08-21-2012, 11:04 AM
And at the end of the 1st....Ody 12, TNO 1. Time to invoke the 10 run rule so TNO doesn't look like more of a fool.Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
Liberalism is what the stupid think is smart.
08-22-2012, 05:11 PM
Also, I don't think conversions of crackpots should count. I don't have time to go through the whole EPW list of converts but I'm two names into it and already there is a problem...
According to a search of Google Scholar, Wiskel has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on any subject.
Some of his other publications include:
•The Emperor's New Climate – Debunking the Myths of Global Warming (2006).
•The Sky Is Not Falling – Putting Climate Change on Trial (November, 2009).
Wiskel operates a blog titled “The Emperor's New Climate” where he publishes his skeptical views about man-made climate change.
Last edited by The Night Owl; 08-22-2012 at 05:31 PM.Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
08-22-2012, 05:20 PM
Hmmm, what is the expiration date of a fact? How long is the life of a truth, are the laws of physics also subject to a deadline?
Stay tuned while the owl stacks manure ever higher.Pffffffffffffffffffffff! Buh Bye Big Ears
08-23-2012, 12:56 AM
A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I’ve been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: “And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science without the political spin.”
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can also exploit their agenda for profit.
Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so shamelessly.
Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn’t taint the massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist claims was unfairly suppressed?
Until all this is known, it’s not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is cleaned up, it doesn’t deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted practitioners.
Still too far in the distant past for you? How about two weeks ago?
Dr David M. W. Evans is a mathematician and engineer who consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. He says he changed from being a warmist to a sceptic after ''evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006''.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opin...#ixzz24KzSXfiU
The date on that article is August 2, 2012. Anything more timely than that would have to be in the future, and I leave the phony prognostication to the warmists.
Physicist Muller’s Big-Time Conversion: Was It News … or Just Slick P.R.?
Bud Ward August 16, 2012
‘BEST’ is the acronym physicist Richard Muller has given to his widely publicized research efforts on surface temperatures. But his and protagonist Anthony Watts’ latest campaigns seem more of the ‘best’ of public relations than of the best of science. And what about science journalism?
It was B I G N E W S. Among the climate-centric, pretty much of the “Stop-the-Presses” variety.
Or, perhaps, it was not news at all. Just some slick public relations in the guise, and with a big boost from the op-ed page of the nation’s “newspaper of record.”
“Climate Skeptic Flips: Issue is Real.” That faux-headline pretty much sums-up the “big news” take.
So, if that's the treatment that the warmist scientific community is giving him when he comes out on their side, perhaps you might want to recheck your source.
08-23-2012, 03:22 PM
I posted the NY Times article by Richard A. Muller because he is a prominent and published scientist who has done work in the field of climate change. That is the bar.
Now, I'll move on to your second example of a convert if you agree to strike this Fikes character from the list. Deal?Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
08-23-2012, 04:35 PM
As for the remainder, is it still your contention that the list from 2007 is too old to be valid? And do you intend to discuss the Yale response to Muller's opportunistic activities? While we're on the subject, it turns out that Muller wasn't actually a climate skeptic.
Note the quotation marks on that last word. The very next day, junkscience.com posted a quick blurb about his op-ed with a link to this rather unflattering page about the esteemed scientist. In fact, the gist of that last reference is that Richard Muller was never a true AGW skeptic; and they are right. The main reason that Richard Muller was seen as such an AGW-denial bugaboo was this 2004 article where he showed what he felt were problems with the "hockey stick" graph that seemed to describe AGW. But in that same article wherein he attacked the controversial graph, he also said:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend (It could happen). If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling. A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.So junkscience.com is right: Richard Muller was never a true AGW skeptic. But they go beyond that point by claiming that he is a "Climate Profiteer" profiting on AGW alarmism. Of course, this is much like calling Home Depot and Lowe's disaster profiteers because they warn people to be prepared for disasters while at the same time selling just what those same people need to prepare for (or repair) damage from disasters.
In other words, the NY Times is claiming that Muller was a climate skeptic in order to present his "conversion" as "proof" that the rest of us should follow suit. The times reporter who wrote this is a lying sack, at least to those of us who care about things like honest reporting, but among warmistas, it's just another in a string of lies in support of your agenda, i.e., business as usual.
Last edited by Odysseus; 08-23-2012 at 05:44 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|