Comments on: All Over the Map

By: David

David — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:11:21 +0000

In the 80″s CO2 increases and therefore global warming were blamed on the rapid decrease in rain forests do to cutting. How was this disproved and where can I find “credible” proof? When you’ve lived long enough and have seen “experts” and news change the name and reason for the same phenomenon enough times it becomes difficult to accept any arguments at face value. Sometimes, and just sometimes, the fact that something is written or said even a lot does not make it true!

[Deforestation leads to less CO2 being removed from the atmosphere, so it contributes to global warming, along with emissions from fossil fuels. This is common knowledge. -Kate]

By: Roald A

Roald A — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:22:20 +0000

Neither help at all with my question, the Youtube video does not address your claim, and nowhere on that "DenialMachine" web page is there any reference to it. If you know where in their documentary he says tobacco does not cause cancer, please provide it in direct quotes. Are you able to provide a direct quotation or web link where it is plain to see he had “opposition to the theory of tobacco causing cancer”? If you make such a claim, isn't it in your best interest to be able to produce readily accessed evidence out of James Hoggan's "Climate Cover-up" book? Rather than say "I believe" about Naomi Oreskes' presentation, would it be best to make sure she said words to that effect? [More specifically, he said that secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer. I suppose that is different, and it's what all of those sources mention. Yes, I was too general, but tell me that at the outset instead of turning to aggression. -Kate]

By: Roald A

Roald A — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:02:39 +0000

Quick question: Precisely what evidence to you have to support the claim that Fred Singer has "opposition to the theory of tobacco causing cancer"? [Singer's involvement with tobacco companies is well summarized in this documentary (although it might be geo-locked so only Canadians can watch), this video, the book Climate Cover-Up, and (I believe) Naomi Oreskes' presentations. Hope that helps. -Kate]

By: Scott A. Mandia

Scott A. Mandia — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:50:11 +0000

The term meteorologist means one has a DEGREE in the field – essentially it is a degree in fluid/gas physics. A WEATHER FORECASTER does not need a degree. The two terms are often confused.

Watts is NOT a meteorologist – he is a weather forecaster.

By: climatesight

climatesight — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:45:30 +0000

Well said!

By: Martin Vermeer

Martin Vermeer — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:23:05 +0000

climatesight, isn’t your insight in this post simply a special case of there being only one truth, but an infinite variety of lies?

That’s why telling the truth is easy, but making up lies and keeping them consistent, hard work. That’s why lie detectors work ;-)

I’m lazy, so I’ll stick to the truth ;-)

By: Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:32:31 +0000

I’ve been here before, but can’t remember if I commented. Anyway, Steve Bloom has led me back here …

Lindzen is arguably the most credible “skeptic”, but is definitely outside the mainstream at this point. And he does accept funding from dubious sources:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

In general, SourceWatch is a good way to follow the money (full disclosure: I have contributed there). You can check out some of the Sourcewatch articles on Canadian “skeptics” and their organizations in the sidebar at my site. Friends of Science is particularly hair raising (and that story is not over yet, unfortunately).

Another Canadian website:
One Blue Marble
http://one-blue-marble.com/

Great, thought-provoking blog – as Tamino says it gives one hope for the future.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:30:59 +0000

I did see Michael's post, although it's only the latest such outrage. Actually Lindzen is above average in scientific circles. That track record gets him continued respect despite his ongoing descent into denialism, although to all appearances he resents the field because he hasn't been granted the degree of respect he thinks he deserves. Lindzen came up with a clever and plausible idea in his 40s ("cumulus drying" and later the "iris"; the essential idea is that much of the warming is self-canceling due to changes in cloud behavior) and has been promoting it ever since. That it's been comprehensively rejected after years of debate in the literature has only caused him to shift his efforts to the public arena. One more Canadian climate link: Deep Climate

By: climatesight

climatesight — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:49:48 +0000

Hi Steve, thanks for dropping in. I agree that Lindzen, Singer, and Watts are all in totally different scientific levels as they relate to climate change. Lindzen was on the IPCC, Watts studied weather (and appears to think that it is the same thing as climate), and Singer will say whatever you want as long as you pay him. I can see straight through Watts' and Singer's motives, but Lindzen confuses me....pretty average in scientific circles, doesn't dispute anything, but then goes to the media and throws out all sorts of nonsense. Did you see, on Michael Tobis' blog, the letter that he recently signed? Pretty outrageous, and Michael's comments were spot on. Hope you'll keep coming back. I'll check out those links too.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:22:39 +0000

One more thing: Your post more or lesss presents Lindzen and Singer as being on the same scientific level. That’s not at all the case. Lindzen is a real climate scientist, while Singer had a career doing other stuff entirely and can only pretend to be a serious researcher. Note e.g. that he published an advocacy book based on the D-O business but never submitted anything for peer review. Similarly, Singer has been a full-time shill for the bad guys for 20+ years while for Lindzen it’s been very much a part-time hobby (although that may be changing now that he’s reached retirement age).