Skip to comments.
Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters
New York Times ^
| April 30, 2012
| JUSTIN GILLIS
Posted on 05/01/2012 10:27:05 AM PDT by reaganaut1
LAMONT, Okla. For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.
They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.
Their theory exploits the greatest remaining mystery in climate science, the difficulty that researchers have had in predicting how clouds will change. The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.
Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty, said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, theyve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.
Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day. His stature in the field he has been making seminal contributions to climate science since the 1960s has amplified his influence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: New York
KEYWORDS: andrewedessler; climatechange; climategate; climategate2; clouds; demagogicparty; epa; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; iriseffect; justingillis; lindzen; memebuilding; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; popefrancis; richardslindzen; romancatholicism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: reaganaut1
Who do they think they are fooling with this crap?
41
posted on
05/01/2012 4:15:57 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
To: reaganaut1
America if you really want to hand your country over to radical liberal environmentalists do it.
Tired of arguing with know it all’s.
It sucks that a majority can sell the rest of us into slavery.
42
posted on
05/01/2012 4:35:15 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(THIS SUCKS)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...
Thanks reaganaut1.
For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.
Actually, that's the exact reverse of what has gone on.
The global warming/AGW crowd has made up lie after lie, claiming this or that based on nothing -- and when their claims have been studied scientifically, the data show unequivocably that they are wrong. Every single time. So they make up another lie while ignoring the findings. And of course, their media shills carry their water.
43
posted on
05/01/2012 4:59:01 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: reaganaut1
AGW is a method of transferring the wealth from the poorest of the first world to the richest of the third world.
44
posted on
05/01/2012 8:23:57 PM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: reaganaut1
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. What a load of crap. Most climate scientists are wondering when the next glaciation will start. They're all wishing there were some way to heat the planet.
To: Tenacious 1
There is absolute empirical proof that more money, regulation and taxation will not affect or prevent the warming of our planet. Yes, but MORE MONEY, REGULATION, and TAXATION are the only things politicians offer to 'solve' our problems.
When EVEN MORE money is needed, they make up new problems.
Global Warming.
Racism.
Freon and the Ozone.
Asbestos in Schools.
46
posted on
05/02/2012 8:27:48 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lame and ill-informed post)
To: ckilmer
The issue has been whether man created CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate heating.Because we all know that cold greenhouses are better at growing food.
47
posted on
05/02/2012 8:31:09 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lame and ill-informed post)
To: Reeses
By adding a small amount of inert particulates to the air we can increase cloud formation if we want to.Only if there is water vapor to begin with. And why should we try to change it? It is a function of a self-regulating system and altering it is just asking for problems.
For instance, flooding an engine with gas doesn't make it run better.
48
posted on
05/02/2012 8:40:31 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lame and ill-informed post)
To: alloysteel
but then, the quality of education has fallen off in the past sixty years or so.Smart slaves are hard to control.
49
posted on
05/02/2012 8:47:31 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lame and ill-informed post)
To: Uncle Miltie
New Scientific Method You left out some steps.
1) Propose Hypothesis.
2) Poll.
3) Attack all Responders that did not Agree with the Hypothesis as Ignorant Heretics.
4) Discard Poll Responses that do not Agree with the Hypothesis.
5) Re-Poll only those who Responded Correctly the First Time.
6) Science determined by Poll Results.
50
posted on
05/02/2012 8:55:53 AM PDT
by
Bubba_Leroy
(The Obamanation Continues)
To: Bubba_Leroy
You’re right, comrade!
Must I go to re-education camp now?
51
posted on
05/02/2012 9:24:33 AM PDT
by
Uncle Miltie
(FOCUS ON FACTS: 0bamaCare Hated. Worst Recovery. Failed Stimulus. Worst Deficits.)
To: UCANSEE2
And why should we try to change it? It is a function of a self-regulating system and altering it is just asking for problems. The second half of the rain cycle is already heavily managed. Very little fresh water makes it back to the sea without man deciding when, where, and in what quantity. Without that management Earth couldn't support 7 billion humans. Starting to manage the first half of the cycle isn't that much of a leap. The great thing about cloud management is most effects are local. If one country wants to live in the stone age they can. If another country wants to populate their deserts they can.
52
posted on
05/02/2012 9:29:22 AM PDT
by
Reeses
To: SunkenCiv
Thanks, running behind here.
53
posted on
05/02/2012 1:20:29 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
To: reaganaut1; TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ..
And from :
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
The NYT Puts the Hit On
"A cartoonist adds to the Alarmist attack":
The New York Times has an article today ostensibly about clouds but which is really an extended hit piece on Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, member of the US National Academy of Sciences and well known climate skeptic.
Below I have excerpted a laundry list of phrases in the article used to describe Lindzen:
- Leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day
- Has drawn withering criticism
- Errors in his papers
- Proof is lacking
- Obliged [politicians] by assuring them that they are running no risks by refusing to enact emissions limits
- Contrarian scientist
- Gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction
- Wrong science
- [Not] intellectually honest at all
- Contrarian scientist
- Methods he had used to analyze data were flawed
- His theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts
- Most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzens theory discredited
- He routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers
- Dr. Lindzen offers little hint of how thin the published science supporting his position is
- He makes what many colleagues see as an unwarranted leap of logic
- Deeply unprofessional and irresponsible
This is "advocacy journalism" -- it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece.
Two years ago the Boston Globe did a very similar story on Lindzen for its Lifestyle section, which covered the same ground, but as a profile rather than as hit job.
Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Journalists, what do you think?
With Anthony Watt's coming up with own :
Catastrophically cartooned
Posted on May 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Josh writes:
There is a lovely cartoon over at Roger Pielke Jrs which, delightful though it is, helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics. It isnt. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic, and specifically that singularly caused by CO2, Global Warming and the alarmist hype surrounding the lack of science and the punitive energy policies that have been pursued in response to a non problem.
So I decided to do my own version of the cartoon with apologies to the other cartoonist.
Cartoons by Josh
54
posted on
05/02/2012 1:35:37 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
Well I thought I would get the first referenced cartoon on here...but it didn’t “take”...go to the link to Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog Jr’s website for it..
55
posted on
05/02/2012 1:45:14 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
To: reaganaut1
Actually, I thought the fraudulent data and methods used to generate the claims of AGW was the “last bastion” of dissenters.
Not that we need one.
56
posted on
05/02/2012 1:47:55 PM PDT
by
Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
57
posted on
05/02/2012 1:50:03 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the New York Slimes article: "His idea has drawn withering criticism from other scientists, who cite errors in his papers and say proof is lacking. Enough evidence is already in hand, they say, to rule out the powerful cooling effect from clouds that would be needed to offset the increase of greenhouse gases."
The bull shit just keeps building up in the stables. What scientist?
To: TigersEye
59
posted on
05/02/2012 2:36:30 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
To: Marine_Uncle
"...Enough evidence is already in hand, they say, to rule out the powerful cooling effect from clouds that would be needed to offset the increase of greenhouse gases."OK, does he cite that "evidence?" Whether he does or not let's stipulate, for sake of argument, that the cooling effect from clouds that would be needed to offset the increase of greenhouse gases isn't enough. What empirical evidence does he have to explain this disparity between empirical temperature data and Climate Model theory?
60
posted on
05/02/2012 3:01:51 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson