Climate Hoax Conspiracy exposed

Here's an interesting study from sourrces at Standford University exposing the CO2 Climate hoax conspiracy


So much for what is often claimed to be science and scientific ... in reality being a ideology religion conspiracy.

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    So much for what is often claimed to be science and scientific ... in reality being a ideology religion conspiracy.


    1) The article to which you provided a link, Wolfgang, says nothing about "ideology," or "religion," or "conspiracy." Such terms present your partisan political views, but not an accurate summary of the article's content.

    2) As was the case with the content of your previous post on the subject of climate change, I have neither the experience nor the expertise to evaluate the content of this new article. For the assessment of someone who DOES have such expertise, review this Youtube video:



    3) No one claims that the climate science community is aligned 100% behind the theory of anthropogenic climate change; current estimations put that alignment at 95-98%. But it's also the case that no one claims 100% alignment is necessary before anthropogenic climate change is more than an "ideology religion conspiracy" - whatever that is - and is in fact the accepted explanation for our warming earth.

    4) WHATEVER THE CAUSE, the earth IS warming, and such warming WILL have dire consequences.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    4) WHATEVER THE CAUSE, the earth IS warming, and such warming WILL have dire consequences.


    I would say that a global cooling would have far more dire consequences ... as ice age periods indicated when compared to warmer periods.

    The whole man-made global heating up and man-made climate change is a bunch of non-scientific ideological (climate religion) hoax and indeed conspiracy.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    I would say that a global cooling would have far more dire consequences ... as ice age periods indicated when compared to warmer periods.


    Regardless of the accuracy of your unsubstantiated claim, the fact is the earth is warming, not cooling.


    The whole man-made global heating up and man-made climate change is a bunch of non-scientific ideological (climate religion) hoax and indeed conspiracy.

    This unsubstantiated (aka, baseless) claim distracts from the reality of a warming earth. I encourage you to consult reputable sources of information about the evidence of a warming earth (Google the glacier loss in Greenland, which is occurring at a frightening rate).



    With due respect, Wolfgang, your posts on issues of public policy continue to demonstrate your pattern of making claims that you can't (at least almost never choose to) substantiate. For a person such as I, whose high school debate experience pounded home the aphorism, "If you make a claim, you'd better be able to back it up; and if you can't back it up, you'd better not make it," your pattern is highly unsatisfying. In my view, absent significant amounts of supporting evidence, there is and can be nothing persuasive about tabloid-worthy allegations such as of a "non-scientific ideological (climate religion) hoax and indeed conspiracy."

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    Regardless of the accuracy of your unsubstantiated claim, the fact is the earth is warming, not cooling.

    The point is a warming of the earth is NOT BAD .... a cooling would be!


    @Wolfgang The whole man-made global heating up and man-made climate change is a bunch of non-scientific ideological (climate religion) hoax and indeed conspiracy.

    @Bill_Coley This unsubstantiated (aka, baseless) claim distracts from the reality of a warming earth. I encourage you to consult reputable sources of information about the evidence of a warming earth (Google the glacier loss in Greenland, which is occurring at a frightening rate).


    Actually, I just saw a picture and read a report about some Norwegian ship getting stuck in large ice near Spitzbergen ... showing that things are sort of the opposite of what the climate researchers on board were intending to find ...


    My simple reason for writing the way I do about these matters is that the outrageous lies and nonsensical (make no good sense) claims propagated do not deserve anything else. I don't care what supposed science or political correctness or similar propagates when it makes no real sense and with just a little common sense thought is revealed to be fear tactic and a means to squeeze more money out of the large number of common folks into the pockets of a small number of deceivers.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    The point is a warming of the earth is NOT BAD .... a cooling would be!


    I don't have much choice on how to word this response, Wolfgang: If you're not aware of the VERY serious consequences of a warming earth, you're not well informed.



    Actually, I just saw a picture and read a report about some Norwegian ship getting stuck in large ice near Spitzbergen ... showing that things are sort of the opposite of what the climate researchers on board were intending to find ...

    Here you make the mistake lots of climate change deniers make. I call it globalizing the local.

    On cool summer days or very cold winter days, a local radio talk show host here often will assert that our local conditions prove there is no global warming. His mistake - and the mistake your example reflects - is that what's happening in one location does NOT necessarily reflect what's going on globally.

