Posted on 02/19/2012 8:59:22 AM PST by reaganaut1
Receiving an email with a statement like “You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.
Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography, among other disciplines—have begun to fight back. “I think the community is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose work has largely focused on identifying the human influence on global climate, and who once answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at physicstoday.org ...
“The feeling is mutual.”
Inga: “Mmmmmmmmm....the feeling is moochal!”.
Conservative talk show host Phil Valentine’s recently released movie, An Inconsistent Truth, can’t be helping. It is the rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie. Here it is on IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1806777/
Of course there is global warming.
From where I type the Laurentide ice sheet was a mile thick - must have been all those Native American campires in the south 10,000 years ago that ended the last ice age.
"We've decided that climate change is real, and by Gaia, no amount of fact-laden rhetoric is going to convince us otherwise," said Dr. O. Sean Plummet, head of the Ministry of Propaganda for the Society of Environmental Marxist Redistributionist Fearmongers.
I appreciate in the linked article, Gavin Schmidt bemoans there is not a (penalty) price on the use of carbon based fuels. One might likewise notice there is no penalty price placed upon the climate doom advocates for their suggested costly prescriptions to avert “doom.” I could offer a compromise.
Climate doom advocates should construct a falsification scenario by which certain observations would be able to invalidate the current AGW postulate. Being clever and modern scientists, they could agree on the conditions under which AGW could no longer survive as a valid theory. Further, to reintroduce the power of “costs” which so interests Gavin Schmidt, these same climate doom advocates should agree that upon the occurrence of the falsification scenario, all of the earnings amassed by AGW proponents, including those estates of former advocates, should be forfeited to public use to remediate against the unnecessary excessive costs that these same scientists have heaped upon civilizations. They further agree to having their scientific credentials stripped and will never again work in any science capacity or in any capacity of any government or government funded institution.
If Gavin wants a price to be paid for damaging actions, Gavin should have his price.
I can’t believe the tone of that article. Talk about political ideology. I’m surprised it was published. What’s next, a resurgence in Lysenkoism?
Sierra snowpack study instantly attacked because it undermines AGW claims
The AGW “cause” is seriously harming the credibility of scientists in general.
When I read anything that includes “scientists say ...” I immediately put my skeptic’s hat on these days.
This piece, in a supposedly credible science journal using loaded terms like
“climate change deniers”,
unsupported statements like
“Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening, although details of how it will play out are uncertain. “,
and then having the unmitigated gall to quote Michael “Hockey Stick/Hide the decline” Mann without any reference to legitimate questions as to his credibility regarding the very subject of the article is unbelievable.
“Scientists” had better recognize the harm the AGW movement is doing to their general reputation and return to the true scientific method if the creditability of “scientists” is to be restored.
Ask this question: Does a rise in temperature cause a subsequent rise in CO2, or do rises in CO2 cause a rise in temperature? The answer is that the rises in temperature cause more CO2. How much CO2 comes from the volcanic activity on the bottom of the oceans? What device do you use to measure CO2 emissions coming from the ocean? Without this data, then I have to say that it is pretty hard to say that man is cuasing any rise in temperature and subsequently CO2, or politically motivated “global warming” and now morphed into “climate change”.
it is pretty hard to say that man is cuasing any rise in temperature and subsequently CO2, or politically motivated “global warming"...
A better statement of the facts is "man has caused a rise in CO2 well beyond that expected from natural warming; that rise in CO2 may or may not cause a rise in temperature based on feedbacks (pos or neg) which are poorly understood"
Not sure why he needs a defense fund. Why doesn't he just use his super powers?
source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/supermandia-and-the-most-supersilly-climategate-rebuttal-ever/
That is true and there are many poseurs in the climate skeptic camp who have done that. When they are not sending out hate mail they are sending ad homs to anybody who disputes their version of physics that “proves” that the greenhouse gas effect is an illusion.
Why are you using the ideal gas equation to discuss solubility of gas in a liquid?
And what are your units on the 280 and 290?
Perhaps filling in a couple of the missing steps would be helpful.
A better statement of the facts is "man has caused a rise in CO2 well beyond that expected from natural warming; that rise in CO2 may or may not cause a rise in temperature based on feedbacks (pos or neg) which are poorly understood"
An even better statement is that "there are quite possibly a large number of competing equilibria beyond the few we are cherry-picking for our sensationalist rhetoric; but we insist on starting a search for climate heretics in order to squelch even the appearance of dissent, the better to secure our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred dishonor."
Cheers! Cheers!
He’ll need those tall boots to keep wading through the Team’s BS.
For seawater the partial pressure of CO2 doubles for every 16K in temperature increase (because wikipedia says so). That means a 6.4K increase in ocean temperature to get the increase we have seen. But we have seen only 1K or a bit more since the end of the Little Ice Age, so the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not from ocean warming but from something else (tree clearing, fossil fuel burning, etc)
Cheers!
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.