I just loved the title...  ;D
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland
Lorne Gunter, Ful Comment

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.

Any minute now Muso of team Astroturf will ridicule name-call, deny, ignore and all those usual things he does because....  all the people mentioned and their arguments are irrelevant because they are NOT climate scientists..  ;D

Or are they?

That's so full of lies, half truths and contradictions that I don't know where to start.

The one by the good ol' boy Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C might be interesting to pull apart. When I have more time, I'll demonstrate the amazing slight of hand in that comment.

You must admit, they do a good job in churning this stuff out.

If I can show that a single part of that article is a tad on the nose, then the rest of it should be at least suspect of being extremely stinky.

The ironic thing about your remarks about astroturfing is that this article is an example of astroturfing par excellence.

- As for now, I have  work to do. Some bastard government has brought in new legislation, which means I have to be bored out of my skull for 3 days in Brisbane going through a formal training course, which will take me just as long to RPL, so it's easier just to attend, bite my lip and not complain.  >:(

Ta Daaaaaaaaaaaaa!

But you have to admit Muso it does have a great title.  ;D

I'll tell you what. I'll post an explanation (OK a proof in your terminology) of how we know conclusively that increases in greenhouse gases result in accelerated warming, and you can try to find any mistakes, Grendel. (haven't I done that already? - oh that was the time you had to be somewh

How does that sound? I'll start on that next week.

The title of the thread? Who cares? Everybody has seen the graphs, and they know that something is definitely on the nose about everything (well almost everything) you cut and paste here.

Next time you're in the shopping Centre, just be careful to pick the right escalator. You seem to have a problem telling up from down.   ;D

If greenhouse gasses release and increase 800 years after a warming period now would be that time and it would have no connection with recent manmade emissions.

How ya gonna explain that away?

You know...  other people can read graphs....  ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 4:39pm:

If greenhouse gasses release and increase 800 years after a warming period now would be that time and it would have no connection with recent manmade emissions. How ya gonna explain that away?

LOL Where did you find that little gem??  ;D

Ahem there's a little thing called the Earth's carbon balance and the unique isotope ratios of carbon from fossil fuels.

Grendel, if you read the most basic explanation of the Earth's carbon cycle, even one that's designed for schools, all should become immediately apparent.

You're not waffling about the Medieval Warming again are you?  ;D

Maybe I should start a thread on that and put it to bed, just like the petition of 32,000 Grendel clones.... I mean pseudoscientists. I guess they would have a Bachelor of Pseudoscience.

Lots of scientists you don't recognise have cited that gem.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 6:28pm:

Lots of scientists you don't recognise have cited that gem.

If it goes Duck duck then it's a quack. Well something like that. It reminds me of the case of Quacks in the 19th century.

Anti-quackery activists were accused of being part of a huge "conspiracy" to suppress "unconventional" and/or "natural" therapies, as well as those who promote them. It is alleged that this conspiracy is backed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry and the established medical care system - represented by the AMA, FDA, ADA, CDC, WHO, etc. - for the purpose of preserving their power and increasing their profits.

Substitute IPCC for AMA etc, and it starts to sound like something quite familiar.

Roll up, Roll up, come and get your snake oil.  ;D

Nice try...  typical...  but not in the least convincing.  :D


Quote:

‘Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” ‘On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years� ‘In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.’

Grendel, if you did not stalwartly refuse to even look at the refutations by real scientists, of this endless parade of misinformation, we may be able to make progress, but whilst you maintain the stance that any qualified climate scientist who agrees with global warming, and that is to all intent and purpose all of them, is a willing dupe of a secret cabal of evil grant enablers, then we will forever see you trotting out discredited misinformation as if you have discovered the holy grail of denialism.

You could engage with muso, who is far more knowledgeable than I, and go through the basics, step by step, and try and refute anything you feel is unjustified, but you refuse that offer.

That is plain old recalcitrance, and once more you align yourself with the extremist position.

Well you and the rest of the 2% sure can make a nuisance of yourselves for being such a numerically insignificant minority.

---

Read stuff from both sides mozz...  don't lie about me ok.

If you didn't ignore climate scientists who dissent from the AGW viewpoint we might make progress.  ;D

I have engaged with Muso...  so far he proves to be a hypocrite and a liar.  oh dear.  I have no time for people who just like to name call and ridicule, whose main argument is shooting messengers and ignoring other points of view.

