Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

sorry, I must have missed something - did Svensmark himself say that his research showed that cooling has begun?

I was commenting on his research re solar activity and warming, not on whether he said something about cooling.

and re theissue of solar activity - or any other natural cause - and warming, consider this:

we know that type 2 diabetes is an increasing and major health problem globally.

we also know now that there are genetic factors which increase the likelihood of people suffering type 2 diabetes in later life.

AGW deniers are like people who say - well, I am genetically predisposed to type 2 diabetes, so a poor diet and lack of exercise will not change anything, so I may as well not bother with that.

 

No she didn't. She referred to publications he made that suggested that cosmic rays have a climate connection. That's light-years away from any suggestion that "cooling has begun".

 

or maybe they are like the people that say 'well there is no proof that my genes are 100% going to give me diabetes, since I have some from my mother and my father both so, rather than stop eating sugar now, I'll just keep an eye on my health because no matter what the cause, diabetes isn't fun or easy to live with'

point being, that why obsess so much that everyone MUST buy the whole "Man caused this problem"? why not focus instead on economically viable solutions?

 

well, if we continue comparing it to type 2 diabees, we now know that while SOME people may have a genetic predisposition, we now know rthatthe problem is increasingly affecting larger number sof people where ther enever has been a family history, and we now know that diet and a sedentary lifestyle are having a significant impact on the numbers of people who develop type 2 diabetes - at younger ages as well - and so influence long term health outcomes for a large percentage of the population.

its the same with the planet. we now know that carbon emissions are a significant factor impacting on the long term health of the planet.

how about smoking?

there are people whose family history suggests an increased risk of cancer, or cardiovascular disease.

if you have no family history of either, does that mean there is no problem with you smoking 50 cigarettes a day and this will not impact on your health?


deniers are the same as people who believe that their health will not be impacted by smoking.

we need to look after the planet as well as looking after ourselves.... that is, if we care about our children and grandchildren.

 

Bull poo! I am sickened to see qualified scientists ostracized from their colleagues and ridiculed* because they support an unpopular opinion or belief.

* (ridiculed at best at worse they have their career destroyed by entrenched decrepit 'tenured' status quo don't rock the cash cow grant and federal funded boat charlatan 'want to be scientists')

The 'good ole pee r boys' game has been going on since science has been of the LP nature, and the corruption and plain dumbness of the processes are good reason to dismantle the so called peer reviewed (tow the PC line or be destroyed) process. The publishing requirement is just as vile as the (cherry picked peers) Peer review silliness. Anyway I am going to cheer up our anti Christian anti USA anti conservative anything peers and end this reply with this paragraph and a link for those that have a open mind.

“Although Denmark’s top climate scientist, Henrik Svensmark was only a Greenpeace activist’s stone’s throw away from the Climate Summit, he was never invited to address the conference. This world-renowned physicist who works at the National Space Center in Copenhagen, is strictly persona non grata to advocates of the theory of man made global warming. This may seem odd because Svensmark is to cloud science as Albert Einstein was to the Theory of Relativity.”

http://www.climategate.com/henrik-svensmark-the-cloud-mystery

Rev A

 

his career doesn't appeared to have suffered too much since he is the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Center.

on the other hand - you mention climategate.

people whose criminal activity exposed that they couldn't understand scientific terms in emails which they had no right to access however tried to ruin the careers of reputable scientists - and deniers have even threatened climate scientists.

you should get your facts straight instead of behaving like a conspiracist.

 

No I didn't mention climate gate, I posted an (accurate and true) excerpt from a site with climate- gate in its name. It seems that its you that should get your facts straight instead of making slanderous and erroneous claims.

Rev A

 

Now that said you should get your facts correct about climate gate as well. Climate gate demonstrated to the world what those of us that have a modicum of common sense compared the Gore groupies already knew. Climate scientists noted in the e mails were crooked! It exposed the world to the lies of pro AWG goons and the crooked workings of the 'email climate scientists'. The Pro AWG so called scientists have prostituted behind closed doors and got caught in the process! Those caught in climate gate have made climate science and the peer review process the butt of jokes, damaging both irreparably.

Here is a good neutral unbiased review climate-gate;

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

And I am not the only person that claim scientists that have non PC non Greenpeace views are targeted for harm;

"In this world of rampant climate alarmism, its to be expected that theories and hypotheses which do not support the AGW theory will get the full treatment of bad analysis and character assassination. After all, where’s the funding going to go if there’s an alternative theory that bombs the bridge in front of the gravy train? One such is Dr Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis on the modulating effect of the solar magnetic field on the Earth’s climate.

or

Messrs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen stand by their studies and continue to believe there is evidence to support their sunspot theory of global warming, despite the doubts first raised by Laut. "It’s not a critique of the science or the correlations, it’s a critique of person," Mr Friis-Christensen said. "It’s a character assassination. [Laut] is not interested in the science, he’s interested in promoting the idea Henrik did something unethical."

Where are the flaws in Mr. Friis-Christensen work? Why are they not mentioned in the article, or even hinted at? And why has it taken eleven years to find these supposed errors?

Rev A

 

people who mention gore when talking about climate change are demonstrating how out of date their information on the issue is.

