Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

Maybe I missed it earlier in this thread, but I don't remember seeing the science fiction author Michael Crichton on your list. Here is one analysis of his recent novel on climate change, State of Fear:

www.nrdc.org...

Here is another analysis of inconsistencies between the novel's statements about climate science and the actual consensus on climate change issues as articulated by a variety of climate scientists whom Crichton interviewed, and whose data Crichton then either misrepresented or omitted in his novel:

www.realclimate.org...


And here is another example of the scientific concern with which Crichton's novel was greeted:


www.commongroundcommonsense.org...
index.php/t16187.html



And below is a link to the full transcript of last night's Larry King Live TV show on CNN, on the topic of global warming:


transcripts.cnn.com...


Larry had a panel of four guests, two of whom argue for the reality of global climate change (Dr. Heidi Cullen of the U.S. Weather Channel, and Bill Nye, of the TV show "Bill Nye the Science Guy"), and two against, those being:

"In Watertown, Massachusetts is Richard Lindzen. He's the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. He's author of the op-ed pieces "There Is No Consensus On Global Warming" and "Climate of Fear," both published in the "Wall Street Journal."

And in London, Julian Morris, executive director, International Policy Network. He's an economist. His thesis is on the economics of climate change."

While watching the show, my impression of Mr. Morris was that his arguments against the reality of global warming were extremely questionable. Dr. Lindzen, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish; his answers were very carefully thought through and bear further investigation ... has someone already looked at whether Dr. Lindzen gets obvious research support from industries contributing to global warming? Or is he truly independent and honestly skeptical on the topic??


A new website on the science of climate change has been created by the above-mentioned Dr. Heidi Cullen, who is a climatologist. That site is:


climate.weather.com...


That website is best viewed with Internet Explorer or Firefox. In view of the topic of your thread, you might be particularly interested in Dr. Cullen's acknowledgement of the severe criticism her website and her TV show ("The Climate Code") has been taking from right-wing bloggers since its recent inception. That is really a shame. I think it was in Germany recently that the government issued a statement that the topic of global climate change should no longer be associated with any one particular political party...the speaker said that global climate change was now being viewed as too important to be represented by any one political party.

.....About time!

[edit on 2/1/2007 by Uphill]

[edit on 2/1/2007 by Uphill]

Global warming is like a hooker: it's been misused, overused and abused.

People, get over it, in 4 months the earth will tilt and we here in the northern hemisphere will have warmer temperatures. BFD.

Originally posted by Uphill
Maybe I missed it earlier in this thread, but I don't remember seeing the science fiction author Michael Crichton on your list. Here is one analysis of his recent novel on climate change, State of Fear:
www.nrdc.org...

I listed some of his articles as they sum up the rapid 'human industrial activity as cause' global warming nonsense. The link seem to contain no more than vague accusations based on the idea that only 'acceptable people' ( a Good proportion of climate scientist) gets to judge the evidence at hand and reach conclusions based on it. I'm sorry but it's all about the data and any article that attempts to discredit a person based on their lack of 'proper' credentials has long ago slipped from my list of worthwhile reading material.

I am all for a factual look at the evidence itself but don't give me articles that focus on assassinating the messenger.

Here is another analysis of inconsistencies between the novel's statements about climate science and the actual consensus on climate change issues as articulated by a variety of climate scientists whom Crichton interviewed, and whose data Crichton then either misrepresented or omitted in his novel:

www.realclimate.org...

Misrepresented or omitted where? Why may he not draw his own conclusions based on what they said? Why must he quote them when they say one plus one equals three? Should all of us simply quote the climate scientist when they reach conclusions that are simply not supported by the data they based it on? What Crichton does is reinterpret the data by considering the contradictions in these papers and why should we object when he reaches different conclusions? If conclusions always logically derives from a given volume of information why did it take us 6000 years to get to the moon? Fact is that data ( whether it be true or false) does not always logically lead to certain conclusions and conclusions are based as much on bias in the science community as anywhere else.

And here is another example of the scientific concern with which Crichton's novel was greeted:
www.commongroundcommonsense.org...
index.php/t16187.html

Do not pretend that the concern is 'scientific' as scientist are not supposed to form 'united fronts' to protect 'the truth'. If scientist ever organize to defend a exclusive view of reality we should take back the tax payer grants and make them do real work. I simply do not think that good scientist goes on Tv and attacks ( and this is attacking as evident by their campaign against the messengers ) people who disagrees with their point of view

And below is a link to the full transcript of last night's Larry King Live TV show on CNN, on the topic of global warming:
transcripts.cnn.com...

Larry had a panel of four guests, two of whom argue for the reality of global climate change

Actually Nye did not do much arguing and simply insisted that ' it's true because enough scientist say so' as if ' the truth' has ever been decided by the consensus opinion independent of the observation of reality. Heidi Cullen apparently don't care much if millions more starve to death as clearly it's more important to 'save the environment' ( hopelessly vague but maybe she thinks we really need those 50 000 beetle species for the continuation of human civilization) than saving the people. Frankly it was quite a disappointing read and i expected either side to have involved far more facts and figures. As it turns out those who defended consensus did so and those who where not basically tried to sell it as something that would be 'bad for the economy' .

nd in London, Julian Morris, executive director, International Policy Network. He's an economist. His thesis is on the economics of climate change."[

While watching the show, my impression of Mr. Morris was that his arguments against the reality of global warming were extremely questionable

Then you do not in my opinion know much more than the 'science guy' about global warming. I have posted rather large volumes of date on this thread and others that points out the obvious contradictions and even included some data that strongly suggest where we should lay blame if any.

Dr. Lindzen, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish; his answers were very carefully thought through and bear further investigation

Nye made such silly remarks ( and Cullen did no better) that he seemed more knowledgeable about the issues than they were but i am surprised about how little really got said by either parties.

... has someone already looked at whether Dr. Lindzen gets obvious research support from industries contributing to global warming? Or is he truly independent and honestly skeptical on the topic??

Already looking for a way to discredit him and not the data?

A new website on the science of climate change has been created by the above-mentioned Dr. Heidi Cullen, who is a climatologist. That site is:

climate.weather.com...

More vapid propaganda and lies is exactly what we need, yes...

That website is best viewed with Internet Explorer or Firefox. In view of the topic of your thread, you might be particularly interested in Dr. Cullen's acknowledgement of the severe criticism her website and her TV show ("The Climate Code") has been taking from right-wing bloggers since its recent inception.

A conspiracy of epic proportion clearly... Always surprising how conspirators can point fingers, by insisting on conspiratorial plots against them, when their lies are being rapidly exposed...

That is really a shame.

What you sow you shall reap?

I think it was in Germany recently that the government issued a statement that the topic of global climate change should no longer be associated with any one particular political party...the speaker said that global climate change was now being viewed as too important to be represented by any one political party.

Why not just make it a decree and be done with it? If you can lock up 'Holocaust deniers' ( anyone who does serious research- they don't lock up the ignorant mobs who deny it simply because it suits them - and reaches different conclusions on any given subset of data) why not just start locking up Global warming deniers? I mean it's pretty obvious we are all going to die ( some day in the future , as if the average human being would live forever without global warming) due to 'the effects of global warming' so why not just lock up the dissenting voices and throw the keys away?

.....About time!

Why bother with scientific discussion,, or free speech in general, when it goes against the plans of those who would rule the world exactly as they see fit?

Stellar