This guy is a research analyst who does the most wonkish job of slamming global warming fears thus far. This lecture is from 2008. About one hour long.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
This blog seems to be on a crusade against climate change… why?
Perhaps because global warming has become a social movement and is not longer based on science.
See this to put the current warming trends in context.
True, there is no such thing as global warming. The factoid that some scientist somewhere fudged his numbers, proves it. Give this guy an Oscar. He’s the real hero. We should all listen to him and do zero about cleaning our atmosphere until we can cut it with a knife and eat it. Let them eat caked-on pollution. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
skepticalscience.com examines and debunks all the global warming skeptics’ arguments against AGW. Science is all about the best explanation that fits the facts. The role of solar activity has already been examined and rejected as the cause of increasing global temps.
The ’science of global warming’ can be easily illustrated:
4 am. – it’s dark outside.
6 am – Brighter than 4
8 am – Brighter & warmer than 6.
10 am – It’s very bright outside now.
12 am – Wow, its really bright and warm.
Hypothesis: It’ll get warmer & warmer, brighter & brighter exponentially until we burst into flames and DIE!! We MUST do something!!
4 pm – oh wait, its cooling now…
6 pm – hey, its getting dark
NEW Hypothesis: It’s going to get colder & colder, darker & darker…
OMG! IT’S GLOBAL COOLING!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!! We MUST do something!!…
The “logic” of idiot global warming deniers can be easily illustrated:
See Post #5.
Pathetic. Its actually arguments like this one that turn me from unconvinced to supporting Cap & Trade. Hah, hah.
My favorite part about Dvorak’s posting of these articles is to watch the religious fervor in the posts. My only hope is that I will defend the truth of the Bible as strongly as some defend man-made global warming. (Of course, without all the rudeness and anger.)
1, MDSharpe, Why would blaming the Sun for Global Warming be AGAINST climate change?
After watching this Daily Show clip with excerpts from foxnews I see where the anti-science people on here get their talking points from.
#3 The climategate email scandal is not about fudging data, it is about twisting the presentation and using politics instead of fair peer review. Unfortunately as #2 posted, it is becoming a social movement and neither supporters or deniers are paying any attention to the science anymore. People are greedy and foolish and will twist disaster to their own profit until the flood rises above their knees. A lot of people are piling scorn on Al Gore, but I guess I haven’t been paying attention so I am not sure why. Doesn’t Gore have family money so he has always been rich?
And the sun theory explain the increase in earthquakes and volcano activity of late? The oceans and polar caps warming and melting from the inside? If the sun had a real impact on the climate we humans would be experiencing some sort of influence too: skin cancer or brain damage or something. How is it that the sun is causing alterations on the climate if has been almost idle for months? Something else is going on.
9, JCCalhoun, Speaking of science do you have any conclusive proof that CO2 is the cause of global warming and that mankind is the root cause of it? Surely behind all the arguments, there is conclusive irrefutable scientific causal proof.
You are a pro-Science guy right?
I like how he talks in terms of watts per square meter.
There hasn’t been a post that sways me in the slightest… in either direction.
I can tell you that:
– if the IPCC weren’t so secretive with their data,
– if they weren’t AFRAID to provide necessary data or show a graph of their version depicting global temperature changes for the past 10,000 years or even 5,000 years to PROVE that the temperatures we are about to experience are unique in mans history…
– if they weren’t so UNSURE of themselves as to NOT lay all the cards on the table to show clearly that the cons outweigh the pros in global warming, and that their plan of drastic action is the best course to take…
– if they had a plan of action to fix the wrongs they might cause… take responsibility for their call to panic in case their predictions don’t materialize…
When all that info is available, we’ll have something to make a rational, instead of knee jerk or faith based decision with.
there are people who claim that there isn’t clear evidence that the earth is more than 6 thousand years old so I doubt any evidence exists that would be sufficient to convince people that whatever they don’t believe actually is true. Everything that science says is going to happen due to climate change could happen and there would still be people denying it.
All debating it here does is get dvorak more pageviews and feed the trolls who want to believe in conspiracies.
BRAVO JimR!
#14–Jim==why are you putting all your eggs into the IPCC basket and then basing your lack of position on their deficiencies?
Letting someone else define you is – – – is – – – – letting someone else define you.
Surface objectivity and reasonableness covering the most shallow and silly of positions.
What about the other 10,000 scientific sources?
Hint: the Sun is the source for nearly all warmth on Earth. The balance between absorption and re-radiation is demonstrably changing. The influence of CO2 being added to the mix by human industry is debatable as is the ecosystem’s response thereunto. Science is about the debate over interpretation of facts. The rest is religion. Dvorak’s blog entertains both subjects but many posters have missed the distinction.
Save the Sun
now now!!! remember it isnt called global warming anymore!!
it is now rebranded as the all encompassing, butt covering
“CLIMATE CHANGE! 2.0”
But temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So “global climate change” is the more scientifically accurate term.