 

yes, but unfortunately Gore has been made the face of the AGW fanatic and you are stuck with him. It is part of the whole "convincing the public"...between him and the emails, you have lost a LOT of credibility with people that can't/don't want to spend time and effort researching scientific writings to determine their own opinion. Like it or not, these dramas are a lot easier to understand.

that being said, I notice that you didn't address his post...this is just a diversionary tactic to avoid it.

 

Indeed! Thanks Injest. Gore is still on the front lines as a spokes person, poster boy and pastor for those that worship AGW propaganda. BTW. I am very current, I make it my business and part of my ministry to be up to date on these things. Additionally, I never did say Gore was a scientist.

Cass, Read and weep;

► 7:44► 7:44

www.ted.com/.../al_gore_warns_on_latest_climate_tre...May 6, 2009 - 8 min
TED Talks At TED2009, Al Gore presents updated slides from around the globe to ... to climate change ...
More videos for the Latest on al gore climate change »
'24 Hours of Reality': Al Gore's Latest Climate Change Project - Lois ...

www.theatlantic.com/...of...al-gores-latest-climate-change.../245049/
Sep 14, 2011 – Will anybody watch the day-long program? Despite Gore's efforts, fewer Americans than ever before believe in climate change.
Al Gore: clear proof that climate change causes extreme weather ...

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/.../al-gore-proof-climate-change
Sep 28, 2011 – Al Gore has warned that there is now clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and ...

Al Gore and the Alternate Realities of Climate Change - TIME
www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2093955,00.html
Al Gore and the Alternate Realities of Climate Change. By Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011. Al Gore's online program called Climate Reality reached ...

Al Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Al Gore is the founder and current chair of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the ... Peace Prize (joint award with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007), ... In early June 2010, shortly after purchasing a new home, the Gores ...

Al Gore's '24 Hours' On Climate Change : NPR
www.npr.org › News › Science › Environment
Sep 14, 2011 – Former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth helped raise awareness around the issue of climate change.

A few of the 25,606,543,023 hits for Al Gore climate change 2011

Rev A

 

what you are engaging in here is the same strategy as the islamophoobes.

you take a peripheral thing and make that the focus of your attack.

Nobody I know who is interested in this issue gives a toss about Gore, in fact, there was a lot of criticism because there were inaccuracies in his film, which was a few years ago now aand the only people who ever mention it are deniers..

he may be the face of climate change to YOU - but to people who care about the issue, the face of climate change are the faces of those people who are already being impacted.

 

his link referred to climate gate - where the only wrongdoing was teh hackers who didn't understand what they were reading, and the deniers who bought into it.

there have been several enquiries, and the scientists have been found to lack communication skills when dealing with the public ... which they shouldn't have had to worry about in their private emails to each other!

 

only the ignorant regard Gore as even releavent on this issue.

in the wider world, we never even hear about him.

there are too many qualified people discussing this issue.

 

well of COURSE you don't give a toss about him.....he has been completely outed as a fraud, in it for all the money he can get...and his movie, touted by so many has been proven a fake.

of COURSE you want to distance yourself from him...UNFORTUNATELY for you, he is too involved and the AGW crowd can't seperate from him. Not in the public's mind and not in the political arena.

 

ROTF...poor socially inept scientists with their pocket protectors and their poor communication skills..

do you even realize how dumb that makes these scientists look? we are supposed to take their 'findings' seriuosly when by your own admission they lack basic communication skills?

 

pfft..just more diversion

 

Have some back

 

a significant proportion of people who are experts in their fieldare highly intelligent and good communicators, but simply cannot translate their area of expertise into language that people outside of their field can understand easily.

the fact that there are several terms regularly used in science that have a different meaning in an every day context (eg theory, manipulation, and many others) tends to confuse the issue as well - not among scientists, but in how the uneducated interpret what they are saying.

a number of scientists have recognised that they need to do something about this, however you have to realise that a scientist's role is not public relations. The denier lobby has invested a significant amount of funds in propaganda/publicity campaigns. science funding goes into research.

 

mentioning Gore in the first place is a "diversion".

ay poster who refers to Gore as a "high priest" is clearly ignorant of what is happening now in regards to this issue.

 

only in the US.

when the film was first released I was extremely critical because I understood that for the US this was the worst thing that could happen, because it would make global warming a "liberal" issue, and from what I had seen over the years on political forums, many americans will oppose something just because the "enemy" supports it.

thats often the only reason people over there seem to need to base their decisions on.

that there was inaccuracies also annoyed me, and him getting the NPP devalued that prize, although I appreciate that it was because the committee probably believed that he had "woken up america" to what is happening to our planet.

obviously, the fact that a liberal was involved (and a presidential candidate for the dems at that) just meant you guys would squeeze your eyes even more firmly shut.

 

Close Thread.

This Thread Is Over The 500 Post Limit.

 

I would, by a wide margin, trust a top scientist with lousy communications skills, over a top communicator with lousy scientific skills.

 

certainly if you are looking at an issue where the scientist's expertise is, I would.

as for the top communicator, it might depend on the context. if he has been properly briefed it might be OK - and note I said properly briefed. that would mean he woul dhave to sit down and talk to the scientists and get them to check that what he was saying is correct, and represents what they are saying, rather than embellishing it to give it more of a wow or scare factor.

 

Such people do exist. But what proportion of experts are they? Probably below ten or twenty percent.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.