Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?
sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"
Richard Lindzen is a well known Greenhouse denier. Don't suppress him or the other deniers - just read more about their Greenhouse denial industry, and the Greenhouse producers they cover for. Will you be surprised when you learn how their network is funded by polluters and petrofuel corporations?
--
make install -not war
I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical pseudo-libertarian misleading given the term could mean "He was considered irrelevent to politics back then and thus never got airtime", or it could mean "Neville Chamberlain personally called up Reith, and told him if the BBC ever gave Churchill airtime, he'd personally revoke their charter."
I'm guessing the former explanation is more likely, knowing the historic spirit of independence of the BBC.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
By the way, am I the only one to see the irony with the negative mod points about my take on global warming in a topic about Global Warming dissenters being unfairly moderated...
liqbase
Think that gives you doubts...try this: ...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
t ml
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
Did you know that the Bush administration has barred climate researchers working for the government from speaking directly to the press? And that press releases, statements, or publicly released research on any climate matter must pass through the White House first, where they are essentially rewritten?
Maybe you should tune into 60 minutes more often.
---Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet." Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.
Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality." Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney." Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.
Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes "may be undergoing change." "Uncertainty" becomes "significant remaining uncertainty." One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.
"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout." ----
Please help metamoderate.
From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away
Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem, and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about and discussing an issue... but you cannot, ever, say that the claims are false because of the messenger.. only that they are not worth discussing. Given the fact that this is a discussion forum, it stands to reason those who have chosen not to waste their intellectual energy aren't going to be reading this in the first place... so I am left with the conclusion that you are attempting to discredit his statements fallaciously.
Please Mr. Rhetoric, explain to me the cause for the global warming currently transpiring on Mars.
t ml
"...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too.
While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.
let each individual focus on what they believe in.
For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Stopped in 1998 huh? Guess that depends on who you ask- this data has it continuing well through 2000 into 2005.
e mperature_Record.png
h gl.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_T
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhs
Its kind of like my dog who hides his eyes and thinks you don't see him.
I dont know... in my opinion, Real Climate has a pretty hard bias, and I've read more than once that they simply delete posts that they don't like/can't address.
.... many experts were sure that we were going to have a new ice age only 30 years ago. Not all experts- and not all experts believe in global warming either.
RC is one resource for forming an opinion- but they seem a bit like using the Catholic Church as reference for deciding if Christ existed or not.
Facts are... Mars and other objects in the solar system are warming up too, there is correlation between the arms of the galaxy and past climate fluctuation, the climate -has- been hotter and colder than it is now without our doing anything and
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Don't be an idiot. Crichton knows nothing about Global Warming. He's been completely debunked.
>global temperature hasn't risen since 1998
Why pick 1998?
Because it was the year of a record-for-the-century El Nino and was above the trend line. Pick an exceptionally hot year as a baseline and next few years will have trouble keeping up. It's like starting with 1999 and concluding that the Internet industry is dying.
Here's the temperature data year by year and as a 5-year moving average.
So was Isaac Asimov. Yet he seemed to know a bit about science. Just to reduce your ignorance a bit, Michael Crichton is/was also an M.D. graduating from Harvard Medical School.
I am not a resource! I am a free man!