Toasty!

[voice]

do you actually have anything approaching an opinion of your own, you post an endless stream of crap from various right wing conspiracy nut sites and supermarket tabloids, yet never have I seen anything that might even be generously considered an argument from you Rick, sure you throw a few pejoratives about but really not much else.

[rick49]

Feb 26, 2015 21:05:56 GMT voice said:

do you actually have anything approaching an opinion of your own, you post an endless stream of crap from various right wing conspiracy nut sites and supermarket tabloids, yet never have I seen anything that might even be generously considered an argument from you Rick, sure you throw a few pejoratives about but really not much else.

Moron.

[voice]

so that's a no then.

[flatandy]

Why shouldn't normal climate change scientists take oil cash, by the way? There's no implicit conflict of interest in the way there is with denialist science.

Also, what kind of crazy talk is “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas"? The point is science is to try and understand and explain and find what is predictable in the physical world. Sure, you're Copernicuses and your Einsteins attacked accepted dogmas. But 99.9% of scientists don't because it's not explicitly or implicitly the point of science. It's just that sometimes you end up conflicting with accepted dogma. Most of the time you don't.

[rick49]

Dear Representative Grijalva:

"Science and jurisprudence have in common the practice of the careful and critical evaluation of ideas, facts, assertions, and conclusions. The remarkable and time tested results apparent to all rely on guidelines for the practice of research, of argument, of evidence, and of integrity that are clear and clearly honored. It is in this spirit that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is strongly committed to academic freedom, open scientific debate, and free expression of scientific ideas (see, for example, the AMS Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression: www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012statement_freedom.html). The AMS is also deeply committed to transparency in science, the free availability of scientific data and academic research products, and full disclosure of funding sources and potential conflicts of interest (see, for example, the obligations of authors wishing to publish their results in AMS scientific journals: www.ametsoc.org/PUBSAuthorObligations)".

"Despite its commitment to transparency and full disclosure within the scientific process, the AMS is concerned by the “Letters to Seven Universities Asking for Documents on Climate Change Research” (http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate- change-research) posted on the Committee website on 24 February. Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers. Further, requesting copies of the researcher’s communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom."

"The AMS maintains that peer-review is the appropriate mechanism to assess the validity and quality of scientific research, regardless of the funding sources supporting that research as long as those funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest are fully disclosed. The scientific process that includes testing and validation of concepts and ideas — discarding those that cannot successfully withstand such testing — is chronicled in the peer- reviewed scientific literature. We encourage the Committee to rely on the full corpus of peer-reviewed literature on climate science as the most reliable source for knowledge and understanding that can be applied to the policy options before you."

Sincerely,

Dr. Keith L. Seitter

AMS Executive Director

www.ametsoc.org/

[rick49]

"There's no implicit conflict of interest in the way there is with denialist science."

Really? No conflict of interest in warmther science?

"Sure, you're Copernicuses and your Einsteins attacked accepted dogmas."

And they would be strung up by their thumbs if they did it in our "enlightened" 21st century.

[lala]

The Willie Soon story is actually ongoing; it it broke in 2011. So it isn't new news that he was getting this funding. But he is continuing to publish papers and failing to declare this funding as a potential conflict of interest. It's news now because he just published a 'paper' (Chris Monckton is a co-author, so I'm putting it in inverted commas).

[rick49]

Representative Grijalva and his witch hunt - 'Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Climate Skeptic?'

Senator Joe McCarthy and his witch hunt - " Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"

Same tactics.

"Faux outrage over Willie Soon’s disclosure? Joe Romm failed to disclose his political financial ties in a scientific paper"

tinyurl.com/ofw5duv

What are the chances of Grijalva launching an investigation of warmther Romm? I say zero. Thats because Romm regurgitates The Narrative. So he's safe.

[rick49]

Here we go again.

"The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth"

tinyurl.com/nzaashc

Memory lane.

2014: Watch: "WUSA 9 DC TV station on Antarctic melt fears features images of DC monuments underwater. ‘It’s our choice how fast the seas rise’ – We control sea level rise? Watch Now: Local DC News Schlock Report on Antarctica & Sea Level Rise"

1990 "Flashback January 11, 1990: NBC’s Today Show features Paul Ehrlich warning of impacts of Antarctic ice melt: 'You Could Tie Your Boat to the Washington Monument' "

1979 NYT: “Boats could be launched from the bottom of the steps of the Capitol’ in DC –‘Experts Tell How Antarctic’s Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods "

1922 'Mountain after mountain of [Antarctic] ice will fall into the sea, be swept northwards by the currents, and melt, thus bringing about, but at a much more rapid rate, the threatened inundation of the land by the rising of the sea to its ancient level.'

1901 ‘London On The Border of Destruction’: ‘To Be Wiped Out By A Huge Wave’ - Queanbeyan Age – August 10, 1901

Excerpt: ‘Geologists believe that this great ice sucker has reached the stage of perfection when it (Antarctica) will, break up again, letting loose all the waters of its auction over the two hemispheres, and completely flooding the low-lying lands of Europe, Asia, and North America.'

tinyurl.com/p326kdh

[lala]

The Ehrlich comment is hardly hysterical. In full:

"There is an even greater threat that scientists can only speculate about. As global temperatures rise, they may cause the massive West Antarctic ice sheet to slip more rapidly. Then we'll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable. For Today, Paul Ehrlich in Washington, DC, on the future shoreline of Chesapeake Bay."

