2008 the year God was killed.. again.

He uses the words:

scare, shriller, frantic and hysterical

when identifying the ideology of the "warmists," which is not quite up to the journalistic standard.

Also, he has no data or footnotes.

FAIL

I would also identify the words scare, shriller, frantic and hysterical with global warming.

'Warmists' has become a very common term amongst journos.

The data are readily available in support of this piece, including the fact that the north pole failed to melt as predicted by the warming model.

FAIL for attacking the presentation and not the message, predictably.

Below is a couple paragraphs about Christopher Booker, taken from an article titled "The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation".


For several years he has been waging a similar war against "warmist alarmists", by which he means climate scientists. Nine days ago, for instance, he attacked Michael Mann for publishing a paper that shows (alongside scores of other studies) that global temperatures do indeed follow the famous hockey-stick pattern: a moderate long-term cooling trend terminating in a sudden upward bend. Mann, Booker told his readers, had been "selective ... in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Medieval Warming". But Mann's paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses every uncluttered high-resolution proxy temperature record in the public domain. How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.

Under their guidance he routinely mistakes weather for climate and makes claims about the temperature record that bear no relation to the studies he cites. My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.

Full article can be found here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health

Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. *Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.

Awarding Irishman with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by blankfist.

Man made global warming *should* be challenged because the global economy is being changed to a carbon based economy.

If it holds up to these challenges then it holds up. Don't think it's a good idea to let it go unchallenged.

I've now probably read as much "stuff" coming from both sides of the argument, and to be honest I'm still not persuaded that it's man made.

Remember, scientific hokum is still hokum.

Irishman, there are not "two sides" to the argument. Science develops by the weighing of bodies of evidence.

The strong case for climate change due to human activity is based on just two facts: CO2 in the atmosphere is correlated with surface temperature, and the rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity.
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3061.aspx

That's it. No hand waving needed.

The rise in C02 isn't created solely by human activity.

There's a debate going on right now as to whether humans cause the majority of the increased carbon in the atmosphere, or whether natural causes (such as volcanoes, vegetation, etc.) are to blame. Some say the human footprint is too small to account for a significant change in global climate and carbon increase, while other scientists claim human activity makes up the majority of carbon emissions.

Who to believe? It truly is a frustrating scientific debate, and if we are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions in this world, I'd be the first person to embrace a "green" change. Until then, it's discouraging to see self-righteous greenies pushing their agenda as being conclusive.

>> ^blankfist:
Some say the human footprint is too small to account for a significant change in global climate and carbon increase, while other scientists claim human activity makes up the majority of carbon emissions.

The "climate debate" may be framed in these terms, but this is a repetition of a false dichotomy. I have to draw on some numbers to illustrate this point:

While human activity only releases 5% as much CO2 as earth’s systems circulate, 57% of our emissions are beyond what can be absorbed by the ocean surface and by plants. The result is a 0.5% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels each and every year.

So, while human activity is not the dominant source of CO2, it is the largest variable source, making it the primary driver of climate change. The same argument applies for land use changes even more so.

Interesting, fissionchips. That, I did not know.

I've been round in circles with this for months, I still only see the human C02 contribution doing nothing except quickening a cycle which is already there, not causing it - and the rate of the 'quickening' is this 0.5% per year figure.

The cooling is part of that same cycle.

Hastening the warming hastens the cooling.

Explain to me why I am wrong!

I don't understand the global warming situation too well, but I think I'll trust our scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_.28IPCC.29_2007

Global WEATHER change does not equal global CLIMATE change.

Global Warming
String Theory
Dark Energy
Dark Matter

all worth billions of dollars to career scientists, and none of which actually seem to be worth a fuck.

>> ^Irishman:
Global Warming
String Theory
Dark Energy
Dark Matter
all worth billions of dollars to career scientists, and none of which actually seem to be worth a fuck.


Wow, I didn't know that Big Science controlled the world's money. I thought it would be Big Oil or something.

Environmentalism has mutated from conservation into an earth-worshiping, anti-human "religion". Like all "movements" it's gone too far.

Of man-made global warming THEORY there is no definitive proof, only consensus by government-funded 'scientitians'.

Based on a theory, some do-gooders want to radically alter world economies for the poorer as well as the way much of the human race lives. The fact said do-gooders use the media to quash all dissent, declare all debate "over" and are rushing to enact more totalitarian laws doesn't speak well of their sincerity or motives.

Maybe people like Al Gore are right, or maybe they are wrong. It still lends nothing to the debate to use harsh words to describe their beliefs.

And as for the FAIL: I can't adequately respond to a message if the presentation doesn't do the message justice. Thus, my request for footnotes, or a better representation of the facts.

>> ^Irishman:
I would also identify the words scare, shriller, frantic and hysterical with global warming.
'Warmists' has become a very common term amongst journos.
The data are readily available in support of this piece, including the fact that the north pole failed to melt as predicted by the warming model.
FAIL for attacking the presentation and not the message, predictably.

whoever invented the weather is laughing at our puny attempts to understand it.

Wow haven't you little greenpeace younglings given up? First you call it global warming, then when the earth cools and new ice forms, it's climate change. Now you're just beating yourselves up, cause everyone somewhat intelligent knows the earth warms and cools over time. What's next, the evil of Earth Stasis?! The climate economy isn't dong anything, helllppppp!!!!1111111

Glad to see you're contributing so much insight to the debate, Jar Jar. Meesa be happies yous arriveds to dispenses Sir's logics!

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Wow haven't you little greenpeace younglings given up? First you call it global warming, then when the earth cools and new ice forms, it's climate change. Now you're just beating yourselves up, cause everyone somewhat intelligent knows the earth warms and cools over time. What's next, the evil of Earth Stasis?! The climate economy isn't dong anything, helllppppp!!!!1111111

CP why the downvote? i am agnostic on ... pretty much everything. especially climate computers that take up a whole warehouse.

So have we sorted out who's right and who's wrong and who's to blame yet?

Have we derided the messenger enough?

Can we criticise the presentation and style any more?

Have we been hoodwinked by our governments again?

>> ^blankfist:
Warmist sounds a lot like alarmist, doesn't it? We'll most likely see more of those for the next four years. Quality find, Irishman. We need more opposing viewpoints on this issue, because the Gore-following Warmist Automatons think the debate is over about Global Warming, science be damned.


Yes, all people who follow mainstream scientific belief are automatons.

That's what they tell me in my weekly Flat Earth Society meetings. We've got to stop those deadly Sphere-ists from throwing away billions on "satellites" that just sail over the edge of the earth, never to be seen again!

I mean, they're obviously trying to cow people into giving up good money with fear, the word Sphere-ists has phere fear built right into it!

QED

Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

Galileo was persecuted for claiming that the earth went around the sun, which was also against mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

The Scientific Theory Crackpot Index gives you 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo.

The comments so far have accumulated well over 100 points.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/nov/01_11_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif