An interesting idea, Solar Road Panels Offer Asphalt Alternative

Scientists say united on global warming, at odds with public view

(Reuters) - Ninety-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mainly man-made but a wide public belief that experts are divided is making it harder to gain support for policies to curb climate change, an international study showed on Thursday.

President Barak Obama's tweet:
https://twitter.com/search/%23climate

Principia Scientific is featuring an article entitled "Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim." The article begins:

Authors of a new climate science consensus study trumpeted by mainstream media hacks for "proving" that most scientists blame humans for global warming are today being accused of fakery. Uproar ensued just days after publication of a controversial paper, 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.'

Experts whose work was cited in the paper by lead author, John Cook ... are aghast that their work has been used to justify far-fetched claims that there exists a "97% consensus" among scientists regarding human-caused global warming. Among those upset scientists cited in the new paper is Dr. Craig Idso. Idso reacted: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper."

I thought Soviet era science papers were a thing of the past ... but I guess the climate science group has proven that greed for grant money is still the driving factor in the conclusions drawn.

---

Scientists say united on global warming, at odds with public view

(Reuters) - Ninety-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mainly man-made but a wide public belief that experts are divided is making it harder to gain support for policies to curb climate change, an international study showed on Thursday.

President Barak Obama's tweet:
https://twitter.com/search/%23climate

Principia Scientific is featuring an article entitled "Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim." ...

... "That is not an accurate representation of my paper."

I thought Soviet era science papers were a thing of the past ... but I guess the climate science group has proven that greed for grant money is still the driving factor in the conclusions drawn.

Try looking up who "Principia Scientific" are and how they are funded...

Rather a pretentious name with apparently rather arrogant pretentious claims to protect their version of what they call 'science' from most other scientists. They boast Lord Monckton amongst their 'esteemed group'...

So, I'd personally describe them as another FUD-funded pretentious arrogant group with less than clear and open reasons for advocating blithely trashing our planet. And all fraudulently very unscientific.

Note: No good source for their propaganda article...


The uncontrolled global pollution experiment that we are industrially conducting is still as reckless as ever.

This is the only one planet we have,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Scientists say united on global warming, at odds with public view

(Reuters) - Ninety-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mainly man-made but a wide public belief that experts are divided is making it harder to gain support for policies to curb climate change, an international study showed on Thursday.

President Barak Obama's tweet:
https://twitter.com/search/%23climate

Principia Scientific is featuring an article entitled "Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim." The article begins:

Authors of a new climate science consensus study trumpeted by mainstream media hacks for "proving" that most scientists blame humans for global warming are today being accused of fakery. Uproar ensued just days after publication of a controversial paper, 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.'

Experts whose work was cited in the paper by lead author, John Cook ... are aghast that their work has been used to justify far-fetched claims that there exists a "97% consensus" among scientists regarding human-caused global warming. Among those upset scientists cited in the new paper is Dr. Craig Idso. Idso reacted: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper."

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism

Thus although our results were straightforward and consistent with previous research, we were not surprised when they met with resistance from certain groups, and anticipated the critiques with an FAQ. However, in reviewing the various criticisms of our paper, we noticed some common threads amongst them. A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:

1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories;

These characteristics were present throughout the criticisms of our paper, and in fact we found examples of each of the five characteristics among them.

I can't follow all of this blather. However, I seriously doubt that 97% of scientists think that global warming is caused by man since more C0-2 is created by nature, and CO-2 is a minor "pollutant" compared to other causes of "warming" such as solar output and the weather itself via cloud cover.

Who are these 95% scientists. Are these the scientists that would have us all defecate little wrapped candies ?

What do these 97% 'ers think that we should or could do about it anyway.

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

That isn't by the Guardian. It is on a blog site under the Guardian's domain name which indicates the Guardian exercises no editorial control, review or fact checking. The poster has only been posting since February. The other posts indicate a total rabidness about them with a complete lack of scientific method. There is a second name on the article, but no history of the other person ever posting to the blog. It is everything it decries. The very essence of what is wrong with climate change promoters.

As to cherry picking, how many tests do you need to perform to decide if a bag of candy is one color? Say you have 1000 pieces of candy (scientists) in the bag and you are told at the outset that 100% are all the same color and it is red (support warming). If you picked 20 out of the bag and 15 were blue and 5 red, would you still believe the person who told you that were all red?

---

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

That isn't by the Guardian. It is on a blog site...

Typical blather to attack the messengers rather than consider the message. Such blather is more for the Denialists thread.


Here, we give solutions.

Indeed, at the moment I'm just around the corner from a small hydro-electric scheme that powers the local community. That's powering this netbook and the internet connection, and lots more. They also get their own fresh water all simply gravity fed.

The new buildings here are a pre-fabricated weatherproof and well insulated shell. The insides are then fitted out to taste. Very efficient and nicely cost effective. Why oh why are we still suffering such expensive crap shoddy build elsewhere in the UK?!

All a good solution for here. Also a good example of what can be done for similar places elsewhere. The people make it work well.


As for cities: There are solutions possible there also, but obviously different to the small example here. However, lots better can be done for just a little effort and just a little interest from people.


This is the only planet we have,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

That isn't by the Guardian. It is on a blog site...

