New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[GaryC 7]

Gary, one question. Do you believe Barack Obama is a US citizen by birth? Just curious.

Typical. The tin foil hat accusations now come out. Just what I expected.

It's a perfectly valid question. I notice you didn't answer. As I said before, you dismiss everything that is to be found on reputable websites and latch onto things that can only be found on spurious ones. It would be quite different if for example you produced a reputable scientific community procraimling your skepticism, but you can not, and I simply do not buy that worldwide, every scientist has been silenced by Al Gore.

Yes he is a citizen. Your charicterization of the skeptical sites as spurious and those that are not skeptical as reputable shows your own bias. No one that is skeptical of man made GW is reputable in your eyes it seems. Your oversimplification of "Al Gore" did it is disengenuous at best. I have given you multiple stories of how the establishment has squashed disenting views but you just dismiss them. What happened to an open mind?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plenty of books on scientific illiteracy in this country - I dare say enough to rival Gary's articles about "gagged scientists"

[HAL 9000 96]

Besides... 6 pages into the thread an why hasn't anyone but me called out that the OP hasn't got a clue?

You're the only scientist here. We non-scientist illiterates gotta stick together.

As an old bartender once told me, "Son, don't let yer facts get in the way of a good story."

It is saddening.

Pike is right. This PR and politics hoopla is mainly a US problem. And as a scientist, I tend to think that it arises out of actual scientific illiteracy to some degree. Perhaps illiteracy is too strong a word to use...

A lot of it is information overload, and some of it is that people really didn't pay attention in school. Either way, most people worry about immediate concerns. There are lots of time bombs out there that can disrupt at best, and destroy at worst, the common routine. It's hard to focus on any one problem, when there is so much to be concerned about. So, most folks just stop paying attention.

Sadly... yet information overload isn't much of an issue around the world in other parts. And access to quality education isn't as much as here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

[HAL 9000 96]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

And in good ole boys' Nature Publishing Group to boot.

Not to mention the article contradicts the OP's POV... but that is something altogether different.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are such an arrogant #######, all high and mighty just cuz you can read!

[GaryC 7]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

[HAL 9000 96]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Besides... 6 pages into the thread an why hasn't anyone but me called out that the OP hasn't got a clue?

You're the only scientist here. We non-scientist illiterates gotta stick together.

As an old bartender once told me, "Son, don't let yer facts get in the way of a good story."

It is saddening.

Pike is right. This PR and politics hoopla is mainly a US problem. And as a scientist, I tend to think that it arises out of actual scientific illiteracy to some degree. Perhaps illiteracy is too strong a word to use...

A lot of it is information overload, and some of it is that people really didn't pay attention in school. Either way, most people worry about immediate concerns. There are lots of time bombs out there that can disrupt at best, and destroy at worst, the common routine. It's hard to focus on any one problem, when there is so much to be concerned about. So, most folks just stop paying attention.

Sadly... yet information overload isn't much of an issue around the world in other parts. And access to quality education isn't as much as here.

I only know of where I have been, and most peoples eyes glaze over when these topics are brought into the conversation. They only know what they see on TV.

[HAL 9000 96]

Besides... 6 pages into the thread an why hasn't anyone but me called out that the OP hasn't got a clue?

You're the only scientist here. We non-scientist illiterates gotta stick together.

As an old bartender once told me, "Son, don't let yer facts get in the way of a good story."

It is saddening.

Pike is right. This PR and politics hoopla is mainly a US problem. And as a scientist, I tend to think that it arises out of actual scientific illiteracy to some degree. Perhaps illiteracy is too strong a word to use...

A lot of it is information overload, and some of it is that people really didn't pay attention in school. Either way, most people worry about immediate concerns. There are lots of time bombs out there that can disrupt at best, and destroy at worst, the common routine. It's hard to focus on any one problem, when there is so much to be concerned about. So, most folks just stop paying attention.

Sadly... yet information overload isn't much of an issue around the world in other parts. And access to quality education isn't as much as here.

I only know of where I have been, and most peoples eyes glaze over when these topics are brought into the conversation. They only know what they see on TV.

That must be it. Them foreigners can't get enough of Al Gore on TV.

Going back to the scope for a while.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Discussing climate change on these boards is kind of futile in that it ends up with people posting as many articles they can find that support their point of view, with no means of actually assessing the reputability of what they are posting.

While I might dispute some government policies that arise from environmentalism, I think its arrogant in the extreme to start pretending that I understand the state of thinking in the scientific community. Very few people here move in those circles or are involved in the work - and yet we have all this access to to information on the internet that we have no way of sifting through.

Its laughable when you think about it.

[GaryC 7]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

Really? Then why would one of the co-authors say this?

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

I would say he was quite clear on that point. The models are wrong in a fundamental way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Besides... 6 pages into the thread an why hasn't anyone but me called out that the OP hasn't got a clue?

You're the only scientist here. We non-scientist illiterates gotta stick together.

As an old bartender once told me, "Son, don't let yer facts get in the way of a good story."

It is saddening.

Pike is right. This PR and politics hoopla is mainly a US problem. And as a scientist, I tend to think that it arises out of actual scientific illiteracy to some degree. Perhaps illiteracy is too strong a word to use...

A lot of it is information overload, and some of it is that people really didn't pay attention in school. Either way, most people worry about immediate concerns. There are lots of time bombs out there that can disrupt at best, and destroy at worst, the common routine. It's hard to focus on any one problem, when there is so much to be concerned about. So, most folks just stop paying attention.

Sadly... yet information overload isn't much of an issue around the world in other parts. And access to quality education isn't as much as here.

I only know of where I have been, and most peoples eyes glaze over when these topics are brought into the conversation. They only know what they see on TV.

That must be it. Them foreigners can't get enough of Al Gore on TV.

Going back to the scope for a while.

The funny thing is, I don't think Al Gore is particularly influential outside of the US.

Gore is an easy target for the skeptics, because he's a political figure (and part of that eternal partisan bickering that Americans can't seem to get enough of) but to my memory he's never been quoted as a reputable or influential figure on this topic in the UK.

The idea that the entire thing has been fabricated so that a few people could make money from green technologies seems entirely spurious, given that it would be in the interests of most governments and do a Philip Morris with climate research - so that they could continue aggressive expansion of industrialisation.

[mendeleev 68]

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

Well there IS Google Scholar.

I sometimes use Google Scholar. But SCIFINDER is way better.

[mendeleev 68]

Gary's complains a lot about a (nonexistent, as far as I can tell) conspiracy to keep "climate skeptics" whatever they are out of the scientific journals. The top post is about an article in Nature Geoscience, probably the preeminent journal in that field.

Now, the fact that Gary apparently cannot read it well and has not engaged the only scientifically based comments on that article posted in this thread, about 3 pages back, tells us something ... could it be that Gary cannot make comments himself about anything having to do with science?