    • The fact that the sun is shining where I am right now does NOT mean it's shining everywhere on earth.
    • The fact that's cold or hot or moderate where you live right now does NOT mean every location on earth has your location's weather conditions.
    • The fact that a Norwegian ship got stuck in ice does NOT mean similar conditions exist around the globe. In the case of the ship to which I think you're referring, note that an article reporting the ship's difficulty begins with this paragraph (emphasis added), "There are 35 % less ice in the whole Arctic Ocean than usual (a term that will most likely have to be re-defined soon), but in Svalbard, ice conditions are more as they used to be in earlier years. This means that northeastern parts of Nordaustland did not become ice-free at all this summer, and there is drift ice in southern Hinlopen Strait and south of Nordaustland." Translation: "Global" conditions in the Arctic have been warm enough to reduce the TOTAL amount of ice in the area overall by one-third. BUT in particular localities such as the town called Svalbard, conditions have not changed.... The local does NOT necessarily define the global.


    My simple reason for writing the way I do about these matters is that the outrageous lies and nonsensical (make no good sense) claims propagated do not deserve anything else. I don't care what supposed science or political correctness or similar propagates when it makes no real sense and with just a little common sense thought is revealed to be fear tactic and a means to squeeze more money out of the large number of common folks into the pockets of a small number of deceivers.

    So you defend your practice of making baseless, unsubstantiated assertions of fact with a paragraph of new baseless, unsubstantiated assertions of fact. With due respect, Wolfgang, I'm not impressed, AND NEITHER WOULD YOU BE were someone in a Christology thread to make assertions of fact that he or she was unwilling to substantiate on the grounds of his or her belief in the existence of "pockets of a small number of deceivers" in the CD forums who reject the Trinity.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    With due respect, Wolfgang, I'm not impressed, AND NEITHER WOULD YOU BE were someone in a Christology thread to make assertions of fact that he or she was unwilling to substantiate on the grounds of his or her belief in the existence of "pockets of a small number of deceivers" in the CD forums who reject the Trinity.


    I don't compare a discussion regarding a Biblical topic with Biblical text as plain fact and evidence available to all participants with "climate change" or "global warming" propaganda that is not as plain fact evidence as the loudest voices want to make it in order to propagate an ideology rather than fact based evidence .... perhaps in Germany "climate saver" things have further infiltrated politics and economy than is the case in the USA .... some of what already can be seen as plain evidence is destruction of industries, total non-sense "CO2 / climate goals" which cost billions and more for adherence to an ideology rather than sound thinking and a true evaluation of facts from various sides ... instead, the non-adherents to the climate hoax are deemed "stupid non-informed" or "non-scientific", and those scientist voices showing revealing the hoax and falseness of computer model climate predictions are demonized as being "a small minority not real scientists"

    For me, plain common sense with reason and logic is weightier than what a majority of folks propagate as "truth". The same CO2 which is - at least in Germany - heating up the globe was deemed to be responsible for cooling the globe in the 1970s. The preachers of climate change are brainwashing Germany's school students to officially skip school on Fridays to demonstrate against CO2 sinners, climate destroyers etc ...and politicians including the president and the chancellor applaud them when in fact skipping school in Germany is a violation of law !! Stupidity is already reigning supreme ... in plain sight !! And if one voices such, one is thrown into the "Nazi" corner, "conspiracy theorist" drawer, and defamed as "ignorant who is unwilling to believe the ms media.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    I don't compare a discussion regarding a Biblical topic with Biblical text as plain fact and evidence available to all participants with "climate change" or "global warming" propaganda that is not as plain fact evidence as the loudest voices want to make it in order to propagate an ideology rather than fact based evidence .... 

    For me, climate change is a matter of science and science fact (science "facts" are not the same as other kinds of facts, as I'm sure you know). For you, according to the content of your post, climate change seems to be a hybrid product of science, politics, economics, industrialization, common sense, the educational system, government leaders, conspiracy theories, and media outlets. I choose to stay with climate change as a matter of science and science fact.



    For me, plain common sense with reason and logic is weightier than what a majority of folks propagate as "truth".

    I asked you this question in another thread, but you chose not to address it. In the context of your latest post, I try again:

    What do "plain common sense with reason and logic" tell you to make of the following graph of global land and ocean temperature changes over the last 140 years, especially the basic trajectory of the trend line from 1910 to the present?



