Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #1
    Mercenary floder2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    yea
    Posts
    2,704
    Rep Power
    143

    Climate Change

    NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’





    Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
    I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.

    Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).

    You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.

    So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.

    The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.

    This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.

    As Paul Driessen explains:

    Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.

    Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.

    Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.

    Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.

    I spoke to Soon last night. He told me that of course he receives private funding for his research: he has to because it’s his only way of making ends meet, especially since the Alarmist establishment launched its vendetta against him when, from 2009 onwards, he became more outspoken in his critiques of global warming theory.

    Harvard-Smithsonian strove to make his life harder and harder, first by banning him from working on anything even remotely connected with issues like climate change or CO2, then by moving his office away from the astrophysics department to a remote area Soon calls Siberia. What the faculty couldn’t quite do was actually sack Soon because it had no cause: he was producing too many quality papers, and he was also bringing in too much money (40 per cent of which goes straight into the faculty coffers).

    So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.

    What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

    The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.

    by James Delingpole
    Last edited by floder2; 03-24-2018 at 03:00 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator at Work ilan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Celestial Fields
    Posts
    8,641
    Rep Power
    293
    Right wing tripe! Contrary to the last line, "The warmists are losing their argument," they have won their argument with the help of 99% of the scientists in the world. It is only in the US, and confined to the dimly lit bulbs in the right wing, that this is even debated.

    -----------------------------
    In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award.

    Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.

    “The question here is really: ‘What did API, ExxonMobil, Southern Company and Charles Koch see in Willie Soon? What did they get for $1m-plus,” said Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace researcher who filed the original freedom of information requests. Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, of which Davies is the founder, shared the documents with news organisations.

    “Did they simply hope he was on to research that would disprove the consensus? Or was it too enticing to be able to basically buy the nameplate Harvard-Smithsonian?”

    From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence.

    The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company.

    In 2012, Soon told Southern Company its grants had supported publications on polar bears, temperature changes in the Arctic and China, and rainfall patterns in the Indian monsoon.

    ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.

    Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

    Harvard said Soon operated outside of the university – even though he carries a Harvard ID and uses a Harvard email address.

    “Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said.

    "There is no record of Soon having applied for or having been granted funds that were or are administered by the University. Soon is not an employee of Harvard.”

    Both Harvard and the Smithsonian acknowledge that the climate is changing because of rising levels of greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human activities.
    Last edited by ilan; 03-24-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    Beginner's Guide for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/showthread.php?2...-you-should-do

    Kodi Options for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php?71-Kodi

    Check the Announcement Section...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php...-Announcements

  3. #3
    Mercenary floder2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    yea
    Posts
    2,704
    Rep Power
    143
    '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong ....in other words very disingenuous

    Alex Epstein , Contributor
    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

    The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

    Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

    1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

    Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

    Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

    What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

    It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

    If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

    Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

    Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

    color 4 panel3Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

    Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

    On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

    This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

    John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

    And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

    In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

    Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

    But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

    Which brings us to the next question:

    2. How do we know the 97% agree?

    To elaborate, how was that proven?

    Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

    Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

    One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

    Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

    This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

    But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

    Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

    The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

    “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

    —Dr. Richard Tol

    “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

    —Dr. Craig Idso

    “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

    —Dr. Nir Shaviv

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

    —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

    Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

    It’s time to revoke that license.

    Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

  4. #4
    Moderator at Work ilan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Celestial Fields
    Posts
    8,641
    Rep Power
    293
    It is hard to debate the issue when there is so much misinformation out there, deliberately trying to mislead people. Most of it comes from non-scientists, like the author of that piece,

    Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. (When you chase down the 4 scientists -- out of the thousands who conduct climate research -- that he uses to make it sound like they don't agree with the global warming consensus, it couldn't be further from the truth. For example, the first scientist he mentions, Dr. Richard Tol states, "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”)

    Moreover, Willie Soon (from the first article) is not even a climate scientist.

    The reality is this...

    The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
    British Antarctic Survey
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    Federation of American Scientists
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of London
    International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Royal Meteorological Society
    Royal Society of the UK

    The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

    13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academie des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (USA)

    A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

    The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

    African Academy of Sciences
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Sudan Academy of Sciences

    Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

    Australian Academy of Science
    Royal Society of New Zealand
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Last edited by ilan; 03-24-2018 at 06:07 PM.
    Beginner's Guide for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/showthread.php?2...-you-should-do

    Kodi Options for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php?71-Kodi

    Check the Announcement Section...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php...-Announcements

  5. #5
    Mercenary floder2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    yea
    Posts
    2,704
    Rep Power
    143
    "global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities"

    Well the Alarmist's funded by people like the Marxist's like George Soros , Greenpeace, and Union of Concerned Scientists.and yes Soros is a Marxist...yet because he is so rich he would of course be one of the Elite to control mankind.........Plus no one can put a percentage on Human activity attributing to Global Warming unless they rig their Climate computer models ......................................

  6. #6
    Ambassador
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    310
    Rep Power
    28
    Flooder, fighting this battle is futile as you have pointed out well. The lefties just repeat what they "heard or read" and that makes it truth. Luckily Soros is 87 so he does not have long to be around but his puppets will of course.

  7. #7
    Moderator at Work ilan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Celestial Fields
    Posts
    8,641
    Rep Power
    293

    Beginner's Guide for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/showthread.php?2...-you-should-do

    Kodi Options for Rocket, NFPS and IKS66...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php?71-Kodi

    Check the Announcement Section...
    http://iptvtalk.net/forumdisplay.php...-Announcements

  8. #8
    HD stands for Harley Davidson 4wheelin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    yes i do
    Posts
    4,225
    Rep Power
    133
    hard to take in global warming here when it is still -25 and 4 feet of ice on lakes,thank god spring is here.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •