No different then being employeed by a government that is politically motivated to push global warning in order to garner the support of Greenpeace and similar organizations.
I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. I meant independent evidence, not propaganda from single issue pressure groups (www.reagan.com - no theres a respected scientific institution).
Besides none of those links suggest the outright dishonesty on behalf of the researchers you suggest. And none of them give evidence. You've just found other people willing to repeat your insinuations.
In reality, the fudge factor is the number they have to add to the climate models to generate the amount of global warming they want to scare an appropriate number of people.
Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support this malicious slander.
Simple. There is a massive demand for medium and long range weather forecasts, and will be for the foreseeable future, and enough money from interested parties for everyone to wet their beaks.
The funding issue is a shibboleth of those with an interest in the staus quo: people study climate change because its interesting, and because it matters.
Scientists... thievery, lying, back stabbing, and chicanery... ulterior motive... holding large corporations hostage
WOW! Look at all those wild, utterly unsubstantiated allegations. Not a shred of evidence, and seemingly not desire to provide any except for the hilariously worthless anecdotage ("several friends get their scientific aspirations crushed by their academic peers." Classic.)
Its like watching Ken Starr have an epileptic fit.
Why the automatic assumption that Micheals is "politically-motivated"? Perhaps he's just a pissed off scientist because his research has to pass a much higher bar because his findings aren't politically correct and aren't "normal."
Original poster said that environmentalism and totalitarian socialism went hand in hand. That is so ludicrously not the case in Poland (and the rest of the former Warsaw pact, for that matter), I felt it should be pointed out.
To see the left-green connection, merely examine West German politics.
Which West German environmental party would you describe as "authoritarian socialist"?
The fact is that any scientist who releases findings, models, and predictions that go against the accepted norm wrt: global warming no longer has a career or reputation - regardless of the validity of the findings, models, and predictions.
Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up this malicious slander. No, thought not.
the ocean's salinity and level would not even notice
Thats mean salinity. Localised salinity discrepancies set up buoyancy forced currents and "deep water" production, and they do make a difference to global circulation.
Take any game like hockey or basketball, many teams have exceptional players but they don't win championships.
I don't know about thats, the Bulls went into the toilet fast enough when Jordan left after a lengthy period of dominance (after he'd won their last finals for them practically on his own). Hasek and Jagr carried an otherwise mediocre Czech team to an Olympic gold (and the Dominator took the Sabres to the Stanley Cup finals single handed). The 2001 D'Backs rode Schilling and Johnson to a World Series... And thats just the last few years. I could go on...
Will these two phenomenon affect sea water salinity?
Yes, probably. Ice melt produces fresh water and that affects the buoyancy driven flows local to the ice shelves. Dense saline buoyancy flows, from brine rejection during freezing and frazil ice production, produce what called "bottom water" which has a role in the global thermohaline circulation, which moves heat and salt around the ocean basins. Fresh water production inhibits this, as well as having possible thermodynamic effects of its own.
Actually I read a random sample of them and most of them were, to a certain extent, ad hominem.
SciAm's or Grists? I prefer the Grists. Some of SciAm's authors seemed to allow themselves to get hot under the collar (unsurprising giving Lomborg's besmirching of their ethics and impartiality, but unhelpful).
All in all the scientific community has done a very shoddy job at debunking Lomborg
The greenhouse effect and global climate change due to it are a theory
All science is composed of theories. But things like double-CO2 climate models, based mainly on well understood physics[1], suggest this theory is true. This isn't dogma anymore than believing the theory of relativity is dogma. Its not a complete description of reality, but it is the best model we've got.
[1] There are certainly gaps, and resolving turbulent eddy motion on many lengthscales is extremely hard, but if you believe with the you know why they're fundamentally flawed as to be utterly unbelievable, write a paper, don't just make snide insinuations on on weblogs.
Humans adapt and we will survive. It is all part of the cycle of the planet.
Rational, scientific reaction to the evidence is part of the adaption process. The ability to analyse the data and make informed decisions is what seperates us from the dinosaur. If we close our minds to the possibilty that change is necessary, we run the risk of going the way of the T-Rex.
People do realize that for 6 months (during the fall and winter in the northern hemisphere), it is continously daylight in Antartica, right? Of course the ice cap there is going to shrink.
I'd imagine the BAS realise that, given that a large number of them are stationed on Antartica. I also think that if they think that the collapse of Larsen B is a major event, and not in line with prior seasonal changes, I'd rather take their word for it than yours.
For more of this sort of common sense, see this book [amazon.co.uk] in which the author systematically demolishes most of the non-scientific arguments of the "green" lobby.
And while you're at it, why not read this book, which "comprehensively debunks" evolution. Even you admit Lomborg can't debunk the scientific arguments of climatologists and climate modellers, any more than creationists can do anything about radio-carbon-dating than close their ears and say "Don't believe you."
As has been gone over in almost tedious detail, practically everyone with any experience, gathered in, amongst other places, a dedicated issue of Scientific American disagree with Lomborg. Contrary to Lomborg's assertions, very few of these attacks are ad hominem, and take issue only with his application of the scientific method, and selective, self-serving use of statistics.
No, the worst part is, cigarette taxes are use-based (you only pay them if you actually smoke), while these are broad-based (you pay even if you only back up, say, digital photos)
Thats a false distinction. I pay cigarette taxes whether or not I later become a tobacco-related drain on the health care system.
I've already been flamed as a "liberal" (erroneously) in this thread twice
I love being called a liberal. According to oed.com it means "Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded", "open to the reception of new ideas" and "Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. I meant independent evidence, not propaganda from single issue pressure groups (www.reagan.com - no theres a respected scientific institution).
Besides none of those links suggest the outright dishonesty on behalf of the researchers you suggest. And none of them give evidence. You've just found other people willing to repeat your insinuations.
No soup for you.
So, in fact what the original poster said (MSH > all nuclear weapons) is rubbish, right?
Simple. There is a massive demand for medium and long range weather forecasts, and will be for the foreseeable future, and enough money from interested parties for everyone to wet their beaks.
The funding issue is a shibboleth of those with an interest in the staus quo: people study climate change because its interesting, and because it matters.
Its like watching Ken Starr have an epileptic fit.
Which West German environmental party would you describe as "authoritarian socialist"?
Next time, try thought.
Try harder.
"Anyone who defends themselves has a fool for a client".
Man, I'll enjoy watching this arrogant little twat get his comeuppance.
For more info do this google search.
SciAm did. They should've done much better.
[1] There are certainly gaps, and resolving turbulent eddy motion on many lengthscales is extremely hard, but if you believe with the you know why they're fundamentally flawed as to be utterly unbelievable, write a paper, don't just make snide insinuations on on weblogs.
As has been gone over in almost tedious detail, practically everyone with any experience, gathered in, amongst other places, a dedicated issue of Scientific American disagree with Lomborg. Contrary to Lomborg's assertions, very few of these attacks are ad hominem, and take issue only with his application of the scientific method, and selective, self-serving use of statistics.
Who wouldn't want to be all those things?