Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 269863" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>It is a good article, but I'm not sure why you posted it. Your position, as near as I can tell, is that global warming is a hoax of some sort. From the first page:</p><p></p><p>This is a good example of of why, when you're researching a scientific issue, you should try and stay as as close to the source data as possible, rather than having it interpreted for you by a third party spinmeister.</p><p>It's a particularly good example because the research in question has already been referenced in this thread. Twice. By me.</p><p>Even if you had followed the links I posted (and I am starting to wonder about that) you could be forgiven for not making the connection, because by the time Lawrence Solomon gets done "spinning" the data for the National Post, it's virtually unrecognizable. If you only read his article you could conceivably come away thinking, as you apparently did, that Sami Solanki and the Max Planck Society (for whom he does research), have drawn a conclusive link between the current global warming and solar activity. In fact, they reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Here's the original press release directly from the Max Planck Society: <a href="http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/" target="_blank">click.</a></p><p>Scroll down and you'll see Sami Solanki's research credited. Here's a quote on the whole deal from Solanki himself:</p><p></p><p>Now go back and read that article you posted, keeping in mind that they are supposedly talking about the same research. It's like the twilight zone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is potentially interesting, but I looked in vain for reference to any research that Habibullo Abdussamatov has done to support his theory. He claims to be reaching the exact opposite conclusion of the researchers at the Max Planck Society, who gave a good accounting of their methodology, but he doesn't give any clues as to why. In fact he doesn't cite any research at all. His fellow scientists find this troubling as well:</p><p>A climatologist who dismisses the greenhouse effect? Only in Russia...<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Michael Griffin was speaking as a political appointee, not a scientist, and for good reason. He's an aerospace engineer by training, not a climatologist. NASA's head climatologist disagreed with him pretty vehemently:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18964176/#" target="_blank">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration</a> who is now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Griffin’s remarks showed he was either “totally clueless” or “a deep anti-global warming ideologue.”</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Kristen Byrnes is interesting. If I read her website right she pretty much claims to debunk the work of literally hundreds of climate researchers. That seems like a tall order for a 15 year old girl. She has written some pretty harsh assessments of Al Gore and James Hansen, and documented what she says are severe quality problems with temperature stations. I don't see much reference to actual data or peer reviewed research, but she's still young.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 269863, member: 4805"] It is a good article, but I'm not sure why you posted it. Your position, as near as I can tell, is that global warming is a hoax of some sort. From the first page: This is a good example of of why, when you're researching a scientific issue, you should try and stay as as close to the source data as possible, rather than having it interpreted for you by a third party spinmeister. It's a particularly good example because the research in question has already been referenced in this thread. Twice. By me. Even if you had followed the links I posted (and I am starting to wonder about that) you could be forgiven for not making the connection, because by the time Lawrence Solomon gets done "spinning" the data for the National Post, it's virtually unrecognizable. If you only read his article you could conceivably come away thinking, as you apparently did, that Sami Solanki and the Max Planck Society (for whom he does research), have drawn a conclusive link between the current global warming and solar activity. In fact, they reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Here's the original press release directly from the Max Planck Society: [URL='http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/']click.[/URL] Scroll down and you'll see Sami Solanki's research credited. Here's a quote on the whole deal from Solanki himself: Now go back and read that article you posted, keeping in mind that they are supposedly talking about the same research. It's like the twilight zone. This is potentially interesting, but I looked in vain for reference to any research that Habibullo Abdussamatov has done to support his theory. He claims to be reaching the exact opposite conclusion of the researchers at the Max Planck Society, who gave a good accounting of their methodology, but he doesn't give any clues as to why. In fact he doesn't cite any research at all. His fellow scientists find this troubling as well: A climatologist who dismisses the greenhouse effect? Only in Russia...:happy2: Michael Griffin was speaking as a political appointee, not a scientist, and for good reason. He's an aerospace engineer by training, not a climatologist. NASA's head climatologist disagreed with him pretty vehemently: Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the [URL='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18964176/#']National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[/URL] who is now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Griffin’s remarks showed he was either “totally clueless” or “a deep anti-global warming ideologue.” Kristen Byrnes is interesting. If I read her website right she pretty much claims to debunk the work of literally hundreds of climate researchers. That seems like a tall order for a 15 year old girl. She has written some pretty harsh assessments of Al Gore and James Hansen, and documented what she says are severe quality problems with temperature stations. I don't see much reference to actual data or peer reviewed research, but she's still young. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
Top