Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=208...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
more of those oil industry hacks - The Front Row Forum :: Rugby League
The usual agw hype used to shout down dissenters is that they
1.
Dont exist
2. are not qualified
3.
Are oil industry paid hacks
Dr.
Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous hockey stick graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr.
David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says its hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.
Prof.
Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says no major scientist with any long record in this field accepts Al Gores claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof.
Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies used for global warming forecasts.
Dr.
Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Societys Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.
Dr.
Antonino Zichichi--one of the worlds foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models incoherent and invalid.
Dr.
Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N.
based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.
Prof.
Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says most leading geologists know the U.N.s views of Earth processes are implausible.
Dr.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the 1,000 Most Cited Scientists, says much Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.
Dr.
Claude Allegre--member, U.S.
National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming.
His view now: The cause of this climate change is unknown.
Dr.
Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists are trumpeting catastrophes that couldnt happen even if the models were right.
Dr.
Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Stations Astrometria project says the common view that mans industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.
Dr.
Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time preposterous .
. . alarmist and incompetent.
Dr.
Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Suns state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
Prof.
Freeman Dyson--one of the worlds most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are full of fudge factors and do not begin to describe the real world.
Dr.
Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Suns behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
http://astore.amazon.com/global_warm...600080-7374228
|
|
|
Wow
Big Oil's payroll will rival Wal-Mart's soon...
|
|
|
Interesting not an alarmist in sight.
|
|
Yeah, really interesting that a list of skeptics wouldn't have a believer on it.
Great comprehension skills there Surely.
I'm over this debate, as I'm sure everyone else is.
I don't think it is going to change anyone's opinion, as many new threads you make millersnose.
|
|
I'll take the bait.
Those are mostly selective Quote: s to promote a book, namely "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon.
He is a journalist, not a science writer, and didn't even interview most of the people he has Quote: d.
He is clearly out to make a buck and good on him.
Controversy sells.
The problem is that calling that list of people "deniers" is a big stretch.
As for "dissenters" Millers, I haven't found one of them that disagrees that the Earth is warming or that human activity, namely in the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, isn't at least partly responsible.
To address the list itself though, I've just looked at the first half dozen:
Quote: : Dr.
Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the Quote: : NationalAcademy of Sciences--demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
His 2006 testimony stated that there had been temperature increases of 1.2 degrees C since 1850.
He admits that he doesn’t have a position on global warming apart from noting the above increase.
He is a statistician and was tasked with commenting on the narrow centring of Mann’s so called “hockey stick” paper.
He has no background or expertise in atmospheric science/climate, wasn’t aware that there is a whole field of research in statistical climatology and couldn’t even answer basic questions about climate science during the hearings.
Mann’s research has been independently corroborated and have held up over nearly a decade of research.
Dr David Ritson, an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Stanford noted a number of problems with Wegman’s approach and analysis and requested further information from Wegman to clarify matters.
See here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf To date, no reply has been forthcoming and Wegman has disappeared off the radar, no doubt with his tail between his legs.
Quote: : Dr.
David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Quote: : Antarctica right now.” Yes, he did say that, but that’s cherry picking one sentence.
He also said that the circumpolar westerlies that effectively isolate Antarctica have strengthen by 10-20 percent over the last four decades and that this could lead to cooling over the Antarctic interior.
He also noted that the size of the ozone ‘hole’ would have an impact.
He also said, “In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,” he said.
“The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic.”
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
“It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world.
These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations,” he said.
Quote: : Prof.
Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Reiter is listed as a member of the AnnapolisCenter for Science Based Public Policy, the International Policy Network, Cooler Heads Coalition and Tech Central Science Foundation.
All are listed recipients of oil industry monies and that’s generally enough said.
But to address Reiter’s claims, Gore does mention mosquito-borne diseases but he uses the qualifier “may”.