I don't have an extremist position.  In fact my position isn't fixed I have an open mind on the subject unlike yourself and Muso the Astroturfer.  I am as yet unconvinced that manmade co2 emissions is the major climate driver.

In fact Mozz NO ONE has proven that yet.  A FACT you keep ignoring.

Ahhh the truth is a powerful thing.

Oh and BTW...


Quote:

Senator Fielding says despite what Chief Scientist Penny Sackett explained to him yesterday, he is still not satisfied that carbon emissions are driving up global temperatures. "When I put forward the question 'isn't it true that carbon emissions have been going up and global temperature hasn't?', they wanted to rephrase my question and not answer it," he told AM.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 8:58pm:

Nice try...  typical...  but not in the least convincing.  :D Quote: ‘Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” ‘On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years� ‘In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.’

Strawman. There was no huge input of CO2 during the periods cited.
The main driver then was fluctuations in Solar irradiance due to the Milankovich cycles.

However, it's true that there is a lag in temperature response. That basically means that the worst is yet to come.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:07am:

Oh and BTW... Quote: Senator Fielding says despite what Chief Scientist Penny Sackett explained to him yesterday, he is still not satisfied that carbon emissions are driving up global temperatures. "When I put forward the question 'isn't it true that carbon emissions have been going up and global temperature hasn't?', they wanted to rephrase my question and not answer it," he told AM.

They talked to him about Ocean temperatures! Why on earth would they do that? Typical reaction from the Department of Climate Change. I was totally underwhelmed by their ineptitude on my last visit to Canberra. One public servant did all the talking and the other nodded like one of these dogs in the back of a car. Now I hear that the one who did all the talking has got a job with industry, and we're left to deal with noddy.

Re Fielding - It sounds like they're getting some facts together for a second meeting.  ::) They should get Dr Karl Kruszelnicki to do the communicating. He's good at communicating with laymen without getting them confused.

Oh yeah of course...  the propaganda "machine" is what is important...  not the FACTS.

Besides reducing CO2 emission irrespectively of cooling / warming we just have to plant more plants, presumably trees as little plants like grasses do not produce more oxygen than CO2.

Best would be plants that can accept brackish water, as we supposedly have severe deficiency of drinking water.

While ago I read book about hot house (in cold climate during winter), that had to have CO2 producing device (fermenter) in order to provide plants with enough CO2 to grow, as hot house was not ventilated due to heat conservation.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:02am:

Oh yeah of course...  the propaganda "machine" is what is important...  not the FACTS.

Nah - it's more like saying to a dog

"Canine creature, I would be delighted if you will descend on to all four feet"

generally

"Down Fido!" works better.

Happy wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:42am:

Besides reducing CO2 emission irrespectively of cooling / warming we just have to plant more plants, presumably trees as little plants like grasses do not produce more oxygen than CO2. Best would be plants that can accept brackish water, as we supposedly have severe deficiency of drinking water.

Thanks for making an intelligent observation. It was getting like a desert in here. We need to get new crops that will adapt to changing climate - yes.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:46am:

Thanks for making an intelligent observation. It was getting like a desert in here. We need to get new crops that will adapt to changing climate - yes.

Thanks for nice comment.

Above all we should adopt our ways to “finite” everything.

We have finite surface available.

We have finite quantity of water (minus 7 m3 less every second lost to intergalactic space)

We have finite resources, apparently we will even run out of mineral necessary to produce LCD screens in about 15 years or less.

Pity that so vast resources have to be tied to military, that except for some discoveries are just lost effort to achieve nothing for the humanity.

As I've always said happy no matter what the outcome...  our number one asset is our ability to adapt and no matter what the climate we need to be prepared for it and adapt accordingly.

Crap Grendel. You post the same BS nearly every week. Every time you fail to post a graph of the actual temperature. That's because only a moron would look at the temperature trend and say it is going down. I thought you were now too embarassed to try the silly 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming' line. No such luck.

You being rude and lying about me fd.  how unusual for you.

Muso already posted the graph I've been talking about.

Go fetch!

One thing you got right I don't confuse daily temps with yearly av temps.  

No thanks Grendel. Your unwillingness to provide the evidence is more than sufficient to demonstrate your intent. I don't need to post the graph to show that 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming' is a fool's argument.

yawn... still an excellent chap i see...

^--- Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Tell me if there are more. I might get around to fixing them this century.

1709 was extremely cold year in Western Europe, coldest in 500 years or so.

