Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The truth about global warming

    Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom

      Aug 16, 2019
      ...

      Independent Institute

      37.4K subscribers

      Is global warming real? Have any such predictions been established scientifically? Would massive “carbon” taxes and other controls put America and the world—especially the poor—at great risk?

      At this special event, geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate. He explains why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong—and why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change, not CO2 emissions. Stanford University physicist Elliott Bloom then comments.

      “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.” —Freeman J. Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study; Templeton Prize Laureate

      “I am writing to express my deep admiration and respect for Dr. Willie Soon, a fine astrophysicist and human being.... As Willie has shown in many ways, observational facts do not fit the CO2 dogma, and an enormous amount of evidence points to the Sun as a much more important driver of climate.... Willie was right—whatever the cause of changing temperature, the main driver cannot be the concentration of atmospheric CO2.” —William Happer, Chairman, Presidential Committee on Climate Security; Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University; Member, National Academy of Sciences

      ...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Hopefully they start with their own emissions and cease exhaling CO2
        ONly possible if they are silicon based LIFE FORMS.
        If so:
        they can safely excrete organic carbon compounds, provided it is not poisonous.
        good French wine, for example...

        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Most so-called "climate scientists" are collect government checks, usually via a college or university or government agency and often chasing some form of grant$ and like most guv'mint workers I've known over the last few decades, they are more concerned with continuing their paychecks, benefits, and jobs than ever running out of ways to "cry wolf", and also advance their anti-capitalist and anti-West social reform agenda.

          BTW, only so many job slots available for "climate scientists" and I'd wager those that could do something else that pays better are out there doing it.

          :
          Interesting that there is some major concerns about the scam the climate scientists are running but not the other way round:

          To wit:

          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom
          Willie Soon:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
          From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work
          The wikipedia article goes into even more detail about Soon's funding and the reviews his research is undergoing due to this funding which he failed to disclose.

          Patrick Michaels:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
          On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[35] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[36]

          Michaels said on CNN that 40 percent of his funding came from the oil industry.[37] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[38]

          A 2005 article published by the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.[9]
          If the argument is that the financial interests of "climate scientists" supporting GW makes their views suspect, would it not be fair that the views of opponents like Soon and Michaels also see the same suspicion of bias thrown on them to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy?

          What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?




          Comment


          • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

            Interesting that there is some major concerns about the scam the climate scientists are running but not the other way round:

            To wit:



            Willie Soon:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon


            The wikipedia article goes into even more detail about Soon's funding and the reviews his research is undergoing due to this funding which he failed to disclose.

            Patrick Michaels:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels


            If the argument is that the financial interests of "climate scientists" supporting GW makes their views suspect, would it not be fair that the views of opponents like Soon and Michaels also see the same suspicion of bias thrown on them to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy?

            What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?



            OMG! G David Bock quoted against- g david bock?
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

              Interesting that there is some major concerns about the scam the climate scientists are running but not the other way round:

              To wit:



              Willie Soon:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon


              The wikipedia article goes into even more detail about Soon's funding and the reviews his research is undergoing due to this funding which he failed to disclose.

              Patrick Michaels:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels


              If the argument is that the financial interests of "climate scientists" supporting GW makes their views suspect, would it not be fair that the views of opponents like Soon and Michaels also see the same suspicion of bias thrown on them to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy?

              What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?



              Sometimes.

              Were you to look closer, my main position isn't so much their "views" as their data exclusions and manipulations for an "a priori " agenda. FWIW, there is very little funding from public/guv'mint sources looking to refute the ACC/AGW agenda.

              Any one with objective mind will find if they view Soon's segment in the above link that he presents data in fuller format and content that sheds light on the stilted, exclusions, and cherry-picked versions from the pro-ACC/AGW crowd.

              As many have mentioned here in other threads, wikipedia is seldom an objective or non-biased source on certain issues/topics.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                Hopefully they start with their own emissions and cease exhaling CO2
                Further To my prev quote, humans become net carbon sinks when they use earth closets for , ahhh, 'stuff' and plant trees over them later.

                Plus the matrix says we make great batteries....
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

                  If the argument is that the financial interests of "climate scientists" supporting GW makes their views suspect, would it not be fair that the views of opponents like Soon and Michaels also see the same suspicion of bias thrown on them to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy?

                  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
                  Add to that the fact that the Independent Institute includes Fred Singer as a research fellow. Singer is notorious in science circles for his participation in science denial. He was involved in the denial campaigns against government regulation of tobacco, acid rain, CFCs and now climate change.

                  It might not be possible to find a more biased, more compromised source of information.

                  Comment


                  • It is very easy to find more biased,more compromised sources of information : the Club of Rome, the imbecile who said that the young generation would no longer see snow,...
                    That Singer, Michaels,Soon are receiving money from the fossil fuel lobby is no problem ,as this funding is the RESULT of their positions,and that their positions are not caused by the funding .
                    I don't think that anyone expects that the coal industry would fund Hillary Clinton .
                    Greta Thunberg is also funded ,thus ,...
                    And Singer was right in opposing the government regulation of tobacco for adults, as the government has no business with the health of adults .The government is not the master of our life.

                    Comment


                    • Climate Change is Pushing Giant Ocean Currents Poleward

                      Comment


                      • Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

                        Comment


                        • Uncharted territory: Carbon dioxide expected to peak at levels last seen during Pliocene Epoch

                          Comment


                          • The FTC wants to cut one of the coal industry’s last lifelines

                            Comment


                            • EDF plans vast hydrogen production at UK nuclear plants

                              Comment


                              • That works for me. The hydrogen fuel cell and liquid hydrogen will be the death of the battery car.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X