Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated

I'll leave that up to them. I figure that the scientific community is smarter than just some guy on the Internet, so I don't have any faith that they are being honest. They fool the people in order to tax them more and keep the research funds flowing.

When you do find the time to study hemp, you will learn that industrial hemp reduces the building industries carbon footprint dramatically. Hemp textile makes more durable clothes than cotton and more comfortable too so hemp clothes are of higher quality. The plastic panels that are made from hemp for cars don't dent like metal so fender benders become a thing of the past. The plastics made from hemp for food storage and product wrapping are non toxic and biodegradable resulting in less landfill pollution. Hemp grows without the need for pesticides or insecticides and uses less water than cotton or corn to produce a crop. The roots hold the soil together which helps prevent soil erosion. The nutrients it places back into the soil make it great for a rotation crop. It is a food, a medicine, a building material, industrial materials, clothes, and very Earth friendly. I am sure the scientific community knows all that.

That is why the title of this thread is, "Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated" The alarmists fear monger for taxes and government research grants. Education is the key.
i'm an architect, and here in austria you have to insulate buildings. with hemp or something else. so i do understand those things.
there are a lot of ways to reduce energy consumption. but still ... those things wont stop the cause of global warming.
 
That and the fact that it has been debated for a long time with many cries of impending doom. Does anybody recall the 70's and predictions of impending global catastrophy?

This has been debated here since 1799.........

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html

Not to mention that global "cooling" was once the problem the so-called "experts" were alaruming & excursioning about.

The same "experts" who are to be considered "objective" because they get paid by governments & "NGOs" (rather than "big oil" or "big coal" or whatever).
 
Not to mention that global "cooling" was once the problem the so-called "experts" were alaruming & excursioning about.

The same "experts" who are to be considered "objective" because they get paid by governments & "NGOs" (rather than "big oil" or "big coal" or whatever).

Any doom'l do?
 
Documents illegally leaked from the Heartland Institute, one of the most active groups engaged in attacking the science of climate change, provide an unprecedented look into how these groups operate. The story was broken Tuesday by DeSmogBlog, a website dedicated to exposing false claims about climate change science. The documents reveal that donors to Heartland included oil billionaire Charles Koch, and Heartland has spent several million dollars over the past five years to undermine climate science. Tens of thousands of dollars are slated to go this year to well-known climate contrarians S.Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? website. Naturally, the leaked documents have lit up the blogosphere, but none of the revelations are particularly surprising. The U.S. has a very successful and well-funded climate change denial industry, primarily funded by fossil fuel companies, that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades on a PR campaign against climate change science. I made a lengthy post on the subject in 2009 called, The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy. I won't say more here, but getenergysmartnow.com has compiled a long list of blogs that have interesting posts on the Heartland Institute affair for those interested in following this story.

books_of_doubt.jpg


Eight books challenging the Manufactured Doubt industry
Important scientific findings should always be challenged with the goal of finding flaws and improving our scientific understanding. But there's nothing a scientist hates more than to see good science attacked and the reputations of good scientists smeared in name of protecting corporate profits or ideology. A number of scientists have fought back against the recent unfounded assaults on climate change science by publishing books calling attention to the Manufactured Doubt industry's tactics and goals. Anyone priding themselves on being a open-minded skeptic of human-caused global warming should challenge their skepticism by reading one of these works. I thought so highly of Unscientific America, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Coverup, that I donated 50 copies of these books to undergraduates at the University of Michigan last year. Here's a short synopsis of eight books published in the past three years defending climate change science against the attacks of the Manufactured Doubt industry:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're going to read one book on the attacks on climate science, this should probably be the one--Dr. Oreskes, a history professor at UC San Diego, was voted climate change communicator of the year in 2011. A review of Merchants of Doubt and a video of her defending her book against skeptics is at climateprogress.org, my favorite website for staying current on the politics of climate change. From the review: "Make the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial. And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way."

Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by desmogblog.com co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. It's another fascinating and very readable book.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by science writer Chris Mooney. He writes a blog focusing on science communication called the intersection. This is a fantastic book, and should be required reading for all college science majors.

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. John Cook writes for one of my favorite climate science blogs, skepticalscience.com, which focuses on debunking false skeptic claims about climate science. The book does a great job debunking all the classic climate change denial arguments.

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who now heads the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This meticulously-researched book has just one chapter on climate change, and focuses more on tobacco and hazardous chemicals. About the the tobacco industry's Manufactured Doubt campaigns, Michaels wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy".

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is the originator of the much-debated "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years, which looks like a hockey stick due to the sharp increase in temperatures in recent decades. This book just came out last week, and I hope to write a review on it this spring. Dr. Mann is one of the main contributors to my favorite web site for staying current on climate change research, realclimate.org. John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "an eye-opening account of the lengths the opponents of climate science will go to in their campaign to slander climate scientists and distract the public from the realities of human caused global warming."

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but it looks interesting. A review by Katherine O’Konski of Climate Science Watch called the book "a fascinating look at the status of science in American society."

The Inquisition of Climate Science, by Dr. James Lawrence Powell, a geochemist with a distinguished career as a college teacher, college president, museum director, and author of books on earth science for general audiences. I haven't read it, but John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the full scope of the denial industry and their modern day persecution of climate science."

Have a great weekend, everyone! I'll be taking a few vacation days next week, and wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz will probably be doing most of the blogging for me during the coming week.