Some wind measurements show that prevailing winds were from the west with only several days that wind was from the east(corrected error). Which is strange as usually cold snap is associated with wind from Siberia.

It started in early January then there was few days thaw and it came back with even lower temperatures to let go some time in April.

It is quoted that up to 1 million people perished directly due to cold temperatures and later because of starvation and disease.

Until now it is not known exactly what the cause was.

Due to limited observations we might never know for sure, but it shows that freakish phenomenon all of the sudden can cause quite devastation.

What we do know happy is that Fielding attended a conference sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and then came home sprouting that industries propaganda.
Only a fool would buy this, I see there a plenty about tho.

Quote:

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt disagrees with Senator Fielding's views, saying climate change was "a real phenomenon". "It is significant, and it is of concern," he told ABC Radio. However, everybody had the right, duty and obligation to examine the issue and make up their own mind, he said. "There is a danger ... that anybody who does what Steve Fielding does and considers their position, is attacked as some sort of heretic and that's not a good thing in a democracy."

Quote:

Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. “In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science.” Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: “A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist.” Think about that for a moment with respect to our government’s climate policy.

The questions posed by Fielding to Wong and her "specialist" were:


Quote:

* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming? * Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past? * Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making? As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister’s advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions. We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean. Que? What is it about “carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased” that the minister’s science advisers don’t understand? The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer. And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister’s advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate. These are not adequate responses. It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change’s green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that will be driven by the government’s ETS legislation. All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong’s advisers may yet provide.

I agree wit Mr Hunt, that people should be encouraged to express their views openly, but my issue with Senator Fielding's approach was the dishonest way he presented himself as being open minded and that he was not an already avowed GW skeptic.

He should have been upfront about his stance, and said, I am a skeptic, I am impressed by denialist arguments, now see if you can change my mind.

We have got to the unforunate position where the denialists have been so successful with their campaigns of promoting confusion, and their dissemination of misinformation, that we are now seeing an equally unreliable group who are promoting Global Warming alarmism using similiar techniques.

That we even need to see PR firms brought in, to push the Global Warming side of the debate, shows how successful the denialist have become, and does not inspire confidence that they will do anything but undermine the credibility that real scientists have struggled to maintain throughout this whole messy saga.

If a projected warming range is stated as being 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, then the PR folks will focus on the upper limit as if it is a given, when it is a worst case scenario, then they will leave out the Fahrenheit bit, and let people assume it is Celsius, and that type of deceptive ommission, to promote alarmism will just reinforce the denialists in their belief that the whole argument is wildly exaggerated.

I know it was the denialists whose successes inspired this kind of response, but it is not a worthy excuse to justify allowing PR bullartists to further confuse an issue already way too muddied with hype and hyperbole.

So the fossil fuel industry also have scientists on the payroll, no surprises there, anybody trying to prove a point will employ people who LOOK LIKE they know what they're talking about to try and convince simple people like Fielding and those in agreement with him.
The oil industry has been doing it for years, what I'm surprised about are the dips hits who buy it.

ROTFLMAO

I already explained this.


Quote:

I agree wit Mr Hunt, that people should be encouraged to express their views openly, but my issue with Senator Fielding's approach was the dishonest way he presented himself as being open minded and that he was not an already avowed GW skeptic.

The AGW camp equate scepticism with denial.  if you are a sceptic you are a denialist.  This is what Fielding is saying he is not.  The fact you people abuse the terminology is what the problem is.  

Quote:

skep·tic also scep·tic   (skěp'tĭk)   n.     1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Quote:

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism   (skěp'tĭ-sĭz'əm)   n.     1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.   2. Philosophy         1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.         2.  A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Fielding is wrong...  he is skeptical...  he is uncertain...  he is questioning in order to acquire greater knowledge and certainty.  But using your definition and bias...  he is right...  he is not a denialist.

wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 4:11pm:

So the fossil fuel industry also have scientists on the payroll, no surprises there, anybody trying to prove a point will employ people who LOOK LIKE they know what they're talking about to try and convince simple people like Fielding and those in agreement with him. The oil industry has been doing it for years, what I'm surprised about are the dips hits who buy it.

