Date: Tue Mar 10 10:39:35 2009 Back to Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: John Hubisz

Subject: Re: Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

Post:

The state climatologists for Virginia, Oregon, Delaware, and Washington
(Assistant) have been fired or resigned because they could not support
the "Global Warming" hysteria being promulgated by their governors.

John Hubisz

Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> I've cross posted, as I wish a broader opinion on this matter.
>
>
>
> The below the ------- is from the Wiki. article on Richard Lindzen.
> He is one of the keynote speakers of the present controversial
> conference.
>
> I am extremely disturbed by the apparent punishment of critics of
> anthropogenic climate change. As long as this happens, I cannot
> accept that the question is answered. When the government, et al.
> funds critics w/ "good" credentials, e.g. R. L., then the question may
> be resolved, until then I lump the IPCC, et al. along w/ the Bush
> administration as enemies of science. Reminds me of the Soviet attack
> on Vavilov.
>
> bc does believe (note the word) in the A. of GCC.
>
> p.s. I do note that, as pointed out by a tap-ler, that the conference
> is mainly sponsored by capitalist interests and the mean political
> interests.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> Criticism of IPCC
>
> He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant
> global warming is very likely caused by humans (see global warming)
> although he accepts that the warming has occurred, saying global mean
> temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century
> ago.[5]
>
> His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this
> quotation: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if
> you?re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong
> answer, and you have to accept that because you don?t have another
> wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it?s like quackery in
> medicine ? if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and
> you say that?s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something
> else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"[6]
>
> Lindzen was one of several scientists who appeared in The Great Global
> Warming Swindle, a documentary that aired in the UK in March, 2007 on
> Channel 4. The film was critical of the IPCC and many scientific
> opinions on climate change. The film has been criticized for misuse of
> data and out of date research, for using misleading arguments, and for
> misrepresenting the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change.[7][8][9][10]
>
> He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which
> he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director
> of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the
> scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former
> director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred
> by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry
> for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso
> Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991,
> apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."[11]
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 2009, Mar 09, , at 13:09, John Hubisz wrote:
>
>> Any scientist who does work in the field with results that do not
>> agree with the politically-held belief finds that funding stops. I
>> know of none who would classify global warming as a fraud. Most
>> claim that it is a natural phenomenon that we can readily manage
>> without these outrageous proposals that are guaranteed to weaken our
>> society.
>> Many will argue (economists especially) that this is too much like
>> opening a walnut with a sledge hammer. (I am sure I could think of
>> something better, but I have other things to do.)
>>
>> John
>>
>> trappe@physics.utexas.edu wrote:
>>> Perhaps the following article will underscore the NON-scientific
>>> aspects of the upcoming meeting.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
>>>
>>>
>>> I am curious about John's implied meaning to scientists retiring and
>>> finishing out grants as an explanation for their new-found
>>> scientific knowledge of global warming as a fraud. Sounds more like
>>> "don't confuse me with facts, my minds already made up"...Karl
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting John Hubisz :
>>>
>>>> *Someone said,
>>>>
>>>> (Yes, it is cut and dry for the majority of scientists - but it is
>>>> not so
>>>> for the general public.)*
>>>>
>>>> *I responded,
>>>>
>>>> That is not true.* There are at least 32,000 scientists (9000
>>>> physicists) who do not think that it is "cut and dry" and more are
>>>> joining them as as scientists retire and finish out grants.
>>>>
>>>> And if the general public includes weathermen/meteorologists and
>>>> economists that adds to the group.
>>>>
>>>> John Hubisz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill Norwood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Taplers,
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought there was no remaining question
>>>>>
>>>>> that we are threatened by climate change
>>>>>
>>>>> that will do major physical and economic damage
>>>>>
>>>>> if we don't change our ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> But these guys, involved in the March 8-10, New York,
>>>>>
>>>>> International Conference on Climate Change,
>>>>>
>>>>> including some physicists, don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175921/posts
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody got insight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Bill Norwood, U of MD at College Park
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

From tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu Tue Mar 10 10:39:35 2009

Back