Climate change hoax continues - Northwest Chatter - Explorer

back Side Panel

Climate change hoax continues

17 comments

Sign in to comment

Close

Forgot Password

Or sign up now
Sign Up
LuvOV

LuvOV: really Advisor? The same Professor Bengtsson that just resigned his post of the Global Warming Policy Foundation? A group who calls on climate scientists to show greater transparency, but has refused to reveal details of its donors? But the Guardian has shown the leading backer to the group to be CQS Michael Hintze who is a billionaire conservative donor across the world? Think he has an agenda in the global warming debate?

Please remove your politics from my science...then I might listen to you. I can see the ice caps melting....I can choke on the smog in the air....I can feel the heat wave...CAN YOU?

Monday, May 19, 2014, 3:20 pm


Advisor

Advisor: Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor


A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.

The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html#ixzz31udqbYfU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Friday, May 16, 2014, 1:32 pm


azwriter

azwriter: Article? Really? More like a regurgitation of the worst of Fox News masquerading as journalism.

Whether you believe man caused it or not, a profound shift in weather is occurring. Glaciers are melting at unprecedented (in the history of modern man) rates, causing sea levels to rise. This is recorded fact and a major concern to the entire global community, particularly those who live on islands or in coastal areas. Not to mention, it should be to anyone who eats anything from the oceans, as the resulting change in temperature and deep currents affects sea life, and not positively.

So, if you're going to "quote" NASA, how about something recent and not related to email spam? Bloomberg article: Glacial Region's Melt Past "Point of No Return" NASA Says: http://bloom.bg/RHUcve

The melting of the ice caps is also causing the poles to shift, which affects everyday activities, like, say planes landing! Yes that's right, because runways and the lineup with pilot compasses no longer match up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1344899/Shift-magnetic-north-pole-affects--Tampa-airport.html

So let's shelve the rhetoric and look at the reality of things. You don't have to like Obama or hippies to recognize we have serious pollution issues. Ignoring the issues doesn't solve the problem. Neither does pointing fingers at which country pollutes or wastes the most resources. Do what you can do in your own backyard. Read beyond the propaganda and pay attention.

Friday, May 16, 2014, 11:48 am


azwriter

azwriter: Did you mean to add another link? Missed it - thanks for your reply. Perspective is definitely missing from this "article."

Friday, May 16, 2014, 11:35 am


dhymers

dhymers: A little perspective on the NASA scientist claim : http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/04/innumerate-claim-of-the-day-nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change/

And a full listing of all the undersigned:
http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-activism/

Impressive .. notice how the last one is a Meteorologist, the rest have operational, science and engineering backgrounds other than study of climate, forensic climatology, atmospheric pollutants etc...

When you throw out NASA and scientists, 1000 years of combined experience, these are juicy terms. Irresistible.

"Everything they have submitted as evidence so far, to include the so-called hockey stick graph, has been proven false and fabricated."

I would love to read that study. For now though, I'll read this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract


I get it, everyone hates uncertainty, everyone needs closure and reassuring statements from those they worship. If you take the term “science is settled” to mean every single person who has ever studied the given problem agrees, you have a 2nd grade understanding of what science is. There is no upper/lower bound on the percentage of people in agreement for something to be “settled”
There is only rigorous study, critique and re-study.

What the IPCC tries to do is give everyone a full understanding of the mega trends in the research. It might seem like a mission for a skeptic to challenge how their conclusion is reached, sure, challenge that methodology, but everyone will always be more interested in properly accredited skeptical scientists who have research detailing a contrary picture of what is happening, the point is, these are few and far between and are distributed across a broad spectrum of points of detailed disagreement, not simply “man is not a contributing factor”

Moving on... again with the “co2 is plant food that we need” argument. This is not an argument that holds much water as ...

“Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities. “ http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

… nothing is “certain”.

I know that drives people like Brinkley nuts. Its not about tribal political bullshit, its not about certainty. This makes it hard to develop policy, but Richard, you're making it infinitely harder for people to pop out of their cozy little conformation bias bubbles and confront uncertainty by framing climate change as a tribal issue, to put a face on the fears people have stemming from ignorance.

Papers, analysis and study... ha, I'd rather watch a good soap opera starring evil Obama and Gore.

Friday, May 16, 2014, 8:34 am


LuvOV

LuvOV: No significant catastrophic sea lvel rise....tell that to the Phillipines, New Jersey, and New Orleans!!!

9000 years ago the earth was in a different orbit around the sun creating a different climate....the orbit the earth is currently in when compared to similar orbital patterns shows a significant increase in temperature and thus sea level.

obviously the climate will change due to natural effects but to think the pollutents we send into the air have no impact on the climate seems foolhearty at best and completley ignorant at worst.

I get it...you're cheap and don't want to pay anymore taxes. But those of us interested in the future generations that will inhabit this planet are concerned that the lack of trying to curb our polluntants will cause significant damage to both the health of the planet and the human body.

