The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 5th, 2017 at 03:35 pm
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson is one of many science folks now on the evil denialist team:
Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.”
Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007.
Hmm. My recanting may have been premature. In other warmy news:
Madonna is to release a new song she has written for Live Earth.
The singer has penned ‘Hey You’ with super-producer Pharrell Williams …
Interesting title. Shouldn’t the song be called Hey Me? Justin Madden could perform backing vocals.
- CO2 belching bags? Oooh, is it some wierd new novelty item from PACO Industries? Made by slaves in China? Yep, sounds like…Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 05 18 at 11:35 AM • permalink
- Here’s the ignorant David Suzuki, I think, opining that the Hummer weighs about a ton, or considerably less than a Prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE2O9CtuU5o&feature=dir
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 05 18 at 01:13 PM • permalink
- Bondo, steaming pile.
Great leaps of logic are made to support the possibility that AGHGs are definitely the cause of atmospheric accumulations. Something we just don’t know.
Lots of holes in their logic.
Assumption that GHG have not been higher in half a million years based on smoothed, unclear, limited, and uncertain data that ignores fluctuations.
This stuff is all old hat. Recycled propaganda.
Debunked criticism of solar and cosmic ray influences. Working off unrelated data sets to debunk correlations. Unknowns of GHG strengthen concern over GHG, but unknowns and inability to accurately measure other factors are cause for dismissal.
It is a horrible hack piece. The writers should be ashamed (or proud, depending on their goals).
- Cloud formation due to cosmic rays has been shown empirically both in the lab and based on satellite observations. Slight increases in solar output increase the magnetic field. These slight fluctuations (I think around 1% changes) cause 15% changes in the amount of cosmic rays that hit the earth. This in turn causes a 1-1.5% change in global cloud cover, despite the fact that the high frequency cosmic rays that affect clouds are largely unaffected by changes in the magnetic field/solar output.
- Hmmmm. Yesterday a report released that says trees in Canada are *adding* to global warming and it’d be cooler if they were cut down the the remaining snow cover could reflect more heat?
As for ‘New Scientist’, when are they going to get honest and rename themselves ‘New AGW Apologist?’
The totally mischaracterize the Hockey Stick controversy, especially given that even the IPCC reports won’t touch it now. By the way, have the authors *ever* gagged up the data and methodology? After all, repeatability is one of the bases of science.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 05 18 at 02:18 PM • permalink
- #4 unconvincing. Here’s the latest leftoid/green propaganda strategy:
write an article that admits to all the uncertainties, then give it a title that suggests it is debunking one side or the other.
Take for example, the article entitled “Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming “
The article at first says that sulphate aerosols are to blame. But here’s the last paragraph:The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance. Then there is the question of how all the different aerosols affect clouds. Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.
So the title trumpets myth-busting, while the text itself admits to uncertainty on this issue.
What a slick tactic. I could make the same point about many of their other ‘myth busting’ articles. The ice core article, for example, just says “we don’t know” about six different ways.Posted by daddy dave on 2007 05 18 at 02:38 PM • permalink
- 10. Yesterday a report released that says trees in Canada are *adding* to global warming .
Then it’s time to do our bit! Shares in Progressive Arboreal Clearance Operations, Inc., will be listed on the Banff Stock Exchange starting next week. The shares – printed on paper made from prime Canadian pulp – feature an engraving of a mountie riding a moose on a sunlit glacier, against a background of an infinitude of tree stumps. Buy now. SAVE THE PLANET.
- Sheesh. The basis for the whole “man-made [anthrpogenic] global warming” seems, to this non-scientist, to be –
1. temperatures where we live [note, in cities – aka heat sinks] have risen since 1940
2. we have increased our output of CO2 since 1940
3. we [scientists] know [er, believe] the two are no coincidence
4. we [scientists?] will listen to no other explanations.OK, how about I turn on the stove in my place and less than a block away and at the same time a building bursts into flames. Obviously my fault, right?
Maybe, but don’t ask me to warm my food by rubbing it between my palms without a LOT more, and better, proof.
Posted by John Anderson on 2007 05 18 at 04:15 PM • permalink
- Heh. The NS stuff gets funnier and funnier as I read.
I love how AGW nuts love to cite work in opposition to them as support (I love their idea of a “very tiny effect”.)
(see comments on GW at JQs for more amusing cites—I love the cite of Stott’s regional climate study (completely unrelated to GHGs) as support for AGW)
I constantly hear the words “I don’t think that means what you think it means.”
- #2 Shouldn’t it bePosted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 05 18 at 06:19 PM • permalink
- #11 They’ll be resorting to the precautionary principal soon.
Imagine the shift in position from The Sky is falling, buy an umbrella! to “Just in case the sky falls, consider an umbrella.”
Perhaps we’ll see: Sky is normal. Buy a parachute!
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 05 18 at 06:33 PM • permalink
- #14 Darn, Paco, how can you fit so many Canadian attributes into a single sentance.Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 05 18 at 06:35 PM • permalink
- #16 Aaron , I used to like the NS but I have told them I will not buy another copy ‘til they drop the enviro religion.Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 05 18 at 06:38 PM • permalink
- #17 That should be:
#2 Shouldn’t it be
Hey, Hey, You You
Get of of my cloud
Don’t burn that light cos carbon’s bad
Oh so bad baby.Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 05 18 at 06:41 PM • permalink
- Hmmm, sounds like we will have to get the Scientific Consensus Team to pay him a visit.Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 05 18 at 07:19 PM • permalink
- recently took up the kind offer of a contributor to this site to mail me a copy of the great globall warming swindle.
Haven’t received it yet, but last night a friend turned up at my place with a box of about 50 of them. He was on a milk run, distributing them all over Brisbane.
The underground is working very well. By the time whichever of the networks has the rights to it gets around to screening it half the population will have seen it.
It’s like being in an episode of allo allo.
- Speaking of Canada, here’s a poor Canuck high school student who’s had to watch Gore’s propaganda piece documentary in four different classes. To paraphrase Frank Zappa: “It’s gotta be true!”Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2007 05 20 at 08:22 PM • permalink
- Conan has a little fun with Canada.
Canadian with no sense of humor responds to a earlier but unavailable on youtube, bit.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
