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.
2
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
Re: bobbo,#14–Jim==why are you putting all your eggs into the IPCC basket and then basing your lack of position on their deficiencies?
The IPCC controls the summary and recommendations of all scientific efforts behind the notion that catastrophic events will happen with ACC.
So I simply use them as poster boy.
Get published and cited there, and you have it made as a climatologist. Present contrasting evidence and to are fried.
#30 Gnu
I personally don’t understand most of the science. I’m not a climatologist or any other sort of scientist. I’m in no position to refute or agree with any of the climate science, including Peter Taylor’s.
What I do understand is that when people proclaim things like ‘the science is in’ or ‘everyone agrees’ where clearly there are differing opinions, something is fishy. I also agree with Taylor’s summation that the global financial elite have a vested interest in seeing AGW adopted as fact.
Can you explain to me why Taylor’s argument is bad science? Seems Ok to me.
the scam of agw is over….Al Gore has become the stacks edwards (godfellas) of the green mafia. with all his pull out of the ass polar bear drop dead dates being exposed, old Al better look out.
Bobbo, the IPCC’s is one of the more disaster prone scenarios, though it’s possible to do even worse. If their science is a bit off to the point where the correct threat of global warming is a bit less, then things aren’t so bad.
The recent cooling/lack of warming suggests to me that the worst case scenarios of the IPCC are not likely. 2C/century because of CO2, maybe, 4C, unlikely. That the IPCC goes to great lengths to cover up these facts, like rejiggering their presentations to hide the decline, tells me they are playing more politics than science. The hide the decline in the CRU e-mails is not the only example. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report had Stefan Rahmstorf redoing his filters to hide the decline. He explained it away on RealClimate that they thought a 15 year smooth was better then the 11 year smooth they used before to represent climate. Of course this had nothing to do with 1998 being so close the first time around and not wanting to have too many of the cooler years before it if they used the longer filter in 2006.
Man made global warming is a political tool, nothing more. Supporters only support it in belief that society needs to be feared into change. That society is so stupid and self serving that unless they are fearful of some inevitable doom, they will never change their ways.
To all the denier nuts.
Can any of you provide the name of a reputable, professional science body that does not support the concept of man made global climate change?
After all, if the science is so tainted and bad then surely some group will disagree. I believe that even Exxon and BP have signed on the concept of climate change.
Just name one group. Some group a little more focused than a Anthropological Doctoral candidate led bunch.
pedro, man, you really need to get a life.
#37,
watch the video, Peter Taylor mentions two.
Soon the warming scam will be filed away as not even newsworthy.
A lecture? From someone who pretends to be an expert? Oh wait. He qualified that he doesn’t know anything at the beginning.
I too would like to see someone tell us any reputable, scientific, professional organization that still denies climate change being aggravated by the addition of CO in our atmosphere.
For all those global warming denialists:
Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense in Scientific American
50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural:
http://newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Can’t wait to read the other 50. Good sound exchange going on here. A versus “Not A.” Very convincing.
Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap
You Tube video…
http://tinyurl.com/yjxwn6h
Entertaining. But I was surprised that the professor admitted that they inserted “thermometer” temperatures into tree ring data because tree rings started showing a decline in temperature around 1960 and they wanted to fix what went “wrong”.”.
“… my colleagues would not have manipulated the fundamental data. They have not done that. They have occasionally, um, tweaked a, a diagram so that in the case of the decline thing, they, they, plotted, a real temperature data from thermometers along with their tree ring data.”
Doesn’t that just make you want to scream?
100 reasons why it’s not man made
http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
From: Obamaforever per #27
To: honeyman (I like blowing smoke out of my
ass.) per #28 and #32
Quote: per #28
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.
End of quote.
You say that you are not a climatologist
or a scientist, but you KNOW that
what the people on the realclimate site are
saying about Peter Taylor is unsubstantiated
abuse. If you are not a scientist or a
climatologist how can you know this.
I am thinking you are pulling this from
your ass.
honeyman, did you actually go to the
http://www.realclimate.org site and read the
the article? If you did, please provide
proof.
You can provide the proof by giving us the
entire web address of the article, but until then, SHUT-UP!
honeyman, you are blowing so much smoke
out of your ass you blot out the sun!!!!!!!!
From: Obamaforever per #27
To: honeyman
per #28 and #32
honeyman, did you actually go to the
http://realclimate.org site and read the
the article? If you did, please provide
proof.
You can provide the proof by giving us the
entire web address of the article.
Sorry about #48. It seems that you do not need
to write the code. I thought the blog had “eaten” by first post, thus, the censured #48 by me.
#47 Obamaforever
I don’t know the science but I can spot unsubstantiated abuse when I see it.
I rest my case.
From: Obamaforever
To: honeyman per #50
I see that you did not provide the web address to the realclimate article and thus you did not read the article.
honeyman, you will blow smoke until the very end.