More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Quetzal
New member
Climate change is a theory upheld by many organizations and nations, not just here.
Climate change yes, it is plausible but, human caused climate change no, and there are just as many climatologists that are not swayed by agenda driven junk science to buy into the hysteria that man has it within his power to effect climate for good or worse, that is just pop culture's myth.
Quetzal
New member
So you believe our actions on this planet have caused no change to the climate? This is all naturally occurring?
Actually, Pielke has represented himself as a "climate scientist", but his doctorate is in political science. His undergraduate degree is in math.
No doubt this has caused him some difficulties being taken seriously. He does conclude:
Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2015/03/yes-lets-follow-science-denier-money.html
However, he apparently has, as have some other academics, accepted money from denier organizations, without disclosing the fact, which is a violation of ethical standards for many journals. Given his acknowledgement of the fact that human activity is driving climate change, it's his ethical lapses that are a matter of concern. If this becomes generally known, it could make it a lot harder for him to publish.
The problem is not that people are finding out, it's that he should be disclosing these facts in the first place.
No doubt this has caused him some difficulties being taken seriously. He does conclude:
Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2015/03/yes-lets-follow-science-denier-money.html
However, he apparently has, as have some other academics, accepted money from denier organizations, without disclosing the fact, which is a violation of ethical standards for many journals. Given his acknowledgement of the fact that human activity is driving climate change, it's his ethical lapses that are a matter of concern. If this becomes generally known, it could make it a lot harder for him to publish.
The problem is not that people are finding out, it's that he should be disclosing these facts in the first place.
Are we to stop breathing?
Breitbart, ah we know how objective that site is.
On the underlying issue however, it would appear that Pielke is reasonable in his positions and accepts the fact that CO2, and other human forces, are a driver of climate change.
Jefferson's guy admits:
Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.co...ier-money.html
It's almost entirely burning fossil fuels. Herding does a little. But if we could solve the fossil fuel issue, the problem would be effectively ended.
Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.co...ier-money.html
It's almost entirely burning fossil fuels. Herding does a little. But if we could solve the fossil fuel issue, the problem would be effectively ended.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Is there climate change? There wasn't global cooling or warming. Maybe next year we will find out about the problem of climate stagnation--that it is not changing ENOUGH! After all, Ehrlich still has his chair at Stanford.
gcthomas
New member
Yes there is. The alleged stagnation was only marginally visible in Date that excluded much if the Earth (the polar regions due to lack of comprehensive data collection.)
Now that the data from the poles is coming in thick and fast it is clear that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Not including that region effectively masked the warning that was happening.
The reason that the deniers of climate change are ignored is not because of some great conspiracy, but because their rejection of the obvious conclusion demonstrates some unscientific biases in their judgement.
Here's the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Hard to deny the numbers.
There wasn't global cooling or warming.
The data show that there has been continued warming.
Pielke is not the denier Jefferson thought that he was. He openly admits that human-caused warming is a fact. But he wasn't candid about who was paying him to say that there was nothing effective to do about the warming trend.
And that is why he's in hot water.
And that is why he's in hot water.