Comments on: If Only Oil Spills Would Evaporate Like Climategate

By: Slide2112

Slide2112 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:28:47 +0000

Not all physicist like Sean want to believe politics before science.

“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson

By: Maxxed

Maxxed — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:43:21 +0000

What the author fails to explain is that these liars and their institutions were “cleared of wringdoing” by investigations populated by their own staffs.

By: sHx

sHx — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:02:21 +0000

@21

toasterhead, ha ha! I am pretty error prone myself with spelling and grammar but if you look carefully you’ll find that those particular mistakes were made by WWF, the World Wrestling Federation. Wrestlers tend to be thin on their science.

By: toasterhead

toasterhead — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:39:23 +0000

18. sHx Says:
June 28th, 2010 at 1:48 am

1. The IPPC references to a WWF report…
2. THEREFORE, the IPPC is relying on a source…
5. THUS, the IPPC relies on…
6. But that is what the IPPC does say…

The IPPC is the Initiative for Pediatric Palliative Care, which has little if anything to do with climate science. Perhaps you were meaning to refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which goes by the acronym IPCC. This is quite a glaring error that you failed to correct on four occasions.

As an obvious proponent of science denier logic, I’m sure you’ll agree that since this small detail of your argument is incorrect, the entirety of your argument has thus been rendered invalid. This ruling applies to all of your prior and future postings on this and other forums, as they have all been invalidated by this grievous error.

By: Jack D. Ripper

Jack D. Ripper — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:37:17 +0000

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:44:13 +0000

Historical narratives always have an element of fiction about them because no matter how scrupulous their creators, they radically simplify events. Mr. Brannen’s version of the 20th Century, however, amounts to the script of an hallucination.

By: sHx

sHx — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:48:00 +0000

@8. ecocampaigner Says:
June 26th, 2010 at 9:15 am
“The scandal was that this paper was attacked as non-peer reviewed. It actually was peer reviewed, but the citation was not included, so it looked like it came straight from the WWF.
…
Both Deniers and Warmists were wrong on this one. The deniers were wrong on the WWF paper’s legitimacy and the Warmists were wrong on the validity of the paper’s conclusions.”

That is not correct. It actually was NOT peer-reviewed. I repeat the Amazon rainforest story and the figure of “40%” being under threat does not originate from any peer-reviewed paper whatsoever.

The Sunday Times retraction has mistakenly led CAGW cultists to believe the IPCC has been vindicated. Since Thursday, George Monbiot has been asked repeatedly to provide the citation for the claim, but eco-warrior Monbiot has gone MIA. He doesn’t have it. There is none. Monbiot and others have made gaggle of geese of themselves and their devotees by pre-mature triumphalism, and now they are in hiding.

For those who still think that the IPCC claim was based on peer-reviewed literature, here is the story straight from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/index.cfm?3684

“31 January 2010

A WWF/IUCN Global Review of Forest Fires (2000) has been the subject of comment in media regarding its use as a source for the IPCC and questioning the credibility of some of its claims. Some commentators have concluded that potential climate impacts on the Amazon are overstated and unsupported. WWF refutes this conclusion and stands by the credibility of its report.

WWF-UK would like to clarify the following details:

• The Global Review of Forest Fires says that “up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” WWF’s source for this statement was Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute). The source quotation from Fire in the Amazon reads “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” Our report does NOT say that 40% of the Amazon forest is at risk from climate change.

• WWF acknowledges that a reference to Fire in the Amazon as the source of the 40% claim outlined above was mistakenly omitted during the editing process of the Global Review of Forest Fires report.

• The essential point made in the report (and referred to by the IPCC) is that reduced rainfall increases fire risk and that a drying of the “normally fire-resistant Amazon forest” could impact the hydrologic cycle with implications for regional and global climate.

SO:

1. The IPPC references to a WWF report, relying on an assertion FROM WHICH THE REFERENCE HAS BEEN “MISTAKENLY OMITTED”.

2. THEREFORE, the IPPC is relying on a source which is not peer reviewed which has made (in the document) an UNREFERENCED statement..

3. THE WWF claims as its source a document: “Fire in the Amazon” as the source of the 40% claim, with the reference “mistakenly omitted”.

4. HOWEVER, “Fire in the Amazon” is also a non-peer reviewed document.

5. THUS, the IPPC relies on a non-peer-reviewed document for an assertion which originates from a document which in not specified but which turns out also to be non-peer-reviewed.

6. Furthermore, the WWF claims its reference refers to the Brazilian Amazon – its report does NOT say that 40% of the Amazon forest is at risk from climate change. But that is what the IPPC does say. But the Brazilian Amazon is less than half the total area of the entire Amazon forest. “

By: Carl Brannen

Carl Brannen — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:08:14 +0000

I should probably add that, at least for a while, Pol Pot was a US ally. It was a great power thing, US and China versus the Soviet Union. So nuking him wasn’t an option. I forget if he was still in power at the time that the US supported him. There was also a time where he gave up Marxism in favor of outright nationalism, but no one seemed to believe him on this.

By: Janne

Janne — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:02:10 +0000

You should have nuked those dirty commie bastards.

By: Carl Brannen

Carl Brannen — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:19:51 +0000

I started college back before the left wing academic geniuses got onto the CO2 kick. The climate fear back then was that we’d go into a new ice age. This is basic geology; it’s where we are going to be in a few thousand years. But you couldn’t blame the west for something that’s been cycling for 2.6 million years, so the ivory tower and their lackeys in the free press largely ignored it.

Back then they were still openly Marxist. They believed that the Soviet Union was a worker’s paradise while workers in the United States were essentially slaves. Probably the high point of the whole thing was when a communist literature teacher took control of Cambodia. He banned money. He made the population write short autobiographies. If they didn’t like your essay they beat you to death.

I don’t think the global warming stick is going to come back. Individually, you can believe whatever you want to believe. But the evidence is sufficiently clear that the strong government push towards CO2 amelioration is over. The political will is gone. I wonder what the next bad idea will be.