Climate scientists call out the cranks

Darla said:
As a liberal woman posting on the internet for about ten years, the idea that any liberal would have to phony up those emails is laughable.

You're just grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

Right... like I stated... it is not out of the realm of the two fringes to make the 'other' side look like nuts. There are nuts out there to be sure. We have our share on this site. Both left and right.
 
Superfreak said:
Right... like I stated... it is not out of the realm of the two fringes to make the 'other' side look like nuts. There are nuts out there to be sure. We have our share on this site. Both left and right.
Click to expand...

We have no left wing nuts on this site. I am trying to think of one, who? None that's who! The liberals here may not all be as "erudite" as I am, but nuts? nuh-uh.
 
Darla said:
We have no left wing nuts on this site. I am trying to think of one, who? None that's who! The liberals here may not all be as "erudite" as I am, but nuts? nuh-uh.
Click to expand...

You are simply too far to the left to notice how nutty they are.

Bfgrn, Signalmanken, Taichiliberal just to name a few....
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Did you read the original letter?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Click to expand...

Yes I did and the OP is right. It's like a Dentist advising on cardiology.

What I find particularly intellectually dishonest about the science deniers is that their antics to deny the hard, peer reviewed, science on this topic is just making them look like idiots.

If they just said "Well yes the data is very compelling that the Earth's temperature is indeed warming but we still don't know enough about the causal affects of this warming to implement effective government strategies that are workable and cost affective.". Then they would have some credibility.

Instead you have these people from outside the field with economic vested interest trying to undermine the credibilty of these scientist. Instead of undermining the science they're making themselves out to be a bunch of damned fools.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes I did and the OP is right. It's like a Dentist advising on cardiology.
Click to expand...

Yet again, the author and other fear mongering idiots keep citing the fact that the National Academies of Science have signed off on it, only to find out that the vast majority of them are staffed by scientists who ARE NOT CLIMATOLOGISTS.

What I find particularly intellectually dishonest about the science deniers is that their antics to deny the hard, peer reviewed, science on this topic is just making them look like idiots.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... except they don't. The ones ignoring peer reviewed science are the fear mongering AGW religious nuts. The data does NOT support their theory that MAN is the primary driver. But you ignore that. Which is why you and your buddy Cypress are not very good 'scientists' as you proclaim yourselves to be.

If they just said "Well yes the data is very compelling that the Earth's temperature is indeed warming but we still don't know enough about the causal affects of this warming to implement effective government strategies that are workable and cost affective.". Then they would have some credibility.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... say the same in reverse moron. If the fear mongers said, 'we think man MAY be a primary force causing warming, here is our data and our procedures, please duplicate them to see if we are correct', then THEY might have credibility. Instead, they tried hiding their data, they destroyed raw data, they run around shouting CONSENSUS! the DEBATE IS OVER. Which is why people liken them to religious fanatics.

Instead you have these people from outside the field with economic vested interest trying to undermine the credibilty of these scientist. Instead of undermining the science they're making themselves out to be a bunch of damned fools.
Click to expand...

Yet, they HAVE undermined the computer models. They have CLIMATOLOGISTS show that they are wrong. The AGW crowd has a bunch of parrots, many of whom DON'T have credentials in climatology, yet you parrots continue to champion them for supporting AGW. As for economic interests... the ENTIRE AGW crowd has an economic interest in THEIR position you fucking retard. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. But we should ignore that right?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes I did and the OP is right. It's like a Dentist advising on cardiology.

What I find particularly intellectually dishonest about the science deniers is that their antics to deny the hard, peer reviewed, science on this topic is just making them look like idiots.

If they just said "Well yes the data is very compelling that the Earth's temperature is indeed warming but we still don't know enough about the causal affects of this warming to implement effective government strategies that are workable and cost affective.". Then they would have some credibility.

Instead you have these people from outside the field with economic vested interest trying to undermine the credibilty of these scientist. Instead of undermining the science they're making themselves out to be a bunch of damned fools.
Click to expand...

I can't see many dentists here. It's fascinating to see Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronauthas attached his name to the letter.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I can't see many dentists here. It's fascinating to see Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronauthas attached his name to the letter.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Click to expand...

Just curious... but what exactly are the special scientific credentials a 'climatologist' must have? What extra scientific courses must they take to become a 'climatologist'? Obviously they differ from meteorologists in that the meteorologists focuses on short term patterns and climatologists on long term.
 
Superfreak said:
Just curious... but what exactly are the special scientific credentials a 'climatologist' must have? What extra scientific courses must they take to become a 'climatologist'? Obviously they differ from meteorologists in that the meteorologists focuses on short term patterns and climatologists on long term.
Click to expand...

It's a good question, I think that many of these climatologists are really glorified statisticians. I frankly can't understand why anyone who has a background of chemistry, meteorology, paleogeology, physics or astrophysics is considered to be precluded from the debate.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It's a good question, I think that many of these climatologists are really glorified statisticians. I frankly can't understand why anyone who has a background of chemistry, meteorology, paleogeology, physics or astrophysics is considered to be precluded from the debate.
Click to expand...

Because you are taking away the most educated scientific minds from the debate and thus those most likely to poke holes in the theory are disqualified by those that fear them.

I would think that climatologists ARE indeed statisticians, they would have to be. I would think/hope they either have biology, meteorology, chemistry, paleobiology backgrounds as well... otherwise, ALL they are is statisticians. yet our wonderful AGW fear mongers mock the statisticians too, because statisticians are not CLIMATOLOGISTS.

I am sure Mutt will be on here shortly to set us straight and tell us what differentiates these climatologists. Either him or Cypress, I mean Bfgrn. Surely one of these esteemed 'scientists' can set us straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top