the anthropogenic clause, they said so themselves.
The Leipzig declaration, states outright that there is no evidence at all. There's nothing subjective about saying those authors who signed that document are unconvinced of the anthropogenic clause, they said so themselves.
No, not even close. He just compiles a list of climate scientists, and ranks them by citation index. He then categorizes them by the declarations their names are attached to.
Inhofe actually picked out specific scientists, and would like to charge them with crimes. He doesn't have any evidence, he just wants to see if they are breaking any laws...
One is a real blacklist. The other is more like a census.
More AGW propaganda debunked.
Lawrence Solomon: The Globe and Mail?s overheated rhetoric | Full Comment | National Post
Lawrence Solomon: The Globe and Mail?s overheated rhetoric | Full Comment | National Post
Unfortunately for Lawrence, he uses sea ice extent, when trying to debunk shrinking ice caps. Not the same thing. Ice caps are grounded ice, and the two major ice caps are on Greenland and Antarctica. How have they responded with time? The gravity recovery and climate experiment measures the ice mass, and this is what the satellite data looks like,
Greenland:
Antarctica:
Ice cap loss is accelerating. Sea ice around the Antarctic is a different matter. There is a strong polar vortex there which is very different from the Arctic, it doesn't allow the same magnitude of poleward heat transfer.
But I imagine most of Soloman's readers aren't aware of that sleight of hand.
Greenland:
Antarctica:
Ice cap loss is accelerating. Sea ice around the Antarctic is a different matter. There is a strong polar vortex there which is very different from the Arctic, it doesn't allow the same magnitude of poleward heat transfer.
But I imagine most of Soloman's readers aren't aware of that sleight of hand.
The AGW crowd eats this stuff up.
Tom Nelson: Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?
Tom Nelson: Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?