|
Post by sigurdur on May 13, 2014 3:16:02 GMT
We are all doomed. The sun isn't going to shine on 1/2 of the earth tomorrow. In fact, 1/2 of the earth is going to be dark forever now.
We can only hope this terrible tragedy doesn't expand to more of the earth.
This unusual event was confirmed by President Obama in a speech yesterday. He has just been informed by his science advisor and told everyone he is going to form a committee to look into this serious problem. He assured us that AGW was the cause of this unknown event, and with fewer emissions of CO2 pretty soon the earth would not see darkness again.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on May 13, 2014 4:54:36 GMT
More scientists to soon follow this example? or is the potential political fallout too greater a risk...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 13, 2014 11:10:36 GMT
It will be a slowly evolving process IMHO
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 14, 2014 14:19:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 15, 2014 2:08:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 15, 2014 2:17:29 GMT
Yep, in about 300 years. This has just gotten so nutso. The proclaim every damn natural event due to climate change. Ya know, there must be a whole lot of really uneducated folk out there.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 15, 2014 2:43:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on May 15, 2014 7:55:39 GMT
Well, he didn't last very long... ‘WITCH HUNT’ FORCES TOP SCIENTIST TO QUIT CLIMATE SCEPTIC THINK-TANK Date: 14/05/14 Click Green News One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists Professor Lennart Bengtsson has blamed a McCarthy-style witch hunt for his decision to quit a controversial climate change sceptic think-tank after just three weeks. The leading Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, astonished the academic world with his decision to join the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), founded by renowned climate change critic Lord Lawson. Explaining his decision earlier this month, Professor Bengtsson said he wanted to learn from the highly qualified experts at the GWPF in areas outside of his own expertise and to help widen the debate through his own extensive meteorological knowledge. His perceived “defection” was described as the biggest switch from the pro-climate change lobby to the sceptic camp to date. But in his resignation letter to the London-based GWPF today, the 79-year-old said the enormous pressure he had felt from around the world to his appointment on the organisation’s Academic Advisory Council had become “virtually unbearable”. Prof Bengtsson added: “If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. “I had not [been] expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship, etc. “I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.” The Professor’s letter concluded: “Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.” Accepting the professor’s resignation, David Henderson, chairman of GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, wrote to say the news had come as a “surprise and a shock”. He added: “Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy. “In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.” Click Green News, 14 May 2014
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on May 16, 2014 7:45:25 GMT
SCIENTISTS IN COVER-UP OF ‘DAMAGING’ CLIMATE VIEW Date: 16/05/14 Ben Webster, The Times Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”. Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the 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 added. Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental 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. It suggested that the climate might be much 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”. The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”. The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.” Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics. Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was “fully warranted”. The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference. They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data. Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly. He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.” Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson. Link: www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on May 16, 2014 13:28:17 GMT
I wring my hands and worry. I may need a doctor for heart palpitations. I mean what is next that Obama must solve now! "Can D.C. survive 'unstoppable' ice melt?" link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 20, 2014 3:49:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 20, 2014 3:53:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on May 21, 2014 12:59:22 GMT
Maybe O'Keefe should try Obama as well, Oh wait everyone already knows that is his plan just waiting for new regs from EPA. "James O'Keefe Dupes Hollywood with Fake Anti-Fracking Film" " O’Keefe entraps actor Ed Begley Jr., actress Mariel Hemingway, and director Josh Tickell, who agree to the film while promising to hide the source of the funds. The undercover activist tells the group that "if Washington, D.C., continues fracking, America will be energy-efficient, and then they won't need my oil anymore." In a phone call to Tickell, the "ad executive" states, "My client's interest is to end American energy independence; your interest is to end fracking. And you guys understand that?" Tickell's response: "Correct. Yes, super clear.” " link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 21, 2014 15:33:08 GMT
This really removes most questions doesn't it?
I can't figure out why anyone would want the USA to fail, but Hollywood/Washington sure seems full of those types of folks.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 2, 2014 13:00:16 GMT
How green it is! Oh wait we got it wrong.... "Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda" "Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios. Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year. PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets None of that has happened. Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security. The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts." link
|
|