    And I am STILL waiting for you to respond to the request I first posted more than a week ago in THIS POST: Your claim was that the science community is "quite divided" on the issue of climate change, a description that suggests the existence of a significant percentage of the scientific community that dispute the reality of climate change. Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves your point. 

    If you don't intend to demonstrate the truth of your claim, please say so, Wolfgang, and I'll stop asking about that one. But I'm not likely to stop asking you to back up future assertions of fact. Truth deserves evidence, so I will continue to ask for it, even if you're not likely to offer it.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    and what does human produced CO2 supposedly have to do with such a graph?

    Here's an article with some simple to understand information concerning amount of CO2 overall in the air, influence it has, etc. ... also, some easy to understand information concerning the so-called greenhouse effect etc ....

    Unfortunately, the article is in German ... and I do not have the time to translate it into English, sorry.



    By the way, the "climate ideology" icon Greta Thunberg from Sweden is currently visiting in the USA :.. just yesterday conducted one of her "Fridays for Future" demonstrations not far from the White house in Washington. After she - or more accurately, the propaganda machinery behind the scene using her - has reached out in Europe and influenced politicians to no end, they are turning to the USA ...... but as she stated recently, there is a big difference between Europe and USA => In USA, the climate controversy is viewed as an ideology, in Europe the people's perception is to think of it as science based. Little does she realize that her statement is revealing, as her propaganda in reality is to push an ideology, and Europeans at large are duped into thinking of it as "scientifc" (due to politicians and ms media behind it), while such brainwashing process apparently has not taken root in the USA.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591


    @Wolfgang posted:

    and what does human produced CO2 supposedly have to do with such a graph?

    Compare the general trajectory of that graph of global temperature changes since about 1910...


    to the general trajectory of global CO2 emissions since about that year in this graph:



    I see correlation. Do you?

    The remaining question is what could cause such a great rise in CO2 emissions over the last century-plus? Human activity in the form of automobiles, industrialization, and other forms of economic expansion/revolution come first to my mind. What comes first to yours?



    Here's an article with some simple to understand information concerning amount of CO2 overall in the air, influence it has, etc. ... also, some easy to understand information concerning the so-called greenhouse effect etc ....

    Unfortunately, the article is in German ... and I do not have the time to translate it into English, sorry.

    An article written in a language I don't speak cannot for me be "easy to understand."\



    By the way, the "climate ideology" icon Greta Thunberg from Sweden is currently visiting in the USA :..

    As I reported in an earlier post, for me climate change is a matter of science. Hence, your commentary about Ms. Thunberg and what you call "the propaganda machine behind the scene(s)" does not prompt me to respond.


    ...............................................

    And I think it's now fair for me to conclude that you have no intention of acknowledging, let alone fulfilling, the request I have now made of you four times in the last ten days - that you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates the truth of your claim that the scientific community is "quite divided" on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I will ask no more.

    For reasons that have never been clear to me, Wolfgang, over our years together in the CD forums, on several occasions you have chosen not even to acknowledge, let alone respond to, several questions or requests for information I have posted to you. One example I recall had to do with the effect of melting glaciers on sea levels and global temperatures. I bet I asked you to respond five to ten times over a several months period, but not once did you so much as mention my requests. I find your recurring practice of completely ignoring questions or requests to be impolite - to be kind - and disrespectful - to be more blunt. I encourage you to rethink your approach to questions and requests to which you don't want to respond. At least have the courtesy to inform the other poster that you do not intend to respond.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959
    edited September 15

    As I have mentioned before, I consider common sense, reason and logic to be instrumental to distinguish truth and error, including to determine what graphs and scientific data supposedly tell and actually tell ... interpretation of data is what matters.

    The climate propaganda of practical politics is in getting the people at large to become fearful and to have the masses demand more security. This is achieved by endless counts of bugaboos, all freely invented fantasy stories. Various sources show that humans only contribute between 2-4 % of the Co2, the by far largest part of rise in CO2 is totally outside of man's control and can not be influenced by man.


    Below find a graph about average temperatures in Greenland ... notice, during the 1920s -1930s the temperatures there were higher than they have been in more recent years. Were there severe floodings due to higher ocean water levels during those decades because glaciers in Greenland were in recess? Was Manhattan under water then ?