The IPCC reports highlight temperature rise as one of the factors responsible for a global resurgence of malaria, the others being socio-economic and policy changes, levels of immunity and changes in rainfall and humidity patterns.
A UK Select Committee on Economic Affairs noted that Reiter’s evidence was unconvincing and he appeared quite selective in the references and reports that he criticised, focusing on those that were neither very recent or reflective of the current state of knowledge on the subject.
From some of the references I’ve read on this guy, he seems to have an almost pathological hatred of Al Gore (see this one for example: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...GW_malaria.pdf)
Quote: : Prof.
Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
This is the guy that Richard Lindzen said was sacked from this position because of his questioning of global warming.
I understand that he actually retired and it’s interesting that Tennekes himself has made no such claim.
Tennekes was a credible scientist in his day and wrote a book on turbulence that is highly regarded in scientific circles.
His qualifications are actually in engineering and his gripe is that turbulence wasn’t adequately taken into account in the climate models.
This is a fact that has been acknowledged and partly explains the so-called errant cooling in the Antarctic.
Current models take a greater account of turbulence but it appears that Tennekes still bases his comments on outdated thinking.
To nitpick, his Quote: d comments actually mentioned turbulence and the addition of ‘used for global warming forecasts’ is incorrect.
As an aside, Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer and his comments were using the engineer’s standard of certainty in model forecasts, namely around 99.99 per cent, ie.
When building an aircraft wing, you want to be 99.99 per cent sure (or better) that it isn’t going to fall off.
Climate is a chaotic system and such a standard of certainty is unrealistic.
He has acknowledged that the Earth’s climate is warming but his concerns are the level of contribution attributed to human activity and the accuracy of climate models given that the older models didn’t take turbulence into account.
Quote: : Dr.
Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
True.
There are no known scientific studies that show a “conclusive” physical link between the two.
Given that we only have less than 30 years of reliable satellite data on Category 4 & 5 cyclones, it is not possible to establish trends.
Landsea has said so himself (http://www.esi-topics.com/tropical/interviews/ChrisLandsea.html) and his view is that hurricanes in the North Atlantic (he makes no claim about elsewhere) follow cycles associated with the North Atlantic circulation and that hurricane activity in that part of the world has increased over the last 15-20 years, but that it is not possible to determine what is due to the cycles of activity and what may be due to global warming.
Other scientists in the field, and this is globally a very small field, namely Knutson, Wenster, Emmanuel and Caldiera, have disagreed with Landsea’s views.
For the record, Landsea hasn’t disputed that anthropogenic global warming is real and has also said “We agree the potential is there for hurricanes to get worse due to man-made global warming, but the big issue is by how much” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4751577.stm).
He has also said, “we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/science_10-18.html).
A denier, no.
Quote: : Dr.
Antonino Zichichi--one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
Dr Zichichi has made his career out of controversy and the Quote: d comment was as part of a Vatican Study Seminar on “Climate Change and Development” where his full comment was that the models used by the IPCC are invalid and incoherent from a scientific point of view”.
Since we only have one Earth, we can’t have the normal experiment and control processes that are the standards in his field of specialisation, namely nuclear physics.
He has said that the human contribution to global warming is less than 10 percent, but has expressed that view off the cuff without quoting any research or conducting any of his own.
He continues to peddle the disproven view that cosmic rays are the cause of the current warming, but ironically enough is one of the founding members (and a current member) of the World Federation of Scientists which identifies climate change as one of its 15 Planetary Emergencies.
More than one of his "deniers" have some complaints on the way their views and comments have been misrepresented.
A couple off the cuff are Nigel Weiss (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/) and Nir Shaviv (http://www.sciencebits.com/NoInterview).
It essentially is a shoddy piece of work that I think is designed to catch the public eye and turn a quick buck.
I'll leave it at that.
Overall, compelling stuff Millers.
|
|
|
Bravo.
|
|
|
Jeez millers you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy nut every day!
Good to see
|
|
|
|