It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let me cut to the chase scene for you: It's a job title, not an educational path. Translation: You, too, can be a Climatologist! But act now, and if you call within the next 20 minutes, we'll double the job title to "Climatologist II"! But, wait, there’s more! ...
Well, let's go more specific, shall we? The primary author of an oft-cited study supporting Algore's View of Earth is Dr. Peter Doran. His study is one of the scriptures in the refrain, “There is a consensus among climatologists.” Education: B.Sc., Trent University; M.Sc., Queen's University; Ph.D., University of Nevada-Reno. The degrees are in Geology and Hydrology, but not assigned. His co-writer was Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. She was one of his graduate students. Can't find her degrees - but no Ph.D. Not a “climatology” degree in the lot. Go figure. So does UIC have a "Climatology" major? Nope. Closest thing is Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. I could go through every single paper presented as proof of Algore's Earth View written by "climatologists" searching in vain for a "climatology" degree. Not there. The reason is because the very first such degree program in the world took students in just 2001. I checked the University of Minnesota site because those were the fools that were going to give Algore an Honorary Doctorate in Climatology. Their "doctorate in climatology" (the real one) is a Ph.D. in Soil Science with two additional required courses: Environmental Biophysics and Ecology; and Biometeorology. With all the evidence in, it seems the term "Climatologist" is an industry term without much pedagogy behind it.
Originally posted by archasama
Here's Burt Rutan questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Please read the whole presentation/article and I will be waiting to exchange opinions with you.
Does this even deserve an answer?
If we must...
The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again global climate change.
Excerpted from Frank Davis, „Lovelock Walks Away‟
Dr. Lovelock in 2006:
“We are responsible and will suffer the consequences of Global Warming”
Dr. Lovelock in 2007:
“By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as
Baghdad. Phoenix will become uninhabitable. By 2100, the Earth‟s population
will be culled from today‟s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the
survivors…in Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic”.
Dr. Lovelock in 2008:
“… global warming is now irreversible, and nothing can prevent large parts of
the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater… famine and
Dr. James Lovelock Now - March 2010:
At London‟s Science Museum Dr Lovelock said: “If we hadn‟t appeared on the
earth, it would be due to go through another ice age… greenhouse gases that
have warmed the planet are likely to prevent a big freeze….We‟re just fiddling
around. It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon
emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice
age….we can look at our part as holding that up…..I hate all this business about
feeling guilty about what we‟re doing…..We‟re not guilty, we never intended to
pump CO2 into the atmosphere, it‟s just something we did.”
He compared today‟s climate change controversy to the “wildly inaccurate”
early work on aerosol gases and their alleged role in depletion of the ozone
layer: ”Quite often, observations done by hand are accurate but all the
theoretical stuff in between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing
this with climate change….We haven‟t learned the lessons of the ozone-hole
debate. It‟s important to know just how much you have got to be careful”
"I think you have to accept that the skeptics have kept us sane….They have
been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of
climate change as a religion. It has gone too far that way. There is a role for
skeptics in science. They shouldn't be brushed aside. It is clear that the „angel
side‟ wasn't without sin”.
From Frank Davis - Perhaps this is what happens when people realize they're
wrong. They start talking as if they'd always urged caution, had always warned
of the danger of inaccurate scientific predictions and manipulated data.