    Ever thought about why the vikings when they reached Greenland during the middle ages called it GREENland and not something more frosty, icy or something like "glacierland" ??? Simple answer => it was a green land, because during the middle ages period there was a longer period of time where the northern hemisphere was quite a but warmer than even today! This is also easily seen from records and statement of the time here in Europe and Germany, where - for example - the growing of vineyards and harvesting of wine is mentioned in areas much further north than is possible today.

    How can that be? Perhaps those knights in the middle ages with their industries and horse drawn mobility produced more CO2 than man does today ??? Then there was an "horsemobile decline, industries collapsed and things got "better" (= colder) ???

    There is not much to explain to learn and know what's really going on nowadays (in particular since a certain "pope" A. Gore lost a presidential election but found another way of implementing the agenda he was meant to push and achieve ???

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    Some basic physics and CO2

    For some reason, it seems that even scientists have forgotten or purposely ignore that there are certain elements and things that are heavier than air and others that are lighter .... Folks my age in Germany were taught such as part of the general school education and received practical illustration lessons when we got to blow up a balloon with our own "air" and our teacher blew up a balloon with helium and then all watched the result => the helium balloon went up, our balloons went down. Hmn ... was it the teacher's "magic" that kept our balloons from rising or some simple physics law ?

    The true answer is obvious ... helium has a molar weight of 4, the air above earth surface of 29. Elements heavier than air fall down, others which are lighter rise.

    CO2 has a molar weight of 44, the surrounding air one of 29, thus CO2 is heaver than air, and for example can be collected in silos. This physical fact means that CO2 will always (!) "fall down to" and "collect at" the ground or other surface, thus it can provide plant growth. Such would not be possible if CO2 rose in the air. Thus, the whole talk about CO2 forming some kind of shield at a high altitude that causes a greenhouse effect is nonsense.

    By the way, what causes the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse is not the CO2 level inside the greenhouse, but the glas enclosure in connection with the heat provided by the sun !! The higher temperature in the greenhouse in comparison to the surrounding air has nothing to do with CO2 inside the greenhouse, but with the sun and the warmth the sun provides in cooperation with the glas enclosure ... greenhouses cool down at night without the sun providing heat, they cool down in winter when the sun is less effective ... which is the reason why gardeners put heating in their greenhouses if they use it year round. If CO2 was rising (as presupposed by modern day climateers) plants in a greenhouse would not quite grow as nicely since they depend on CO2 as integral part of their nutrition

    Such simple physics facts and consequences became clouded and shrouded toward the turn of the century, when a "CO2 shield greenhouse" ideology replaced scientific research and those critics propagating the plain physics laws showing the erroneous interpretation patters of the human made climate change became just another group of "conspiracy theorists".

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    As I have mentioned before, I consider common sense, reason and logic to be instrumental to distinguish truth and error, including to determine what graphs and scientific data supposedly tell and actually tell ... interpretation of data is what matters.0


    AND SO, what do "common sense, reason, and logic" tell you that explains the obvious correlation between the rise of global CO2 emissions and global temperature rises since 1910 evidenced in the two graphs I presented in my last post?


    The climate propaganda of practical politics is in getting the people at large to become fearful and to have the masses demand more security. This is achieved by endless counts of bugaboos, all freely invented fantasy stories. Various sources show that humans only contribute between 2-4 % of the Co2, the by far largest part of rise in CO2 is totally outside of man's control and can not be influenced by man.

    The absolute percentage of human activity's contribution to global CO2 emissions isn't telling because while the bulk of global emissions ARE from natural sources, much of those are emitted and reabsorbed in natural biological processes. Emissions from human activity ADD to the baseline amount of greenhouse gases, the amount that is ALWAYS present, even with those natural processes. Basically, human-created greenhouse gasses do not re-absorb because there's no room for them to reabsorb, which means they accumulate. That's why NOAA says "Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations [of greenhouse gasses] were fairly stable at 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, an increase of well over 30 percent."



    Below find a graph about average temperatures in Greenland ... notice, during the 1920s -1930s the temperatures there were higher than they have been in more recent years. Were there severe floodings due to higher ocean water levels during those decades because glaciers in Greenland were in recess? Was Manhattan under water then ?