Not much of an argument. There is a huge vested interest in promoting AGW. The holy grail of researchers is to get funding. Most of this comes from governments and it's 'problems' that attract funding.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 12:09pm:

wrote on Jun 20th, 2009 at 4:11pm: So the fossil fuel industry also have scientists on the payroll, no surprises there, anybody trying to prove a point will employ people who LOOK LIKE they know what they're talking about to try and convince simple people like Fielding and those in agreement with him. The oil industry has been doing it for years, what I'm surprised about are the dips hits who buy it. Not much of an argument. There is a huge vested interest in promoting AGW. The holy grail of researchers is to get funding. Most of this comes from governments and it's 'problems' that attract funding.

I think you'll find the fossil fuel industry are the ones who have a huge vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Last time I checked 98% of transport used fossil fuels.As well as electricity supplies ect ect.

Grendel wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 11:48am:

ROTFLMAO I already explained this. Yes, and you were wrong then, and still are Quote: I agree wit Mr Hunt, that people should be encouraged to express their views openly, but my issue with Senator Fielding's approach was the dishonest way he presented himself as being open minded and that he was not an already avowed GW skeptic. The AGW camp equate scepticism with denial.  if you are a sceptic you are a denialist.  This is what Fielding is saying he is not.  The fact you people abuse the terminology is what the problem is.   [quote] skep·tic also scep·tic   (skěp'tĭk)   n.     1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Quote:

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism   (skěp'tĭ-sĭz'əm)   n.     1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.   2. Philosophy         1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.         2.  A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Fielding is wrong...  he is skeptical...  he is uncertain...  he is questioning in order to acquire greater knowledge and certainty.  But using your definition and bias...  he is right...  he is not a denialist.[/quote]
Unfortunately Fielding does not agree with you, in his thirty second sound byte, going into the meeting, he claimed two or three times, that "I am not a skeptic"

I do not believe him

I'm sorry...  you still seem to be having comprehension difficulties...  

Or did you just ignore what I actually wrote... as usual?

I'm back. I'll take a look at this twaddle that Fielding has been quoting tomorrow maybe. Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon - yeah that would be right. What kind of 'Climate Confusionalists' are they anyway? Answer - the best money can buy.

Richard Lindzen has also long been a spokesman for tobacco companies. He's a professional skeptic in the "Smoking is good for your health" brigade. I wonder how he sleeps at night.  

...............Come to the dark side.  

pjb05 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 12:09pm:

wrote on Jun 20th, 2009 at 4:11pm: So the fossil fuel industry also have scientists on the payroll, no surprises there, anybody trying to prove a point will employ people who LOOK LIKE they know what they're talking about to try and convince simple people like Fielding and those in agreement with him. The oil industry has been doing it for years, what I'm surprised about are the dips hits who buy it. Not much of an argument. There is a huge vested interest in promoting AGW. The holy grail of researchers is to get funding. Most of this comes from governments and it's 'problems' that attract funding.

There is a far greater vested interest in slowing down action on alternative energy, and I think you know that. Most of the driving force is small business these days. Big Oil and Big Coal don't seem to do too much of that nowadays - at least not publically.

muso wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 3:53pm:

I'm back. I'll take a look at this twaddle that Fielding has been quoting tomorrow maybe. Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon - yeah that would be right. What kind of 'Climate Confusionalists' are they anyway? Answer - the best money can buy. Richard Lindzen has also long been a spokesman for tobacco companies. He's a professional skeptic in the "Smoking is good for your health" brigade. I wonder how he sleeps at night.   ...............Come to the dark side.

Don't you make a living out of AGW Muso?

pjb05 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 3:58pm:

muso wrote on Jun 23rd, 2009 at 3:53pm: I'm back. I'll take a look at this twaddle that Fielding has been quoting tomorrow maybe. Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon - yeah that would be right. What kind of 'Climate Confusionalists' are they anyway? Answer - the best money can buy. Richard Lindzen has also long been a spokesman for tobacco companies. He's a professional skeptic in the "Smoking is good for your health" brigade. I wonder how he sleeps at night.   ...............Come to the dark side.   Don't you make a living out of AGW Muso?

Nope. I work for the big bad chemical industry. If anything, I should be muddying the waters.

In industry we need a clear idea of the future, so that we can adapt.

Are there any Douglas Adams fans still around? I liken the 'confusionalist' view to his 'Joo Janta 200 Super Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses'.

At the first hint of trouble they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.

Most of the confusionalists don't really want to know the truth (many of them know the truth already). They just want to muddy the waters as much as possible. That's why I have coined the term 'confusionalist', because it reflects their true agenda.