|
Posted on 11/13/2010 7:55:35 AM PST by Bullpine
November’s Scientific American features a profile of Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Judith Curry, who has committed the mortal sin of reaching out to other scientists who hypothesize that global warming isn’t the disaster it’s been cracked up to be. I have personal experience with this, as she invited me to give a research seminar in Tech’s prestigious School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in 2008. My lecture summarizing the reasons for doubting the apocalyptic synthesis of climate change was well-received by an overflow crowd.
Written by Michael Lemonick, who hails from the shrill blog Climate Central, the article isn’t devoid of the usual swipes, calling her a “heretic,, which is hardly at all true. She’s simply another hardworking scientist who lets the data take her wherever it must, even if that leads her to question some of our more alarmist colleagues.
But, as a make-up call for calling attention to Curry, Scientific American has run a poll of its readers on climate change. Remember that SciAm has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years, publishing a particularly vicious series of attacks on Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist. The magazine also featured NASA’s James Hansen and his outlandish claims on sea-level rise. Hansen has stated, under oath in a deposition, that a twenty foot rise is quite possible within the next 89 years; oddly, he has failed to note that in 1988 he predicted that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would go permanently under water in twenty years.
SciAm probably expected a lot of people would agree with the key statement in their poll that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “an effective group of government representatives and other experts.”
Hardly. As of this morning, only 16% of the 6655 respondents agreed. 84%—that is not a typo—described the IPCC as “a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”
The poll also asks “What should we do about climate change?” 69% say “nothing, we are powerless to stop it.” When asked about policy options, an astonishingly low 7% support cap-and-trade, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, and cost approximately two dozen congressmen their seats.
The real killer is question “What is causing climate change?” For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
And finally, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” 80% of the respondents said “nothing.”
Remember that this comes from what is hardly a random sample. Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center. This poll demonstrates that virtually everyone now acknowledges that the UN has corrupted climate science, that climate change is impossible to stop, and that futile attempts like cap-and-trade do nothing but waste money and burn political capital, things that Cato’s scholars have been saying for years.
Ya don’t say
Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center.
That is pretty damning stuff, I must say.
“prone to groupthink” This is the problem. The group is more important than the idividual....to these people. If they can grow the group to the point they over whelm the individuals, they will win.
Scientific American is now run by “new scientists” who write the conclusions and then go make up some data to support same, while demanding increased funding.
Well heck!
Now, we will continue to have varying summers and winters, separated by milder springs and autumns.
[Mother Nature is laughing, and so am I.]
Too bad their editorial staff isn't as smart as their readers.
Editorially, SA just doesn't cut the mustard.
I’m a little surprised they published the results of the poll.
You see the same thing in technical journals. My opinion is that folks who love to write in popular press just tend to be liberals. It’s kind of a genetic thing.
You see the same thing in technical journals. My opinion is that folks who love to write in popular press just tend to be liberals. It’s kind of a genetic thing.
BS, AGW has not been even remotely proven. The total contribution of human generated CO2 is miniscule and countered by human activity that generates extra particulate matter in the atmoshpere which blocks sunlight from coming in. AGW is a carefully constructed fantasy which apparently is extremely difficult to give up, like a lonely little girl and her imaginary friend.
Ping
|
So 69% of these leftists say we are powerless to stop global warming, only 7% of these leftists support cap-and-trade, 78% claim global warming is from “natural processes” and finally 80% of the leftists said they would pay nothing to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change.
The left doesn't seem to buy that people are causing global warming.
For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
BS, AGW has not been even remotely proven. The total contribution of human generated CO2 is miniscule and countered by human activity that generates extra particulate matter in the atmoshpere which blocks sunlight from coming in. AGW is a carefully constructed fantasy which apparently is extremely difficult to give up, like a lonely little girl and her imaginary friend.
****************
Besides the positive polling results, THIS ^^^ is what immediately caught my attention: they are still pushing the unproven claim that CO2 contributes to [formerly] “globull warming” - [currently] “climate change”, and further, the unproven claim, that man made CO2 contributes in any meaningful way to overall C02.
As long as this claim is used as a foundation, they will continue to push their humanity-controlling, green agenda, sustainability, money scam in some way, shape or form.
They NEED to claim that man has a direct role in the cause of so-called climate change in order for their green agenda to hold any water at all.
B.S., unless someone can show me proof of same to within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
There will be night and early-morning low clouds and fog along the coast; otherwise, hazy sunshine. 