    The conditions and time frame to which you refer are known as the "Medieval Warm Period." The difference between those years and the current ones is that we know what caused THAT warming - namely, increased solar activity, less volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation patterns - is NOT what's causing today's warming.

    As for your graph of temperatures in Greenland, remember that what happens LOCALLY does not necessarily report what's happening GLOBALLY. Just because it's cloudy where I am today, does NOT mean it's cloudy where you are. Just because Greenland hasn't warmed steadily over the last century does NOT mean the earth hasn't warmed steadily GLOBALLY over the last century. There's a meaningful difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL conditions.



    CO2 has a molar weight of 44, the surrounding air one of 29, thus CO2 is heaver than air, and for example can be collected in silos. This physical fact means that CO2 will always (!) "fall down to" and "collect at" the ground or other surface, thus it can provide plant growth. Such would not be possible if CO2 rose in the air. Thus, the whole talk about CO2 forming some kind of shield at a high altitude that causes a greenhouse effect is nonsense.

    If you're right about CO2 falling to the ground, how can we humans breathe? Why isn't the atmosphere around our noses filled with a toxic, or at least a harmful, concentration of CO2? The answer is CO2 does NOT all fall to the ground, thanks to thermal currents (think wind and other convective processes) The CO2 that's not absorbed by oceans, plants, et al rises through those processes then disperses at higher levels, leading to a greenhouse "blanket" effect. Your claim that such a "shield" is "nonsense" is false and baseless.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,959

    AND SO, what do "common sense, reason, and logic" tell you that explains the obvious correlation between the rise of global CO2 emissions and global temperature rises since 1910 evidenced in the two graphs I presented in my last post?

    The amounts shown in the graph show how irrelevant overall the supposed addition/rise is when compared to overall CO2 content in the air .... misleading for the purpose of propaganda of a point which otherwise is not of relevance (illustration: if I made a graph showing the rise of temperature in a human body from 36°-37°C, I could make it look as if the temperature rise presented big danger from high fever or I could show that it actually doesn't mean any danger because the values are still what is in normal range ...)

    The conditions and time frame to which you refer are known as the "Medieval Warm Period." The difference between those years and the current ones is that we know what caused THAT warming - namely, increased solar activity, less volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation patterns - is NOT what's causing today's warming.

    And the same sun with its activities is what is exercising its influence on the change between warm or cold periods now ... man is NOT able to effect a change of such periods and the global climate ... it's very simple.

    As for your graph of temperatures in Greenland, remember that what happens LOCALLY does not necessarily report what's happening GLOBALLY. Just because it's cloudy where I am today, does NOT mean it's cloudy where you are. Just because Greenland hasn't warmed steadily over the last century does NOT mean the earth hasn't warmed steadily GLOBALLY over the last century. There's a meaningful difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL conditions.

    Well then, why do the climate ideologists show pics of arctic or antarctic areas as indicative of global climate change / global warming? IF indeed humans with their CO2 emissions cause a climate warming, why should arctic regions or Antarctica with basically no human population show a temperature rise causing arctic ice melting ?

    If you're right about CO2 falling to the ground, how can we humans breathe? Why isn't the atmosphere around our noses filled with a toxic, or at least a harmful, concentration of CO2?

    CO2 is not a toxic gas ... humans do not breathe in CO2, but breathe out CO2 ... The air does contain CO2, and CO2 is heavier than air and thus settles, providing green plants with needed ingredient to grow.

    The answer is CO2 does NOT all fall to the ground, thanks to thermal currents (think wind and other convective processes) The CO2 that's not absorbed by oceans, plants, et al rises through those processes then disperses at higher levels, leading to a greenhouse "blanket" effect. Your claim that such a "shield" is "nonsense" is false and baseless.

    Indeed ... see above. However, the amount of CO2 in the air overall and in particular the very small amount that is produced by man does not form some "shield" around the globe which would produce a greenhouse effect. Even on a small scale, a greenhouse temperature is NOT warmed by CO2 influence ...but by sun influence

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    The amounts shown in the graph show how irrelevant overall the supposed addition/rise is when compared to overall CO2 content in the air .... misleading for the purpose of propaganda of a point which otherwise is not of relevance (illustration: if I made a graph showing the rise of temperature in a human body from 36°-37°C, I could make it look as if the temperature rise presented big danger from high fever or I could show that it actually doesn't mean any danger because the values are still what is in normal range ...)

