Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?

[Northeast Stinger]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Another individual study swimming upstream against a river of climate alarmist studies. Just delving into it but an interesting read so far.

I look forward to reading this. It looks interesting.

Here is a thought. Do we do a disservice to serious scientists who are tying to work out the climate models if we have to put them in camps with labels like "denier, skeptic, alarmist, " etc. In my life time I have watched some pretty profound changes in the climate. I am a naturally curious person so I read a lot when I don't understand something that is going on around me. I tend to get weary, however, with so much of this debate because people seem to feel they have to characterize in a negative way the side they disagree with. Take my comment for what it is worth.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I actually agree with that completely NE. And I still haven't had time to get past the intro.

 

[Declinometer]

I look forward to reading this. It looks interesting.

Here is a thought. Do we do a disservice to serious scientists who are tying to work out the climate models if we have to put them in camps with labels like "denier, skeptic, alarmist, " etc. In my life time I have watched some pretty profound changes in the climate. I am a naturally curious person so I read a lot when I don't understand something that is going on around me. I tend to get weary, however, with so much of this debate because people seem to feel they have to characterize in a negative way the side they disagree with. Take my comment for what it is worth.

Neat...in your lifetime, not even a blip in the life of the planet

 

[Declinometer]

 

[OldJacketFan]

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the factual basis on either side but I did see this today. While Jay Bookman is an editorial writer he does appear to do a decent job of researching factual background for his writings. Perhaps some of you that are more knowledgeable on the subject have the time and inclination to take a look at Jay's article today and the sources he cites. I'd be interested in the feedback.

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015...sts-confirmed-the-truth-about-climate-change/

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Jay bookman? Really? I can not think of a bigger liberal hack in mainstream media.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Jay bookman? Really? I can not think of a bigger liberal hack in mainstream media.

Whether he's a hack or not is not the question I posed. Did you read the article and supports?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Whether he's a hack or not is not the question I posed. Did you read the article and supports?

I read the article. Have you read his sources and have vetted them for partiality? Did bookman provide a thorough review of those sources or did he cherry pick to advance his cause?

 

[OldJacketFan]

I read the article. Have you read his sources and have vetted them for partiality? Did bookman provide a thorough review of those sources or did he cherry pick to advance his cause?

I said in my original post that I had not read his cites nor vetted them nor knew much about the issue in general. Do you take issue with his sources and, if so, why? All I was trying to do is to have someone more knowledgeable that myself take a look at what he had cited in his article. Just because he is toward the progressive side does not mean his source matter is suspect. That's why I asked the question. Are you open enough to take a look at who and what he cites and render an informed response or do you merely see Bookman's name and automatically discount the article/cites?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I said in my original post that I had not read his cites nor vetted them nor knew much about the issue in general. Do you take issue with his sources and, if so, why? All I was trying to do is to have someone more knowledgeable that myself take a look at what he had cited in his article. Just because he is toward the progressive side does not mean his source matter is suspect. That's why I asked the question. Are you open enough to take a look at who and what he cites and render an informed response or do you merely see Bookman's name and automatically discount the article/cites?

Also from you. "While Jay Bookman is an editorial writer he does appear to do a decent job of researching factual background for his writings."

Please....Follow his drivel if you like. Just don't expect others to. I've seen enough from the boob and have no desire to seek out further or trust what he writes.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Also from you. "While Jay Bookman is an editorial writer he does appear to do a decent job of researching factual background for his writings."

Fine, you don't choose to address the what and why I posted this. Have a good rest of the day. I was hoping that some of the folks on here would take a look at comment as to what he wrote and the validity of the sources he cites as this is far from being an area of expertise for me. You focus on his politics, not what he wrote. So be it.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Fine, you don't choose to address the what and why I posted this. Have a good rest of the day. I was hoping that some of the folks on here would take a look at comment as to what he wrote and the validity of the sources he cites as this is far from being an area of expertise for me. You focus on his politics, not what he wrote. So be it.

Smh....you put his stuff out there as credible / useful but then expect others to verify him as a good source. Doesn't compute my friend. All of his stuff is super politically driven...to the far left. I'm not gonna apologize for having dismissed him long ago. If you want to research his claims and champion them feel free. I will listen to you with an open mind. Made my mind up on bookman long ago.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Now you got me smh, I'm not qualified to verify his sources. Yet again that's why I posted it, you seem to think I've got a dog in his politics one way or the other. Fine, that's your choice. I didn't ask to be attacked for asking others who are more knowledgeable than I to look at something that appears to be on topic to this tread and comment on it. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I don't have any idea what your political leanings are and have made no such comments. Bookman on the other hand is obvious. You were the one championing his work, not I. You may find him to be knowledgeable. That's your prerogative. I find him to be incredibly partisan. I fail to see your problem with my take.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I don't have any idea what your political leanings are and have made no such comments. Bookman on the other hand is obvious. You were the one championing his work, not I. You may find him to be knowledgeable. That's your prerogative. I find him to be incredibly partisan. I fail to see your problem with my take.

So be it. You put words in my my mouth so I'll simply say thanks for the conversation and have a good rest of the evening. Back to the football side of things.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Not sure what words I put in your mouth but didn't intend insult or injury. If either occurred I regret it.

 

[AE 87]

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the factual basis on either side but I did see this today. While Jay Bookman is an editorial writer he does appear to do a decent job of researching factual background for his writings. Perhaps some of you that are more knowledgeable on the subject have the time and inclination to take a look at Jay's article today and the sources he cites. I'd be interested in the feedback.

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015...sts-confirmed-the-truth-about-climate-change/

FWIW, if you read through this thread, you'll see that there's a pretty significant scientific debate on the significance of human contributions to so-called greenhouse gasses and climate change. The opinion piece you cite refers to a study that assumes a scientific consensus without discussing the serious debate and the failures of the models.

Its "news" is that Exxon apparently was aware of the science indicating significant impact without acting on it. However, it obfuscates on the fact that the actual climate change, especially global warming, has not been as drastic as was being predicted. As a result it presents a very biased report and would lead casual readers to a misunderstanding of the situation. For example, the following paragraph comes from the study hyperlinked by jaybookman:

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has been a frequent target of climate deniers, said that inaction, just like actions, have consequences. When he recently spoke to InsideClimate News, he was unaware of this chapter in Exxon's history.​

Note that this paragraph refers to scientific opposition as "climate deniers." Clearly, it's not serious reporting. Secondly, it does not mention that the reason Michael Mann has been the target of scientific opposition is for his fraudulent "hockey stick" chart. See this link. I just googled and grabbed one that seems to present the data fairly straight forwardly.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

View attachment 1246 View attachment 1247

You are aware that the two are not mutually exclusive, right?

A kid I mentored is now a meteorologist with the National Weather Service and I remember asking him a few years ago what would happen if the climate cycle was headed toward an ice age at the same time anthropocentric global warming features were kicking in. He acknowledged the two were possible at the same time but there was no way to predict what the outcome would be.

 

[AE 87]

You are aware that the two are not mutually exclusive, right?

A kid I mentored is now a meteorologist with the National Weather Service and I remember asking him a few years ago what would happen if the climate cycle was headed toward an ice age at the same time anthropocentric global warming features were kicking in. He acknowledged the two were possible at the same time but there was no way to predict what the outcome would be.

Did you read the link I included at the end of my previous post?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Did you read the link I included at the end of my previous post?

No. I could not get it to open and gave up.