Jeff Masters

I know this board is generally "anti global warming" "anti climate change":

Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated

I challenge all of you "well educated" anti climate science folks to peruse through the past seven years of Jeff Master's Blog:

http://classic.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html
 
Last edited:
This is one of those topics that I disagree with the majority of the board on. It's easy to cherry-pick specific people with uneducated opinions and paint an entire group of people as being uneducated as a result, huh? I believe global warming/climate change is naturally occurring and happens in cycles, but I'm also not going to dismiss humans and industrialization as a contributing factor like so many seem to enjoy doing. Instead of taking an extreme left or right position, I'd rather keep an open mind and do the research. Al Gore is so 2006 and I'm so over the complete dismissals. Forget about Al Gore; this isn't about him.

Sometimes it feels like people just adopt these unwavering beliefs because it's a talking point/position brought up by whichever group or person they currently follow. It's like they have to adopt it and find ways to argue against logic in order to be more "pure." I'm not specifically calling anyone in this thread out, but it's something I've noticed in many camps including the Marxists, L/libertarians and conservatives.

I like your post and appreciate that you are willing to have a rational discussion :)

Humans certainly have contributed since the Industrial Revolution. However I believe our factor is negligible compared to Mother Nature and HAARP/geo-engineering/weather weapons. Speaking for myself, I arrive at my viewpoints after sometimes UNGODLY amounts of research. I'm so all over the place politically I can piss off MULTIPLE factions of libertarians, democrats AND republicans in the SAME sentence :)

I am not trying to convert you to anything. But you seem like a reasonable open minded person, so there are a few videos I would like to show you. I believe they are all over an hour, so feel free to bookmark each and gradually watch them at your leisure. All I ask is that you watch and consider everything with an open mind. And research anything you question.







 
Last edited:
I know this board is generally "anti global warming" "anti climate change":

Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated

I challenge all of you "well educated" anti climate science folks to peruse through the past seven years of Jeff Master's Blog:

http://classic.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html

Meh. More fodder for the merry-go-round. (And, yeah, I know that metaphor doesn't make any sense. :p But you get the idea ...)

anti-global-warming, pro-global-warming, anti-climate-change, pro-climate-change, anti-science, pro-science, anti-this, pro-that, anti-yada-blah, pro-yada-blah, etc. etc. ad infinitum et nauseum.

The very use of prefixes such as "pro" and "anti" ought to tell us that the issue has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with science of any kind.

It's ALL politics. On both sides.

A pox on both their houses!
 
Last edited:
I like your post and appreciate that you are willing to have a rational discussion :)

Humans certainly have contributed since the Industrial Revolution. However I believe our factor is negligible compared to Mother Nature and HAARP/geo-engineering/weather weapons. ...
the amount of manmade co2 is tiny. there is no discussion about that. it's about 3% of the co2 circle.
but the point is that the rest is in balance. and those 3% are added on top of it and can't be consumed by nature and is accumulating in the atmosphere.
 
Posted by: William Bryan | November 02, 2008 at 07:22 AM

"Sorry to give this definitive answer (people just luv to speculate!) but this was a prank letter. A friend of mine knows Chris Hill. To go from Albury, a country town in little ol Australia, all around the world is one helluva gotcha!!"

I've gotta believe that anyone able to put this letter together and have it published isn't a complete moron. It is a "helluva gotcha" from 5 years ago.
 
Primary in what way? Abundance by volume? abundance by weight? Contribution to warming? Sure, I've HEARD people say it, I never heard somebody who knows what they are talking about when I ask what they mean by "primary" (I hear it for methane too).

CO2 absorbs in a far narrower infrared than H2O. In point of fact, the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere, the more diminishing returns on heat. Otherwise, Mars would be hotter than hell....
 
CO2 absorbs in a far narrower infrared than H2O. In point of fact, the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere, the more diminishing returns on heat. Otherwise, Mars would be hotter than hell....

Mars has no atmosphere to retain heat. It radiates out into space. If it had an atmosphere identical to Earth, it would be cooler because it is farther from the sun and gets fewer of its rays.
 
Last edited:
OK- not zero atmosphere. Thank you for the correction. But compared to ours, it is extremely thin.
http://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html
Mars is much colder than Earth, in large part due to its greater distance from the sun. The average temperature is about minus 80 degrees F (minus 60 degrees C), although it can vary from minus 195 degrees F (minus 125 degrees C) near the poles during the winter to as much as a comfortable 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) at midday near the equator.

The atmosphere of Mars is also roughly 100 times thinner than Earth's, but it is still thick enough to support weather, clouds and winds.
 
The very use of prefixes such as "pro" and "anti" ought to tell us that the issue has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with science of any kind.

It's ALL politics. On both sides.

A pox on both their houses!

Bud I just gave you a link to 7 years of politics free science with charts, graphs, and maps. I can't make you drink.
 
Bud I just gave you a link to 7 years of politics free science with charts, graphs, and maps. I can't make you drink.

And you missed my entire point, Bud. When all those charts, graphs & maps get hitched to politics, we are no longer talking about science at all.

Science is value neutral. In the end - hell, well before the end, in fact - all the Sturm und Drang over issues like this amounts to no more than Crusaders & Jihadists arguing over whose side God is "really" on.
 
LOL, I have yet to see any field of study that is "politics free".

Which is another excellent reason to refrain from declaring that science has somehow sanctified (or "proven" the superiority of) this, that or the other policy position.
 
Back
Top