16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
it's not based on field work. from 2007 until last year they were saying climate change is speeding up rotation. i posted several news links in previous posts in this thread all based on computer models NOT field work.
the study contradicts previous claims about climate change speeding up the rotation of the earth
new scientist 2007 climate change will mak rotation faster
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster/
2012 huffington post saying the same thing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-wagner/climate-change-earth-rotation-_b_1289596.html
many more can can be found using google
S
**Sophie**
Found a few more
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
2002: "Increasing level of (CO2)...will slow Earth's rotation."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster/
2007: "Global warming will make Earth spin faster."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-change-longer-days-glaciers-north-south-pole
2015: "Water from shrinking glaciers slows Earth's rotation."
http://m.livescience.com/53071-melting-glaciers-change-earth-spin.html
2015: "Earth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Melt"
Guess the science is finally settled
Great. And?
You still haven't found any problem with the study, and you certainly haven't justified your claim that they failed to account for the influence of the moon.
I take it you had no reasons for your posts, you just liked typing?
obviously you didn't look at the contradictory studies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
2002: "Increasing level of (CO2)...will slow Earth's rotation."
https://www.newscientist.com/article...h-spin-faster/
2007: "Global warming will make Earth spin faster."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...rth-south-pole
2015: "Water from shrinking glaciers slows Earth's rotation."
http://m.livescience.com/53071-melti...arth-spin.html
2015: "Earth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Melt"
Indeed! The UK is one such place where not conforming to climate warming dogma will result in not being hired by the UK Met Office. Their climatologists were being pressured by the head of UK Met to modify their predictions in order to promote the mantra of climate warming, with grossly erroneous climatological forecasts.
The brother of the leader of the UK Labour Party is a noted climatologist who does not subscribe to the current notion of global warming and climate warming. Piers Corbyn is also a noted astrophysicist. He stated recently that he could espouse these dissenting views because he was self employed and had the independence to say what he thinks. He indicated that current forecasting tools have reached their limit. He factors in space weather in his met forecasts. Solar activity has a significant effect on climate, according to him.
If scientists funded by corporations want to publish a study, then that paper should stand on its own. It doesn't matter who funds it. It will stand scrutiny on its own merits. We don't need stupid politicians to tell anybody what the results ought to be, or to charge someone because they don't agree with the result. When our leaders impose 'truth', then we've lost our liberty.
A scientific theory is one as good as the next one that replaces it. This is a fundamental principle in science.
Absolutely everyone agrees with you. I agree with you. These AG's agree with you. No one disagrees at all.
What we were talking about is fraud. Situations where companies believe one thing to be true but intentionally lie and say the opposite in order to obtain a benefit. Or where they knowingly fake data. That's fraud.
Data is subject to interpretation and many times bias. Scientific papers are subject to peer review. Peer review will discredit bad papers. It's not up to politicians to substitute themselves for critical scientific review.
Political interference in science is the most recent manifestation of neo-liberalism: that of legislating how people should think and run their lives, under penalty of law. It also presumes that most people are stupid and legislation should be crafted to apply to the lowest common denominator.
But you back a scientist who is directly paid by the oil industry for his research. Sounds reasonable.
p.s. His predictions have also failed repeatedly. He made predictions of cooling that never occurred and his work is also based on computer simulations. Seems he's (to quote MF) spectacularly wrong.
p.p.s. The " I won't believe anything regarding climate change that is published in the NY Times so I didn't even bother clicking on the link." is just more evidence that the denier community is happy keeping their heads in the sand.
The problem is that the same argument isn't used for both sides. People have repeatedly decried studies because they were paid for by governments or because the writers are somehow 'political'. It is amusing when people ignore AGW research because they don't like the author but complain that an author they like is being ignored for the same reason.
And there is a reason why Willie Soon doesn't have much support in the scientific community. At one time I thought it was an interesting theory but having followed the predictions and the research, it became clear that it was not a major driving factor of climate in the last century.
Wow, what total slander.
How did politicians buy off ALL climatologists, and how did they buy off ALL climatologists from every country?
Its wacko night here, this conspiracy theory just won't hold water.
There's no rational reason to believe that.
What this case is about is trying to chill dissent. It's a clear warning that anyone who is even suspected of disagreeing with Obama faces prosecution.
That's pretty funny considering how you responded to a published paper by your favourite scientists that confirmed there was a huge mismatch between the Earth's temperature anomalies in the 21st century and what was predicted.
