Posted on 11/13/2010 7:55:35 AM PST by Bullpine
Novembers 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 isnt the disaster its been cracked up to be. I have personal experience with this, as she invited me to give a research seminar in Techs 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 isnt devoid of the usual swipes, calling her a heretic,, which is hardly at all true. Shes 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 Denmarks Bjorn Lomborgs Skeptical Environmentalist. The magazine also featured NASAs 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 typodescribed 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 Catos scholars have been saying for years.
This fruitcake is a hack and is still searching for a clue about science.
Why does he still have a job, at NASA, of all places, is a bigger mystery than the main cause of global warming.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-shocking-truth-the-scientific-american-poll-on-climate-change/
does not work for me.
That he is a part of an organization now more interested in "Muslim outreach" than space exploration is not a mystery to me at all.
You have to let them come around on their own, which takes time. You can push gently, but too hard, too soon, and they are likely to have some sort of psychotic break.
(Liberals, that is, little girls can handle it.)
Looks like the AGW SC(ientific) AM(erican) is over.
“The forecast for tonight is dark. Followed by widely scattered light in the morning.” George Carlin’s Hippy Dippy Weatherman skit on his first albumn.
Other than that, most everything else is what some would call an educated guess.
As part of the scientific veracity of 'Scientific America,' they declared the Wright brothers invention of the flying plane was fictitious three years after the Wright bothers invention actually flew.
Well I must have slept through that war or was out for coffee when it happened. Also apparently someone lost the USSR! I can't find it on a map anymore.
All that proves that the term political science is any oxymoron!
Very nice but I’ll bet the numbers would have been higher a few years ago when the economy was better. When the economy stinks and your college grad student is living at home and delivering pizza because he can’t get any better.... This tends to sharpen your mind and makes you want to have nothing to do with paying higher energy prices to make some eco-extremest happy
I think you misunderstood the figure.
That percentage is the number of people whose opinion is that human activity plays a role. NOT the percentage of the warming caused by human activity.
It is the report of a vote; can't be BS.
I do agree that it is BS that humans activity contribute a significant amount that would warrant the panic and and the waste of wealth in trying to eliminate it. It is barely measureable.
In the interest of accuracy, that's not Hansen; it was his boss, who might be muslim : Charles Bolden, ordered to do so by Obama.
They weren’t alone. It took quite a while for the Wright Brothers to prove to the world what they had done. I had an old paperback of their story that was quite the read. Their first trip to Europe to prove their ability to fly is one of the most thrilling reads in American or World History.
In the interest of accuracy, that's not Hansen; it was his boss, who might be muslim : Charles Bolden, ordered to do so by Obama.
Edison had the same problem with the phonograph, many thought he was a ventriloquist....LOL!
In the interest of accuracy, I didn’t say Hansen is responsible for the diversion of NASA’s mission. He just works there, on another diversion of NASA’s mission.
Publius seems to be in the business of straightening everybody out today, whether they need it or not.
Danged climate keeps changing here in Iowa. Snowed last night. Real folks call it “weather.”
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.