Take a read of this article from David Bellamy in the Times today. Apparently "the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase."
Interesting, how about "A recent survey of Klaus-Martin Schulte, of Kings College Hospital, of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only 7 per cent explicitly endorsed a “so-called consensus” position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. What is more, James Lovelock, the author and green guru, has changed his mind: he recently stated that neither Earth nor the human race is doomed."
Surely if this was true then the BBC would report it? As Jeremy Paxman would say "Yeeeeeees,"
Here's another interesting fact "in 1817, while still in the grip of the Little Ice Age, the Royal Society was so worried that 2,000 square leagues of sea ice around Greenland had disappeared within two years, and massive flooding was taking place in Germany, that its president wrote to the Admiralty advising of the necessity of an expedition to find out what was the source of this new heat."
Man Made Climate Change has become the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists and has so "detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers."
Vilification of the opposing opinion about science smacks of the Inquisition to me.
"Scientific understanding... is advanced by robust, reasoned argument based on well-researched data...The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age. Our end was nigh! Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune. Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe."
Who’s on Question Time Tonight? #BBCQT
2 hours ago
2 comments:
Well, actually, Schulte was a serious and incompetent plagiarist whose own letter proved he knew little about climate science. Then his unpublished article was even rejected by the poorly-regarded journal it was submitted to, normally a haven for such things.
All of this was publicly well-documented 6 weeks ago. See:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/09/ah_another_day_in_denialism_la.phpforthe whole tale OR
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php
wherein Schulte's plagiarism/incompetence are *proved*.
That didn't stop Schulte: he kept on harassing Oreskes a while longer, which is unbelievably foolish, especially since his plagiarized letter was published on the *same* website as the Monckton piece from which it wa copied.
Bellamy couldn't have done even the *slightest* check before repeating this silly story. Does that enhance his credibility?
If you're in the UK, I hope you're happy paying for Schulte: NHS endocrinologist Schulte wrote his reply on NHS e-stationary, which seems like official business.
If people have surgical problems, do they consult a climate scientist? So, if there are climate issues, why do people suddenly take on faith an endocrinologist's opinions on them, without checking whether he has even the slightest expertise or publications in this area? [He doesn't.]
Finally, Bellamy repeated 12-13 common, standard, long-refuted skeptical claims. If you go back to the Bellamy article, and look at postings, I've listed a website that explains these in detail, i.e., it has a standard list of 47 common arguments, and I list the ones Bellamy used. There's a standard list because they get repeated again and again, no matter how far away from scientific reality.
And finally, I end up with an interesting quote from George Bush, who certainly thought CO2 was a real problem, and was generally a friend of real science ... but that was 1989.
Oh dear you "believers" really don't like people to disagree or challenge your "beliefs" do you. As David Bellamy said "Man Made Climate Change has become the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists and has so "detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers."
Vilification of the opposing opinion about science smacks of the Inquisition to me and to others.
I would rather listen to the views of a trained scienticist than those of someone who "scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major... switched majors and found a passion for government and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university's law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree" That's the educational history of the great Man Made Climate Change guru - Al Gore.
Post a Comment