John Stewart covers the first People's Climate March and dives
into global warming science.
Not exact matches
You likely deny evolution and
global warming for no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable and hold
science to the impossibly high standard of having to explain every conceivable mystery about the natural World before you will accept it, but some moron at a pulpit doing magic hand signals of a Sundaymorning is enough to convince you he is communicating with some sky - god and turning grocery store bread and wine
into flesh and blood.
NOAA has been the target of congressional scrutiny from Rep. Lamar Smith (R - Texas), who has launched an inquiry
into a 2015 paper in
Science prepared by NOAA researchers that disputed the existence of a recent slowdown in the rate of
global warming.
But Taylor of the Heartland Institute said it should not come as a surprise that the subject of human induced
global warming would become more contested as it moved out of the realm of pure
science into the realm of policy.
Stepping
into that gap — at the request of the Danish government — will be the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, a collection of the world's top scientists and economists set to meet in Copenhagen in March 2009 to deliver an updated state of the
science on
global warming.
The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About
Global Warming By Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King (Harcourt) In The Hot Topic, former
science advisor to the British government Sir David King teams up with veteran
science writer Gabrielle Walker to offer perhaps the most thoughtful and scientifically rigorous work to date on how we got the Earth
into this fix, and how we can help get it out.
Between the enormous snow storm last October and the tornados we have been seeing here in the Northweast, I have been looking more and more
into the
science behind
global warming.
We are concerned that the incorporation of unsubstantiated theories
into what the public understands to be the «scientific consensus» on
global warming is eroding public confidence in climate
science.
Climate change skepticism seeps
into science classrooms Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man - made
global warming.
Re # 8 (and to expand on # 13): I also think that a basic strategy of the
global warming deniers is to focus on one aspect of the
science over which there is some combination of real and manufactured dispute and then try to make people think that this is the one crucial piece of evidence on which the whole theory of anthropogenic
warming rests... and thus that the dispute over this aspect throws the whole theory
into question.
This might be an opportune time to remind everyone of how organized tobacco's astroturf «sound
science» movement morphed
into attacks on
science in other areas like
global warming, as ably revealed by George Monbiot, among others: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/06/sound-
science-and-climate-change-or.html
The piece falls
into the partisan trap of painting all opponents in one color when in fact there are conservatives who care about
science and energy, even some (Charles Krauthammer comes to mind) who — while challenging the portrayal of
global warming as a real - time crisis — see the value in a high tax on gasoline, swapped for lower taxes elsewhere.
If
science advocacy has to include statements such as «Alas, as with most over-simplified
global warming claptrap, more thought goes
into coming up with the alarmist concept than in actually looking
into whether or not it is true», then I don't think it belongs in the discussion.
Former Vice President Al Gore has spent decades immersing himself in the
science and policy of
global warming, visiting the poles, writing two books largely framed around the issue, and traveling the world giving a climate presentation that began on 35 - millimeter carousels and evolved
into a snazzy Keynote extravaganza and Oscar - winning documentary.
I first dug in on behavioral and social
science research related to
global warming views and responses in 2006, and it quickly became clear that this was the scariest body of
science of all — topping ice - sheet instability and even calling
into question the utility of my profession.
He follows a president who consistently stressed the unknowns about
global warming and whose minions sometimes downplayed established
science; whose negotiators at climate - treaty talks were instructed to enter
into any kind of discussion, but no negotiations.
Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research dug
into the physical
science underpinning knowledge of the human role in
global warming.
At the root of all of those reasons is the fact that
global warming was effectively massaged
into an issue that could be ignored, by some very determined people funded by some very rich corporations — all of whom have worked for years to manufacture doubt about climate
science.
Their fervour for cargo cult
sciences may simply be mercenary, and a function of the massive government funding going
into things like
global warming studies.
Over time, we gathered thousands of pages of internal Exxon documents that fleshed out the picture hinted at by Henry Shaw's participation in the 1979 climate conference: that Exxon was so interested in climate
science that it had launched its own ambitious research
into the critical
global warming questions of the day.
Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused
global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the
science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»
> By politicizing
science, by appointing
global warming zealots
into positions of power and influence, and so forth, Obama created a scientific environment akin to Lysenkoism.
In 1991, it was nothing more than a suggestion to invite
science - based rebuttal back
into an issue Al Gore and his friends hijacked with assertions that catastrophic man - caused
global warming was settled
science; a suggestion which came out of a leaked non-profit coal association's public relations test market campaign which was so obscure that practically no one ever saw or heard about it.
Even as climate scientists, and the
science underpinning
global warming, have been vindicated (for the umpteenth time) the GOP has completed its descent
into science - bashing and anti- «warmist» rhetoric.
The reason progressives constantly obscure the meaning of terms like skeptic, «
global warming,» «AGW» (when you mean CAGW), is so you can convert your political opinions
into «
science,» and then falsely label your political opponents as anti-
science.