It is clearly indicated as being at the speculative end of the range of possible scenarios.

[Deleted]

But likely, nevertheless. Especially as it's all happened before. Water levels rising, that is. May even be in our lifetime.

[jimboky]

[lala]

Feb 28, 2015 8:45:52 GMT rick49 said:

"Faux outrage over Willie Soon’s disclosure? Joe Romm failed to disclose his political financial ties in a scientific paper"

tinyurl.com/ofw5duv

What are the chances of Grijalva launching an investigation of warmther Romm? I say zero. Thats because Romm regurgitates The Narrative. So he's safe.

The paper cited, the damning evidence of Warmer malfeasance ... turns out to be a group proposal to honour a respected retired expert.

www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-g-koomey-phd/climate-academic-probed-by-congress-falsely-charges-colleagues-with-conflict-of-interest_b_6779532.html

So, on the one hand, we'v got got what looks like a scientist paid over years to provide studies to order for the fossil fuel industry - who funded him and then retained the right to edit and block his owrk if they didn't like it - and a no-fee, no-profit, everything-done-for-love effort to come up with a new unit of measurement to commemorate one of the greats in a scientific field.

And we're expected to regard these cases as "parallel"?

Is that the best the Denier squealbots could come up with?

[Deleted]

Glacier stuff...

[rick49]

A few days ago, Dr. obama said man-made co2/global warming caused his daughter to have an asthma attack at the circus when she was 4 years old. She has a peanut allergy,,,and where are people surrounded by peanuts? A circus! But never mind that. Dr. obama said it was caused by global warming. The science is settled and the debate is over.

"An allergy-triggered asthma attack feels like breathing through meat."

tinyurl.com/kq6d6y6

Or perhaps it was her old man's Marlboro addiction that caused the attack?

"Research funded by the National Institutes of Health has shown that smoking outside doesn't totally protect children from secondhand smoke. Even when smoking is done outside, nicotine in infants' hair is five times higher for babies with outside smoking parents than non-smoking parents. Smoking-related chemicals in infants' urine is seven times higher. Other studies have found similar results."

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "tobacco smoke is one of the most common asthma triggers," and "if you have asthma, it's important that you avoid exposure to secondhand smoke."

And:

"Yet the EPA also reports that our air quality has substantially improved; aggregate emissions of common pollutants have decreased 62% between 1980 and 2013. It is unlikely that cleaner air is causing the increase in asthma."

tinyurl.com/oolz6mr

[rick49]

It's tornado season in the U.S. For hundreds, if not thousands, of years springtime has meant the start of the tornado season. Yesterday a tornado formed in the state of Illinois. Warmthers quickly blamed man-made co2 for it.

"Fossil-Fueled Tornado Hits Northern Illinois"

#poisonedweather #climatechanged www.weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornado-severe-threat-chicago-illinois-missouri-indiana-ohio-april-9-2015 …

Five hundred years ago people blamed bad weather events on human sin,,,God was punishing us. Nothing has changed since then. Nothing. Warmthers believe every individual weather event is caused by humans. But instead of using religion, warmthers hide behind a thin veneer of "science."


"According to 1990 IPCC Report, warming since 1990 is still within natural variability"

"The activist-IPCC of today conveniently discarded these goalposts, and unjustifiably claims (without any statistical basis) 95% confidence that "most" global warming since 1950 is man-made."

tinyurl.com/q9a2kml

When all else fails, just move the goalposts. Sooo easy.

[rick49]

"Flashback 1970: Earth Day Prof. Predicted A Super Ice Age Would Engulf The World"


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt told an audience at Swarthmore College on April 19, 1970 around the time of the first Earth Day demonstrations.

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000,” Watt declared. “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

tinyurl.com/lwsw2k7


"Greens extend estimated point of no return – by 25 years!"

tinyurl.com/ltt9fqd

[reverend]

Apr 24, 2015 13:29:48 GMT rick49 said:

"Flashback 1970: Earth Day Prof. Predicted A Super Ice Age Would Engulf The World"


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt told an audience at Swarthmore College on April 19, 1970 around the time of the first Earth Day demonstrations.

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000,” Watt declared. “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

tinyurl.com/lwsw2k7


"Greens extend estimated point of no return – by 25 years!"

tinyurl.com/ltt9fqd

Doom mungery really doesn't help the cause of those trying to put forward a rational and reasoned argument!

[jimboky]

according to the Chicken little crowd during my lifetime the earth was predicted to freeze, flood, burn,., none of this has happened, yet these people still like to predict , guess they are counting on no one remembering the many times they have been wrong, and they have yet to be right once

[flatandy]

You need to stop looking at the doom-mongers and start looking at the actual science.

Which is pretty clear cut.

The ice-age dude was fairly clearly a fringe bloke in 1970. If you think that's the same as pretty much every physical scientist on the planet talking about anthropogenic greenhouse warming now, you fairly clearly are suffering from bad confirmation bias. (The same as the Greens picking absolutely every earth-doom hypothesis and running with it, which is why they thought we'd flood and drought, freeze and heat, why there's a silent spring every year in countries that used DDT, etc...)