About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “Major ‘global warming’ scientist recants”

  1. never understood global warming in the middle of the quaternary ice age.

    What the child is saying is scary but notice the mother next to her smiling as though she isn’t saying anything wrong. Listening to her reminds of the movie idiocracy

  2. As the left loses the argument based on scientific evidence they are turning more and more to propaganda of the young and eventually violence.

  3. Where the fuck is the actual scientist who has expertise in the climate field? Care to post the link to the peer-reviewed paper?

    Look… in science you dont “recant”. This isn’t the catholic church. It doesn’t work like politics. If you have proof global warming is wrong, you publish a paper in peer-reviewed journals with your evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory. If you could actually disprove global warming, or provide an explanation alternate to CO2, you would be a nobel prize winner. So far no alternate explanation has been found by anyone with actual knowledge and experience in the field. All the so called “scientists” that are brought forward are usually not scientists, or are studying an unrelated field, such as James Lovelock, who went to MEDICAL SCHOOL, of all things.

  4. And heres the upshot of all of this. Having this sort of stuff on a conservative media outlet is the same as giving CAIR or PETA legitimate airtime on the MSM. Its giving ideologues and hacks a platform. It casts a shadow of doubt over the rest of the information presented. After all, if theyre dishonest enough not to bother checking the sources, then what else are they dishonest about?

    The best way to dig out the ground from under the left is with honesty, not with ideological flim-flam that doesn’t stand up to even cursory review by someone with some knowledge of the subject. Show why their agenda is wrong instead of peddling hacks. It makes the rest of us on the right look bad.

  5. Adam:

    The Nobel prize has become somewhat politicized as well these days. In fact, an alternative model which has fantastic predictive value, not just interpolation but extrapolation as well has been developed which predicts climate change with great accuracy throughout history where data is available and appears to be working now with short term predictions.

    If you can find the movie made about these Danish scientists who developed a model based on cloud formation, cosmic rays and solar wind called, The Cloud Mystery, then you might find it satisfying.

    This may be it here:

    Of course, when facts contradict the prevailing political orthodoxy, even scientists tend to ignore or shun it. This goes beyond any left-right paradigm. Medical science is full of glossing over new ideas if the person who developed it was, Jewish, black, of the wrong sort in general. Check out the history of treatment of ulcers as one example of this exact thing.

  6. I agree about the nobel prize. Not what it used to be given who they typically award it to in the humanities end of the deal.

    Sure, there are alternate theories, and its always good to explore them. I certainly dont hold it as orthodoxy, but its irritating to see right wing media organizations give platforms to those with no expertise in the field whatsoever. A great example of this is Lord Monkton. His presentations are PAINFUL to watch. He doesnt analyze the data correctly, cherry picks the results hes looking for, misinterprets others results, etc. The best example is the infamous temperature chart thats made its rounds in his presentations and on Glenn Beck. You know, the one that shows a cooling trend over a few years. Take the whole chart, though, and that “cooling” is just a small downtick in an overall warming trend. Watching them clomp through the subject in hobnail boots really looks foolish to those who’ve been following the issue with any sort of understanding.

    One thing to keep in mind about global warming is that its systems science. Its not a YES/NO answer. Really it comes down to this: yes, we do know that CO2 helps trap heat, and works in conjuction with water, methane, and other gasses to modulate the global temperatures. We also know that CO2 and temperature track one-another. Scientists also have a good feel for the other perturbations that affect climate, such as the small, but predictable changes in Earths orbit that drive the ice-ages. The question is not whether CO2 causes global warming, its now a question of how much will we see, how long will it take, and how does the rest of the system in question respond to what essentially amounts to a step-change in CO2 levels. The amount of heat trapped by CO2 isnt much, maybe 3-5%, but it influences other gasses, such as water and methane, as well as changes in albedo of the Earths surface, which amplify the warming effect. This is the true meat of the subject that scientists are now grappling with.

    The postulation that CO2 doesnt cause global warming from the likes of Monkton and “We’ll all be dead tomorrow!” from Al Gore represent opposite extremes of the outcome; both equally improbable. Really what it comes down to is that the right and left have seen fit to usurp a legitimate field of study for political ends.

    If people where smart about it, money would be put towards research at universities into alternate energy so better ways to power civilization could be found and developed. But its not likely to happen any time soon. Instead we’ll just see more of the same old “quick fix” mentalities of blocking exploration of existing carbon based resources and heavy handed legislation to try to force everyone to use alternate energy technologies that are not yet viable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.