Some insights
into the public pressure on those that are skeptical of consensus climate change
science or the UNFCCC policies are provided by a recent iaiTV interview of Benny Peiser, Director of the
Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
She noted that she was welcomed
into the «tribe» when she published a paper that suggested
global warming could be causing more severe hurricanes, but shunned after she congratulated a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, when his blog, ClimateAudit.org, was named «best
science blog» of 2007 through a Web poll.
Yet, as we can see, the unsophisticated «
global warming is happening» statement can turn barking mad statements about climate
science into truth, while assigning informed caution to the «denier» camp.
I can think of, and have used, many ways to attack the absurdity of CO2 - induced Catastrophic Anthropogenic
Global Warming (CAGW) without descending
into what most lay - readers consider the realm of
Science - Fiction - Fantasy (regardless of the truth or otherwise of the pure physics behind it).
«In hindsight,» wrote Littlemore, «I played perfectly
into the hands of Monckton and his happy radio host, Roy Green, who share the same goal — not to win an argument about
global warming science, but merely to show that there still IS an argument.
The most one could say is that these sorts of groups have opposed specific legislation, such as carbon taxes or drilling bans, that Brulle wants politicians to enact
into law.50 This opposition may explain a lot about Brulle's motivations, and it definitely shows that he's more interested in political victories than
science, but it says nothing about how Americans form their views of the
science of
Global Warming.
Geoengineering solution to
global warming could destroy the ozone layer (04/24/2008) A proposed plan to fight
global warming by injecting sulfate particles
into Earth's upper atmosphere could damage the ozone layer over the Arctic and Antarctic, report researchers writing in the journal
Science.
From the National
Science Foundation, another bit of Speculative
Science ™ note the caveat in bold, which is all they need for a headline that screams certainty: This sudden release of gases
into the atmosphere may have created intense
global warming, and acidification of the oceans, which ultimately killed off thousands of plant and animal species.
There seems to be so many contentious and contrary «opinions» about
Global Warming due to CO2, how about injecting a little
science, math, and logic
into the argument.
It has pumped millions of dollars
into research projects to cast doubt on mainstream climate
science showing that the primary driver of
global warming is the burning of fossil fuels.
What made all of
science plunge past the tipping point
into the doctrine of
global warming?
By James Delingpole The Royal Society (Motto: Nullius in Verba Unless Itâ $ ™ s About
Global Warming In Which Case Weâ $ ™ re Happy To Believe Whatever Unsubstantiated Drivel Weâ $ ™ re Fed By Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al) has announced whoâ $ ™ ll be chairing its â $ œindependentâ $ inquiry
into the
science behind the Climategate scandal.
I initially accepted the human - caused
global warming propaganda up until 2008 when I decided to look
into the
science in more detail.
The recent listing of polar bears as «endangered» was based on junk
science and GIGO computer models that claim manmade
global warming will send the bears» record population numbers
into oblivion.
Even now, as Earth continues to free - fall
into what is already a runaway
warming scenario (mathematically speaking), the ongoing blatant
global climate engineering assault goes completely unacknowledged by the whole of the climate
science / meteorological community.
The US Congress's most ardent
global warming sceptic is being accused of turning the row over climate
science into a McCarthyite witch - hunt by calling for a criminal investigation of scientists.
Denying the
global -
warming pause has recently become a self - inflicted, nightmarish scenario for agenda - driven scientists - in a sense, they have morphed
into science deniers.
Continuing with enthusiasm throughout his career, Bob moved
into a new forum in retirement in which his goal was to restore integrity to
science in general, where imposters had torn down its very fabric through promotion of the popular fallacy regarding the influence of carbon dioxide in causing increased
Global Warming.
««The writing is a well - researched investigation
into the continuing fabrication of the defence of Climate Change «scepticism», which amounts to a long narrative of invention, first of outright denial of the
science of
Global Warming, then of foot - dragging delay being urged on all Governments.»
As we discovered from the Ofcom's investigation
into Channel 4's Great
Global Warming Swindle, journalists can say what they like about
science: it only matters (a little) if a particular scientist is misrepresented.
«Perhaps the most important function of climate
science on an issue of broad interest like
global warming is to help educate the public and to provide useful input
into the policy process.
The Houston Chronicle
science reporter Eric Berger's latest admission merely reflects an inescapable reality: Man - made
global warming fears are quickly descending
into the ash heap of history.
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson today defended the
science underpinning pending climate regulations despite Senate Republicans» claims that
global warming data has been thrown
into doubt.
Sunday was Forest Day, and I celebrated it along with several hundred people at a forum chalk full of
science and policy presentations about integrating efforts to integrate forests
into the
global warming framework.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a layman's critique of the Anthropogenic
Global Warming (AGW) theory, and in particular to challenge the fairly widespread notion that the
science and projected consequences of AGW currently justify massive spending and government intervention
into the world's economies.