Typical blather to attack the messengers rather than consider the message.

ML1 wrote:

They boast Lord Monckton amongst their 'esteemed group'...

Better quit digging a deeper hole.

---

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

That isn't by the Guardian. It is on a blog site under the Guardian's domain name which indicates the Guardian exercises no editorial control, review or fact checking. The poster has only been posting since February. The other posts indicate a total rabidness about them with a complete lack of scientific method. There is a second name on the article, but no history of the other person ever posting to the blog. It is everything it decries. The very essence of what is wrong with climate change promoters.

As to cherry picking, how many tests do you need to perform to decide if a bag of candy is one color? Say you have 1000 pieces of candy (scientists) in the bag and you are told at the outset that 100% are all the same color and it is red (support warming). If you picked 20 out of the bag and 15 were blue and 5 red, would you still believe the person who told you that were all red?

Maybe you ought to look a little further. One of the authors, Dana of that blog, where both links have come from, is one of the authors of the paper printed in the Journal, Environmental Research Letters, Vol8 #2.

The other blog author, Dr. John Abraham, can be found at the of University of St. Thomas, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

More biased than the Heartland Institute? Truth is always a defense, so as this is needed, somehow truth doesn't appear ...

As I said, you should stop digging the hole.

But what I find most telling is someone saying how dare they say my paper supports, when it doesn't. Actionable? Libel? Is this how warmers have to make their case? Apparently so, and you champion such tactics by re-posting.

---

A real solution to global warming, new CO2 eating plants on new ground.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/frozen-plants-from-the-little-ice-age-regenerate-spontaneously/
Brings to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Our planet may be more self regulating than we give it credit. Something that is obviously not in any model today.

---

A real solution to global warming, new CO2 eating plants on new ground.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/frozen-plants-from-the-little-ice-age-regenerate-spontaneously/
Brings to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Our planet may be more self regulating than we give it credit. Something that is obviously not in any model today.

Gary, if this science was studied judiciously in the way it should be we could
most probably predict other phases, to come, of this planets evolution. All
based on previous ecological history.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Gary, if this science was studied judiciously in the way it should be

Truer words have not been spoken.

It is unfortunate that salaries depend on predetermined conclusions to scientific investigations, but politics has taken over.

---

Here is the Guardian's response to the denialists.

That isn't by the Guardian. It is on a blog site...

Typical blather to attack the messengers rather than consider the message.

ML1 wrote:

They boast Lord Monckton amongst their 'esteemed group'...

Better quit digging a deeper hole.

You really believe that guy on anything to do with climate and pollution?!

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

Career

Climate Change


Well, well, well... You've dug your hole so deep with that one that you've drowned in your own well!

Utter stupidity.

Now can we get back to reality please?

Only on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I pity Martin. His politics goes before his thought processes.

Why would you stop someone from pressing the join button? Political litmus tests, religious litmus tests come to mind. Neither has any place in science. But Martin thinks they are the gold standard, as he touts who is the most important part of the message.

Science requires the free flow of ideas. The moment you have a cabal that decides what ideas my be published, you can be assured that no science is being published. (remember how they got an editor of a science journal fired?)

When you have a cabal that says author A's paper supports their position, but author A says that is cow droppings, you can be assured that no science is being put forth.

Manhattan is supposed to be under how many feet of water today? Deal with the fact that it isn't. Go find out why not. Otherwise you sound just like the profits who say that the end is coming on fill in a date and a day after the non-event come up with a new date.

Martin, stop posting your "the end is now" posts in solutions, they belong in denial or a ditto-fanboy thread.

---

+1

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

I pity...

...belong in denial or a ditto-fanboy thread.

I see, just the usual useless noise and flame-bait pollution from you, all befuddled with deceptive claims. (Please give some references for your silliness about Manhattan? ...Ooops? What, you can't in the real world?)

Follow-up for The Denialists.


This is still the only planet we have for everyone,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

see, just the usual useless noise and flame-bait pollution from you, all befuddled with deceptive claims

But Martin, isn't this exactly what we've been saying about you over this man
made global warming issue?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Lets inject some reality. [Oh god, he means math!]

What is the problem?

We assume it is CO2.

CO2 is related to how many of us there are.


That's not good. We were stable for a really long time and then something happened and we went exponential.

Fortunately we don't put out that much CO2 as beings. However we are still going to need to address that growth rate as it isn't sustainable.

Lets look at something we do that makes a lot of CO2.

Seems we were stable there until about WWI. Then we went exponential. Again no exponential growth rate is sustainable, so we must address this.

But, is the use per person going up, or just the number of people?

Not looking so good. Until about 1900 it seems the per person use was stable. After that is has gone exponential!

So now we know what the problem is. An exponentially increasing number of people each exponentially using more energy.

So any solution must exponentially decrease energy use if it is to work long term. From math we know that a linear cut will fail long term, so we can reject such proposals out of hand.

Unfortunately, no one is going to like any proposal that actually addresses the exponential nature of the problem. But the mathematical nature of exponential growth can not be denied. I'll quote the writers of Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. The needs of the many are for you to have a short miserable life, this outweighs your need for a long life or leisure. Darwin's law is operating on humans.

---

Gary, sadly your charts clearly demonstrate Thomas Malthus was correct.

---