Thursday, May 15, 2014, 4:25 pm


wastle

wastle: Thanks for letting Richard Brinkley demonstrate what a fool he is.
Along with lots of other nonsense I took a look at petition signers and found several that have been dead for quite awhile.
It's also the case that most of Brinkley's counter evidence is at least eight years old but then maybe that's his age too.
What really leaves me baffled is the notion that someone has something to gain from perpetuating the notion that the earth's climate is warming. It seems that the gains, at least in the short term, go to the deniers.

Thursday, May 15, 2014, 4:12 pm


Wiley Wayne

Wiley Wayne: The climate change seen to date is not much different from what has transpired
in the past. The small amount of man made CO2 added to the atmosphere has not yet shown any significant catastrophic sea level rise nor global warming. I see no immediate match with rising CO2 and the claimed global warming, SLR, increased hurricanes or tornadoes. If the warming is real, then what we may be witnessing, at this time some might infer, is the offset of global cooling wrought by the additional CO2. Since we are entering a potential time frame involved with rapid global cooling, this may be a very good deal for mankind. Think about this: 9000 years ago it was 4.5 deg F warmer and sea levels were 2 meters higher. That is 2000mm/4.5 deg F= 444mm SLR associated with each deg F (cooling in this case). So, what does 3.2 mm SLR mean? 3.2mmx100 yrs=320mm/444mm per deg F= 0.72 deg F warming per century. So, we are still in the ballpark of natural climate change.

Thursday, May 15, 2014, 9:28 am


Ron

Ron: A well thought out and well written commentary. I appreciate your columns and look forward to your opinions. Personally, my philosophy has always been, "follow the money". I am confident this whole fiasco is a well funded effort to scare people into new taxes and increased regulations designed to hamper growth. Keep up the good work Mr. Brinkley.

Ron Scarbro

Thursday, May 15, 2014, 4:54 am


DCC

DCC: How much was paid for this show to be put on HBO and how much is HBO making. This is what it's all about, profiting from making up something that was defined as the next ice age only 30+ years ago. Wait for a generation that has become willing to follow the latest fad and make your living off of them.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 5:36 pm


DCC

DCC: Brinkley,
Do you know how many lib sheep would lose their grants and income by exposing this global warming hoax. But they're not sure when to call out global warming and climate change. It depends on how they want to spin it. I did experience climate change today. It was sunny, then it rained, then it was sunny again. It was really scary. It shows you how someone like Al Gore, who couldn't achieve his goal of becoming supreme leader, can influence so many who have forgotten how to think for themselves and are willing to become drones. I do admit it (Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever it is called) a great money making scam.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 5:30 pm


LuvOV

LuvOV: Brinkley.....you astound me with your idiodic political paranoia and climate change denial. I don't care who or what caused the problem but to deny that there is a problem just makes it worse. How much $$ are we going to have to spend in cleaning up after extreme weather events or how many "indoor days" is LA going to have to see before you wake up and admit there is a problem and something we can do about it? Reverse the problem...no, but help try to clean it up yes!

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 10:03 am


John Flanagan

John Flanagan: I think we can all agree that cyclical weather and climate changes are dynamic and continuous, but I think we get into speculation when we conclude it must be primarily man made. We also should not mix regional pollution and toxic waste effects on land and water with solar causes, natural recurring changes, and spurts of tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc. Even the Bible discusses long term droughts and weather issues when the populations were low and little pollution happened.
The political proponents of climate change want to reverse what they see as climate change, but this means high energy taxes, economic chaos, and probably wars to decide resource allocation. There is a middle of the road approach and conservation will work, but those who see government using climate change as a power grab are not far off target.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 9:09 am


Gleb the Muffin Man

Gleb the Muffin Man: Exactly my thought. Either these guys are trolls, or they choose to ignore what any educated SCIENTIST (not news anchor or entertainer) not only believes, but proves. Watch the Vice documentary on HBO about Greenland and try to say that humans aren't the cause of global warming. Seriously, go ahead and watch it....I'll wait here for your response.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 8:39 am


Bill Butler

Bill Butler: The “Global Warming Petition Project” was actually a piece of political propaganda organized by a crackpot living on a farm in very rural Oregon.

Don’t believe it?

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”
(It’s actually Arthur Robinson’s farm in very rural Oregon)
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 8:30 am


riverpro13

riverpro13: I agree with your article, Most propaganda about this is for personal agenda's: It shows how ridiculous some people are when they think they can control it. They ignore most of the facts and are not aware how much cosmic influence impacts on the climate: eg; We are in a period of solar max. and history has shown that when there are less sunspots then the weather is colder and affected differently. I believe there is an example ( I think from about 300 years ago ) a period of very few sunspots for about 70 years in which America and Europe had extreme weather winters.
Gordon McIntosh
Australia
pm@riverpro.org

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 5:19 am


Serious

Serious: Are you on Meth or are you just retarded?

Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 4:51 am


Facebook comments

Close