    1) I asked you how "common sense" et al explain the correlation between global CO2 emissions and global temperature changes evident in the two graphs. Telling me that the amounts shown in the graphs are "irrelevant" does nothing to explain the correlation.

    2) I encourage you to review the science of the "relevance" and consequence of each degree of global temperature increase.

    3) Note the increasing slope of the temperature graph in recent decades, which means the rate of change in global temperatures is higher now than in past decades.


    And the same sun with its activities is what is exercising its influence on the change between warm or cold periods now ... man is NOT able to effect a change of such periods and the global climate ... it's very simple.

    As I reported in my response and you will verify when you review the science of the Medieval Warm Period, we know that the kind of solar activity that was behind that warming period is NOT going on now.

    Your response dramatically understates the effect of greenhouse gases. I don't know whether that's "very simple," but I know it's true.



    Well then, why do the climate ideologists show pics of arctic or antarctic areas as indicative of global climate change / global warming? IF indeed humans with their CO2 emissions cause a climate warming, why should arctic regions or Antarctica with basically no human population show a temperature rise causing arctic ice melting ?

    Your statements read as if you believe human activity affects ONLY the parts of the globe directly above areas of the globe populated by humans. Therefore, since the Arctic circle is sparsely populated, it will show very little effects of climate change. That's not how the earth functions. Consider the oceans. VERY, VERY sparsely populated, yet their temperatures continue to rise in part due to human activity's role in climate change.

    Climate influences - pressure gradients, wind patterns, etc - are NOT constrained by national borders or population density maps.



    CO2 is not a toxic gas ... humans do not breathe in CO2, but breathe out CO2 ... The air does contain CO2, and CO2 is heavier than air and thus settles, providing green plants with needed ingredient to grow.

    Of course humans can breathe in CO2 (ever breathed into a paper bag?)

    As for its toxicity, I acknowledge that CO2 is not a toxic gas, but overexposure to it CAN be dangerous. Review the causes and consequences of hypercapnia.



    Indeed ... see above. However, the amount of CO2 in the air overall and in particular the very small amount that is produced by man does not form some "shield" around the globe which would produce a greenhouse effect. Even on a small scale, a greenhouse temperature is NOT warmed by CO2 influence ...but by sun influence

    I encourage you to review the science of greenhouse gases. Such gases allow short wave energy (sunlight) through to the earth, but then absorb longer-wave heat such as that radiated back from the surface of the earth, in the process creating a greenhouse effect. There is basically no scientific dispute about the behavior and effects of greenhouse gas accumulation. As the Britannica article to which I offer a link makes clear, human activity increases the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond the ability of natural processes (called "sinks") to absorb it, thereby creating a greenhouse.

    For additional information about planetary greenhouse effects, review the climatological history of the planet Venus.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @Wolfgang posted:

    interested folks may have a look at the following:0

    The article to which you provided a link, Wolfgang, reports a court's resolution of a defamation lawsuit in favor of an opponent a respected climate scientist. What the article does NOT do is address in any substantive manner either the issue of climate change or how the end of a defamation lawsuit is of any scientific consequence.

    In June of this year, the VERY SAME climate scientist who lost the case that is the focus of the article to which you linked, Michael Mann, received a formal apology from the Winnipeg, Canada-based Frontier Center for Public Policy, a climate change denying group which Mann had sued for defamation. The Center formally apologized and removed disparaging content about Mann from its website. In its retraction/apology, the group's CEO wrote...


    "Although The Frontier Centre for Public Policy still does not see eye to eye with Dr. Mann on the subject of global warming and climate change, we now accept that it was wrong to publish allegations by others that Dr. Mann did not comply with ethical standards and wrong to suggest that Dr. Mann was guilty of any dishonesty concerning his 1998 and 1999 research which produced the so-called “hockey-stick” temperature graph."


    So Dr. Mann (basically) won a defamation case against climate change deniers before he lost one. Did the case he won advance the cause of climate change advocates in ANY scientific way? Of course not. Did the case he lost push back the cause of climate change advocates in ANY scientific way? Of course not.


    The article to which you provided a link makes a few baseless and unfounded claims about the data Mann and other scientists use, but basically it's a tabloid-worthy and essentially irrelevant report about the disposition of a lawsuit.

Sign In or Register to comment.