This guy is a research analyst who does the most wonkish job of slamming global warming fears thus far. This lecture is from 2008. About one hour long.
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
This guy is a research analyst who does the most wonkish job of slamming global warming fears thus far. This lecture is from 2008. About one hour long.
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 26028 access attempts in the last 7 days.
But temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So “global climate change” is the more scientifically accurate term.
#20 The name was changed so the Conservative simple minds can look beyond the next 20 minutes to the decades ahead.
Scientists agree that hotter times are ahead. A decade of lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system.
The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume.
Reagan once said that the world is in danger of “killer trees”. That still resonates with the sheeple for some reason.
You know, none of this matters really. Nobody is going to do a damn thing about it anyway. Warming from human activity is quite real, but there will be just enough confusion sown to justify doing nothing “right now”. People love the status quo — always have. Admit it — nobody is going to accomplish anything to stop it, just endless jabber. If Americans end up cold and cranky because the oil and gas run our or get too expensive, we are just gonna burn the coal, without looking back. You know it’s true. We are too weak and too late. Good thing I’ll be out of here long before 2050. Before all you anti-science idiots start whining for science to save you from the disaster you insisted wouldn’t happen.
#23 Which part of what this guy has to say isn’t real science?
People are so locked into taking sides along ideological or political lines they not even interested in the science.
BRAVO,
there is now quite a collection of alternative viewpoints that needs to be mainstreamed.
Perhaps in forthcoming senate investigations, after the loonacy of the 500 billion per year reparations/ 80 per cent carbon energy reduction demand of unelected NGO extremist nutters, brings forth a broad movement to counter them, alternative viewpoints will be required transmission.
As is hinted by Peter Taylor there are many scientist/administrators who have been compromised. These are not the people that are to be purged/removed from office. There must be a focus on the central dehumanists who chose CO2 has their weapon of choice.
I’m really surprised that those who claim to be for “science” are not the least bit concerned that Mann, and Jones (hockey stick graph et al, not Briffa) research the IPCC built its foundation of climate change/AGW admit to:
1) hiding data
2) manipulating/misleading data to “fit” other data
3) losing data
4) discouraging peer review
5) not having a full understanding of their climate model software
and yet you somehow think the scientific process is fully intact.
Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that scientists claiming catastrophic AGW have some other motive other than science to want to turn climate science from a poorly funded scientific backwater into a field fully funded with literally billions of dollars from around the world?
The fact that it made a few scientists very famous and made them heads of various research centers, means they have an even larger burden of transparency. Is it odd to question the large amounts of funding dollars to them and their Universities by politicians coming from countries that by and large have limited natural resources and hence may have some desire to have legal control over who produces what and how much of a natural resource is allocated?
Unlike how I will be portrayed by the “believers” on this blog, I’m not saying the warming couldn’t cause problems, obviously it can and probably does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems to this point are being grossly exaggerated. Ask any 90 year old “What’s the most dreadful thing that has happened over the last 90 years?” It may be the Great Depression, Holocaust, Gulags, but I doubt you will get the answer “The ocean levels rose 2cm.”
AGW takes away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important, at best, and at worst is being perverted into a massive power grab by those with limited natural resources to control those who have an abundance of natural resources.
From: Obamaforever
To: All anti-Climate Change Retards
Any one who wants to know about Peter Taylor please go to the http://realclimate.org site. This site talks about galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Peter Taylor makes the mistake of defending his side of things. The realclimate people proceed to tear him a new one.
You need to scroll down to find Peter Taylor. The more you scroll down the more you find Peter Taylor. The man does not know when to stop. He is like the Monty Python knight who gets his arms and legs cut off and says “What? It is only a flesh wound.” or words to that effect.
I almost feel sorry for the New Age guru.
#27 Obamaforever
“Peter Taylor makes the mistake of defending his side of things. The realclimate people proceed to tear him a new one. ”
You mean that the AGW zealots on the site ripped into him with a torrent of unsubstantiated abuse as per the modus operandi of all AGW zealots.
#26 Smittybc
I concur.
It’s funny how much the global warming scientists are fixated on a single theory. That the sun has an effect is obvious. Their first attempt as to finding the mechanism doesn’t work according to their models, therefore we’ll conclude the sun has no influence. How about you try and look at other factors?