#20 The name was changed so the Conservative simple minds can look beyond the next 20 minutes to the decades ahead.
Scientists agree that hotter times are ahead. A decade of lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system.
The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume.
Reagan once said that the world is in danger of “killer trees”. That still resonates with the sheeple for some reason.
You know, none of this matters really. Nobody is going to do a damn thing about it anyway. Warming from human activity is quite real, but there will be just enough confusion sown to justify doing nothing “right now”. People love the status quo — always have. Admit it — nobody is going to accomplish anything to stop it, just endless jabber. If Americans end up cold and cranky because the oil and gas run our or get too expensive, we are just gonna burn the coal, without looking back. You know it’s true. We are too weak and too late. Good thing I’ll be out of here long before 2050. Before all you anti-science idiots start whining for science to save you from the disaster you insisted wouldn’t happen.
#23 Which part of what this guy has to say isn’t real science?
People are so locked into taking sides along ideological or political lines they not even interested in the science.
BRAVO,
there is now quite a collection of alternative viewpoints that needs to be mainstreamed.
Perhaps in forthcoming senate investigations, after the loonacy of the 500 billion per year reparations/ 80 per cent carbon energy reduction demand of unelected NGO extremist nutters, brings forth a broad movement to counter them, alternative viewpoints will be required transmission.
As is hinted by Peter Taylor there are many scientist/administrators who have been compromised. These are not the people that are to be purged/removed from office. There must be a focus on the central dehumanists who chose CO2 has their weapon of choice.
I’m really surprised that those who claim to be for “science” are not the least bit concerned that Mann, and Jones (hockey stick graph et al, not Briffa) research the IPCC built its foundation of climate change/AGW admit to:
1) hiding data
2) manipulating/misleading data to “fit” other data
3) losing data
4) discouraging peer review
5) not having a full understanding of their climate model software
and yet you somehow think the scientific process is fully intact.
Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that scientists claiming catastrophic AGW have some other motive other than science to want to turn climate science from a poorly funded scientific backwater into a field fully funded with literally billions of dollars from around the world?
The fact that it made a few scientists very famous and made them heads of various research centers, means they have an even larger burden of transparency. Is it odd to question the large amounts of funding dollars to them and their Universities by politicians coming from countries that by and large have limited natural resources and hence may have some desire to have legal control over who produces what and how much of a natural resource is allocated?
Unlike how I will be portrayed by the “believers” on this blog, I’m not saying the warming couldn’t cause problems, obviously it can and probably does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems to this point are being grossly exaggerated. Ask any 90 year old “What’s the most dreadful thing that has happened over the last 90 years?” It may be the Great Depression, Holocaust, Gulags, but I doubt you will get the answer “The ocean levels rose 2cm.”
AGW takes away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important, at best, and at worst is being perverted into a massive power grab by those with limited natural resources to control those who have an abundance of natural resources.
From: Obamaforever
To: All anti-Climate Change Retards
Any one who wants to know about Peter Taylor please go to the http://realclimate.org site. This site talks about galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Peter Taylor makes the mistake of defending his side of things. The realclimate people proceed to tear him a new one.
You need to scroll down to find Peter Taylor. The more you scroll down the more you find Peter Taylor. The man does not know when to stop. He is like the Monty Python knight who gets his arms and legs cut off and says “What? It is only a flesh wound.” or words to that effect.
I almost feel sorry for the New Age guru.
#27 Obamaforever
“Peter Taylor makes the mistake of defending his side of things. The realclimate people proceed to tear him a new one. ”
You mean that the AGW zealots on the site ripped into him with a torrent of unsubstantiated abuse as per the modus operandi of all AGW zealots.
#26 Smittybc
I concur.
It’s funny how much the global warming scientists are fixated on a single theory. That the sun has an effect is obvious. Their first attempt as to finding the mechanism doesn’t work according to their models, therefore we’ll conclude the sun has no influence. How about you try and look at other factors?
Maybe it’s GCR that is the means by which the sun affects climate, maybe it isn’t, but treat it seriously. The theory is that it’s not a brighter sun warming the planet, but rather a cooler sun fails to block out galactic cosmic rays from outside the solar system, and these rays in turn form clouds, which block out the sun. A brighter sun sets up a magnetic forceshield and keeps out these rays.
If that theory doesn’t work, look for other ones. Don’t just rely on your models and declare the sun has no effect.
The dirty secret of the models, is they only work if you are certain about the factors that you put in the models. Mess up one thing and the whole thing blows up.
Ah, finally some sound science on global warming!
Just out of curiosity — what is the criteria, exactly, that demonstrates to Dvorak that this lecture is based on unassailable science — whereas the countless lectures that demonstrate human/industrial contribution to global warming are clearly and demonstrably wrong?
Surely it cannot be that this guy’s science is taken to be truth simply because it conforms to Dvorak’s desired explanation…?
Of course not! So it should be easy for him, or any of his minions, to explain in simple terms why this is obviously “good” science, wheras most climate science is “bad”…
What’s the answer?