| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: Green Drivel |
 |
|
Green ‘drivel’
| Quote: | The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” |
Cue the Crime Dog...
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” |
mcgruff knows it. This guy's problem is he obviously doesn't have teh Scyents.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anything new added from two months ago? mcgruff summarily dismissed it. Agree or stand down.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed. Lovelock's speculative ideas on climate have always been thought to be extreme by the climate science community, and were never published. He is a 92 year-old man with an impressive record but Godfather of climate change he is not.
Funny how bullies always go after the weak and avoid the strong guys like Hansen, Schmidt, et al.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Haven't we already had this discussion? I remember mcgruff marginalizing this old guy before.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | Haven't we already had this discussion? I remember mcgruff marginalizing this old guy before. |
Yes, that's why I asked if there was anything new.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What did he publish?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | Haven't we already had this discussion? I remember mcgruff marginalizing this old guy before. |
And worshiping and emphatically defending Peter Gleick (the forger).
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | There must be two Peter Gleicks. The one I know, the one who exposed some Heartland funding details, was falsely accused of forgery. |
That isn't any more or less credible than Heartland's claim.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | There must be two Peter Gleicks. The one I know, the one who exposed some Heartland funding details, was falsely accused of forgery. |
He knowingly published obvious forgeries, and he had already admitted as much. As pjp points out, an "investigation", by his AGW activist employer, also seeking to avoid public blame for the scandal and legal liability for having repeatedly broken the law, is meaningless. When you have a strong argument, you don't need to reduce yourself to libel and slander.
Now the climate change religionists (people like mcgruff, calling themselves, ironically enough, "Forecast the Facts") are continuing to use the forged documents in a spam campaign to threaten and intimidate donors to the groups that are daring to raise any questions. This is science? No, it's cult-like mob mentality. Most of us wouldn't believe or understand it if we didn't have our little example of it in our own forum to observe.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gleick didn't forge anything although obviously he did use subterfuge to get his hands on genuine, Hateland Institute documents.
It's absolutely hysterical listening to all their bullshit though. Nobody cries louder than a bully who gets a taste of their own medicine.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gleick forged the memo. This was deemed to be the case by independent, professional forensic writing style analysis.
| Quote: | Analysis was conducted by Patrick Juola, Ph.D., Director of Research, and director of the Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh.
Stylometric Report – Heartland Institute Memo
Patrick Juola, Ph.D.
Summary
As an expert in computational and forensic linguistics, I have reviewed the alleged Heartland memo to determine who the primary author of the report is, and more speci fically whether the primary author was Peter Gleick or Joseph Bast. I conclude, based on a computational analysis, that the author is more likely to be Gleick than Bast. |
Some scientist, forging memos to make people with opposing opinions look bad. He was caught red-handed leaking it, too.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lol.
So Anthony Watts (on the Heartland payroll, another blowhard with an anti-science blog who doesn't even have a university degree) found someone to "prove" Gleick forged the memo... Really...? There's a surprise.
Look what he actually said:
| Quote: | In response to the question of who wrote the disputed Heartland strategy memo, it is difficult to
deliver an answer with complete certainty. The writing styles are similar and the sample is extremely
small, both of which act to reduce the accuracy of our analysis. |
Note that even Heartland were forced to admit that the contents of the memo are from genuine Heartland documents so it's all rather immaterial.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why are you so full of fail in this thread. Here you are blatantly cherry-picking.
Why do you not include the rest of the paragraph:
| Quote: | | Nevertheless, the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider if more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled "Confidential Memo: 2012 heartland Climate Strategy," and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute." |
Which are you demonstrating here: a total lack of intellectual honesty, or just simple stupidity?
| mcgruff wrote: | | Note that even Heartland were forced to admit that the contents of the memo are from genuine Heartland documents so it's all rather immaterial. |
Now you are equivocating, using "contents" to mean both "some contents" and "all contents". In truth, forger Gleick took a real Heartland Institute document and made a number of substantial modifications to it, to support his untrue claims and to make them look like assholes.
Nobody denies any of that. Gleick admits the document is faked, and he admits leaking it. The only thing he denies is that he himself faked it (which, in light of this analysis, is not a credible claim).
What's actually immaterial is whether the forger used an actual memo as a base document. It's wholly immaterial. So here we have you opening your mouth and flapping your lips again with nothing of any meaning coming out. Why do you do that?
You're a climate change religionist, and you're part of the problem. The sooner you recognize it, the sooner you can move on in life.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Last edited by BoneKracker on Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Which are you demonstrating here: a total lack of intellectual honesty, or just simple stupidity? |
Both?
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Why do you not include the rest of the paragraph |
Maybe because it says much the same thing? "More likely than not" isn't the most unequivocal thing I've ever heard.
The real question is, why did you *not* mention the paragraph which I quoted; why did you present this as incontrovertible proof when it is in fact heavily qualified guesswork? Unlike you, I'm far too polite to speculate if this was due to a lack of intellectual honesty, or just simple stupidity.
The "forgery" nonsense is all just a smokescreen to divert our attention from a revealing glimpse into the workings of the tobacco-promoting, climate-denying, always-lying Hateland Institute.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Why do you not include the rest of the paragraph |
Maybe because it says much the same thing? "More likely than not" isn't the most unequivocal thing I've ever heard.
The real question is, why did you *not* mention the paragraph which I quoted; why did you present this as incontrovertible proof when it is in fact heavily qualified guesswork? Unlike you, I'm far too polite to speculate if this was due to a lack of intellectual honesty, or just simple stupidity.
The "forgery" nonsense is all just a smokescreen to divert our attention from a revealing glimpse into the workings of the tobacco-promoting, climate-denying, always-lying Hateland Institute. |
I didn't present it as "incontrovertible" proof; I presented it as "proof" (as in, evidence substantial enough to probably result in a conviction in a court of law). Yet another strawman from the strawman king.
Now you're just quibbling, squirming around trying to avoid what everybody knows -- that you're wrong. The bottom line is that your Scyents hero knowingly disseminated an obviously forged document, and probably forged it himself (as shown by forensic analysis). That's the kind of behavior you global warming religionists are engaging in, and guess what; it ain't science. And, don't whine about "them getting a dose of their own medicine", because I don't see them releasing forged documents.
You global warming asshats are hurting things more than helping.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