Maybe it’s GCR that is the means by which the sun affects climate, maybe it isn’t, but treat it seriously. The theory is that it’s not a brighter sun warming the planet, but rather a cooler sun fails to block out galactic cosmic rays from outside the solar system, and these rays in turn form clouds, which block out the sun. A brighter sun sets up a magnetic forceshield and keeps out these rays.
If that theory doesn’t work, look for other ones. Don’t just rely on your models and declare the sun has no effect.
The dirty secret of the models, is they only work if you are certain about the factors that you put in the models. Mess up one thing and the whole thing blows up.
Ah, finally some sound science on global warming!
Just out of curiosity — what is the criteria, exactly, that demonstrates to Dvorak that this lecture is based on unassailable science — whereas the countless lectures that demonstrate human/industrial contribution to global warming are clearly and demonstrably wrong?
Surely it cannot be that this guy’s science is taken to be truth simply because it conforms to Dvorak’s desired explanation…?
Of course not! So it should be easy for him, or any of his minions, to explain in simple terms why this is obviously “good” science, wheras most climate science is “bad”…
What’s the answer?
Re: bobbo,#14–Jim==why are you putting all your eggs into the IPCC basket and then basing your lack of position on their deficiencies?
The IPCC controls the summary and recommendations of all scientific efforts behind the notion that catastrophic events will happen with ACC.
So I simply use them as poster boy.
Get published and cited there, and you have it made as a climatologist. Present contrasting evidence and to are fried.
#30 Gnu
I personally don’t understand most of the science. I’m not a climatologist or any other sort of scientist. I’m in no position to refute or agree with any of the climate science, including Peter Taylor’s.
What I do understand is that when people proclaim things like ‘the science is in’ or ‘everyone agrees’ where clearly there are differing opinions, something is fishy. I also agree with Taylor’s summation that the global financial elite have a vested interest in seeing AGW adopted as fact.
Can you explain to me why Taylor’s argument is bad science? Seems Ok to me.
the scam of agw is over….Al Gore has become the stacks edwards (godfellas) of the green mafia. with all his pull out of the ass polar bear drop dead dates being exposed, old Al better look out.
Bobbo, the IPCC’s is one of the more disaster prone scenarios, though it’s possible to do even worse. If their science is a bit off to the point where the correct threat of global warming is a bit less, then things aren’t so bad.
The recent cooling/lack of warming suggests to me that the worst case scenarios of the IPCC are not likely. 2C/century because of CO2, maybe, 4C, unlikely. That the IPCC goes to great lengths to cover up these facts, like rejiggering their presentations to hide the decline, tells me they are playing more politics than science. The hide the decline in the CRU e-mails is not the only example. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report had Stefan Rahmstorf redoing his filters to hide the decline. He explained it away on RealClimate that they thought a 15 year smooth was better then the 11 year smooth they used before to represent climate. Of course this had nothing to do with 1998 being so close the first time around and not wanting to have too many of the cooler years before it if they used the longer filter in 2006.
Man made global warming is a political tool, nothing more. Supporters only support it in belief that society needs to be feared into change. That society is so stupid and self serving that unless they are fearful of some inevitable doom, they will never change their ways.
#1 Because is a big fat lie, that’s why.
#22 The name was changed because it was wrong and they were getting caught. So, in order to try and keep the scam rolling., they changed the name.
No big help, really.
Now, go to Soros office and tell him you did the best you could to make us “see the light”. I don’t think he’s gonna pay you for this fail, but it’s worth a try.
#27 You need to go to a special school. There use to be a guy here that already was going there in a short bus. Maybe you can go with him.
To all the denier nuts.
Can any of you provide the name of a reputable, professional science body that does not support the concept of man made global climate change?
After all, if the science is so tainted and bad then surely some group will disagree. I believe that even Exxon and BP have signed on the concept of climate change.
Just name one group. Some group a little more focused than a Anthropological Doctoral candidate led bunch.
pedro, man, you really need to get a life.
#37,
watch the video, Peter Taylor mentions two.
#38 Like what, start preaching that the end is near and that we all need to give gore all our monies?
Ain’t gonna happen!
How’s that global warming winter going?