Comments for As the Earth Cools: What Does it Mean for the Energy Industry? at http://www.rightsidenews.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.rightsidenews.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:26:19 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-77 Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen The EPW report from Marc Morano has thoroughly refutted Dr Hansen, the report contains dozens of links to various scientific resources, including the UN, Icecap, and others that debunk Hansen. In my book, he has been exposed and hung out to dry for bad science. Link for your own research and I invite anyone that disagrees to reply and site science and not emotion. http://tinyurl.com/52hk3d - Sleuth Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:43:57 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-75 When you accuse me of being part of a sect and dogmatic it indicates to me that you are in fact emotional about the position of 'your group' and not at all rational. In support of this I would like to point out that 'your group' is not exactly gaining in supporters. Quit the contrary You are not worth any more discussion as you will not listen to anything that does not support you position and simply villify anything that even appears to be different. You, like the dinosours, will be come extinct. - Nick Beerman Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:05:40 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-74 Mr Beerman said (now concealed through lack of support), “You are clearly still selecting only those sources that support your own dogmatic position.” Mr Beerman, that is called ‘projection’; it is precisely what you are doing and what I am not doing! If you carefully reread my posts, I am presenting the story from YOUR side of the dichotomy, and showing that it is wanting. That’s what we do in the other camp; we expose the pseudo-science that is paraded by activists to ensnare the gullible. Everyone in my camp is intimately familiar with the notorious pronouncements and data doctoring of Dr James Hansen. It would serve you well to learn the practices of James Hansen rather than preaching his pronouncements as a mantra. Seeking the advice of James Hansen on climate change is akin to seeking the advice from a snake oil salesman on the efficacy of his product. As for Hansen being silenced, that is the most risible rubbish ever promoted by your sect. Hansen has the ear of the media more than any other alarmist scientist. Hansen even had the political power to silence the head of NASA, Michael Griffin, when Griffin dared to speak as a climate heretic. I extracted this from the link that you published: ““We've realigned the observations and as a result the models agree with the observations much better than previously," said Church, a senior research scientist with the climate centre.” This has nothing to do with the present state of the oceans! Doctoring the past to fit the projections of the ideology is just diversionary pseudo-science. It is the practice of revisionist historians - rewrite the past to fit the utopian/dystopian narrative for the future. Leo Tolstoy - “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” - Douglas Adams Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:50:07 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-72 It is you M. Adams calling my position a dogma and religion. If you cannot avoid these types of phrases. I suggest that you research James Hansen of NASA and find out how every report he filed that supported global warming was sent back to him by the Bush administration and be re-written to play down Global Warming. As for the aspect of the oceans warming into and past the year 2000 I refer you to the following report from Reuters. http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN946269.html You are clearly still selecting only those sources that support your own dogmatic position. - Nick Beerman Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:38:50 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-71 It appears, Mr Beerman, that you and I are the only two present. You state “The fact is that new research indicates that the methods previously used to measure overall ocean temperatures have been flawed and that they have infact been warming at a 50% greater rate.” What particular research is this, and 50% greater than what? Here is some relevant up to date research. Amongst other data the Argo System of 3,000 buoys deployed in 2003 gathers information on ocean temperature. On the morning of March 19 this year, Dr Josh Willis of NASA’s JPL was interviewed by NPR’s Richard Harris. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming." On the 24th March, Lorne Gunter in the National Post made the following observation about Josh Willis’s curious remarks on NPR: “Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma.”It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR. Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.” Of course, when this modicum of truth escaped, Dr Willis had to be held accountable for his incautious lapse of orthodoxy. Josh Willis recants - "It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys. Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. ... " It reminds be of Galileo Galilei 375 years earlier: “Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies …” - Douglas Adams Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:15:55 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-70 Mr. Adams is still hanging on to false science. The fact is that new research indicates that the methods previously used to measure overall ocean temperatures have been flawed and that they have infact been warming at a 50% greater rate. Quit hiding from the real facts.. - Nick Beerman Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:32:39 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-69 From your opening remarks, I see that you have one foot firmly planted in the warming religious sect, “The earth warmed strongly …”. No, the earth warmed weakly! Apart from that, the first few paragraphs are a very good synopsis of the current state of play – the remainder is interesting but speculative. Your analysis of the problem as competing belief systems is half right. For the ‘warmists’, it is critical to understand that their commitment is driven by a belief system, but for the other side this unfair. I see the other side as realists who are investigating the science, warning that cooling looks likely and that AGW has been scientifically discredited as a fraud, hoax and delusion. The cooling side (to which I belong) is not fervently clutching at some ideological belief to which others must be persuaded and opponents must be branded as heretics and silenced. We are saying that AGW is a hoax designed to ensnare the scientifically illiterate, and the gullible. The measures being proposed for its amelioration are ineffectual (even by the scientific analysis of its proponents) and will cripple developed economies and societies. This, of course, was the very intention of the founders of the movement. The other component of our warning is that science and observation are telling us that the real problem about to be faced by humanity is a possible severe cooling. To have convinced the masses that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant is such a breathtaking piece of propaganda that it could only be achieved with a scientifically illiterate audience. CO2 is as innocuous as baby’s breath (for that’s what it is), and it is the gas of all life on earth. We are carbon-based life forms, and it is from this gas we have been fabricated. This gas is plant fertilizer and we eat those plants, and the animals that have eaten those plants. In geological terms CO2 is plumbing the depths; much less and we would be in serious trouble. The recent mild elevation in CO2 has been greening or planet. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has more to do with the gas evolving from the oceans during mild warming than it does with our burning of fossil fuels. As the oceans cool and the gas is reabsorbed, what will the ‘warmist’ narrative be to explain this away as more of our profligate consuming lifestyle? As Marcel Proust said “Facts don't enter a world dominated by our beliefs." - Douglas Adams Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:04:43 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energy-and-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html#comment-68 I'm afraid there has been a lot of cherry picking of information and data here. The general theme of the article simply does not support the fact that the Arctic Ocean is melting faster every year. Not only that but the existing ice is far thinner than ever recorded. I suspect that not only is the data cherry picked but is somewhat skewed. This is the type of work I would expect from someone like Bjorn Lomborg. I would also refer you to the work of James Hansen, climatoligist with NASA. Do the research and you will find that the Bush administration has been activly trying to skew the climate science coming out of NASA. - Nick Beerman Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:11:35 +0100