Professional Greenhouse Deniers
Jun. 15th, 2006 10:58 amThis post is mostly for my reference in future debates, but features some information some of you might find useful...
On Slashdot today, In Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming, it was claimed that "many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it." According to Bruce Perens, the author who submitted the story to Slashdot works for a paid political PR firm.
In the referenced article at Canada Free Press, one of the major complaints about the huge humber of scientists (who support the hypothesis that our carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet) is that "what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
Canada Free Press is very conservative, which is a common trait amongst those disagreeing with the above climate change hypothesis. Proof of conservatism? Their editorial on the 2006 Canadian federal election started with this: "It’s time for a change. There’s really no other option available to Canadians than to replace the Liberal government that has run Canada for the last 12 years with the Conservatives. If we had our "druthers", we’d prefer an alternative to the Liberals that’s more conservative than Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but the fact remains that it is time for a change."
In the comments on the Slashdot article, this exchange with useful links:
First:
On Slashdot today, In Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming, it was claimed that "many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it." According to Bruce Perens, the author who submitted the story to Slashdot works for a paid political PR firm.
In the referenced article at Canada Free Press, one of the major complaints about the huge humber of scientists (who support the hypothesis that our carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet) is that "what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
Canada Free Press is very conservative, which is a common trait amongst those disagreeing with the above climate change hypothesis. Proof of conservatism? Their editorial on the 2006 Canadian federal election started with this: "It’s time for a change. There’s really no other option available to Canadians than to replace the Liberal government that has run Canada for the last 12 years with the Conservatives. If we had our "druthers", we’d prefer an alternative to the Liberals that’s more conservative than Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but the fact remains that it is time for a change."
In the comments on the Slashdot article, this exchange with useful links:
First:
[...]Reply:
So, if the case for global warming is as weak as some of these folks claim, why have they not published rebuttals or counter-claims? [in peer-reviewed journals -Cam]
Have you take a look of the researchers interviewed academic career? Here is the list of them. In my opinion none of them are very impressive, and nore in global warming.Reply:Tim Patterson http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/publicat
i ons/2002_04.htmlBob Carter http://www.es.jcu.edu.au/research/msgbs.html
Timothy Ball http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm
Boris Winterhalter http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/papers.
h tmWibjörn Karlén http://www.misu.su.se/research/reconstruction_nh.
h tml Look the graphic of the papaerDick Morgan http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Dick+Mor
I think they are a sample of the unqualified scientist the article talks about.g an+site%3Aexeter.ac.uk&btnG=SearchHe don't even have a page on Exeter
Of the hundreds of comments attached to this story, yours is by far the most insightful and informative. I disagree with your polite "none very impressive", and think you're wrong about "none in global warming" and "unqualified scientist". That panel is composed of professional Greenhouse deniers. They are "impressive" and "qualified" to testify before a Canadian fake "Conservative" government that's hired by polluters to protect Canada's giant fossil fuel exports to the US (our #1 supplier). And probably dreams of a "warm Canada" their vast real estate holdings can finally cash in on as people "migrate" from uninhabitable regions to the south, while finally getting a year-round passage between East and West hemispheres across the Arctic.And finally, just for fun, from the National Review Online, a writer who says that since Al Gore thinks global warming is bad, he should be protesting NASCAR, and since he doesn't, he lacks courage. Ummm, yeah.
Just look at their actual resumes, of course not quoted by "Canada's Fastest Growing Independent News Source", probably also funded by the Canadian Greenhouse industry and their global Murdoch partners.
Tim Patterson is a geologist, not a climate scientist - exactly the kind of scientist the BS article excludes to fake its conclusion that most Greenhouse scientists aren't qualified.
Boris Winterhalter is also a geologist, not a climatologist.
Geologists mostly work for the oil business, which is where most of the money for the entire science comes from, their peers who review, their "next gig pool".
Bob Carter doesn't even rate a page at his tiny Australian department where he's just an "Adjunct" professor.
Timothy Ball's "EnviroTruth" org is a division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an front for Exxon Greenhouse denial propaganda and other Vast RightWing Conspiracy players.
Wibjörn Karlén's research supports Gore, but he signs the BS letter anyway.
Dick Morgan doesn't have an Exeter page, nor does he have ">any recorded association with the World Meteorological Association, so he has no credentials whatsoever, apart from lying.
These people are professional Greenhouse deniers. That Canadian panel and its Canadian tabloid (an obvious rightwing rag, just looking at its front page) are cheap fronts for the polluters responsible for the Greenhouse. They're not even trying to hide it more than a couple of googles and clicks deep, they hate us so much. And judging from the hundreds of posts in this story falling for it, we are that stupid.