Posts Tagged ‘AGW’

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

February 15, 2008


I’d certainly do without the Nazis but…why shouldn’t I be able to answer oranges with oranges, so to speak??

There is an overwhelming consensus that the expression “Global warming denier” has been deliberately coined to equate AGW heretics to people denying the Holocaust.

And “Denier” is often repeated by people fully aware of the horrible connotations around it.

Check what happened on CBS around a year ago. Or the stuff this article, some mainstream media pieces making more or less the same point.

In any case, Goebbels’ words have been used in all sort of propaganda tricks, not just to build the Holocaust.

Hey, am I accusing you of participating in the killing hundreds of millions of people or what?

(and that’s an argumentum ad absurdum, if you don’t get it)


Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

February 14, 2008

By the way…I liked (part of) Aaron’s comment so much, I blogged about it:

Me “Denier”? You “Goebbelite”!”

And I wouldn’t mind being called a heretic

The Reference Frame: RSS MSU corrections & record cold temperatures

February 6, 2008

It may or may not be of interest, but Western Europe has experienced quite a mild winter so far, and in the satellite pictures looks like a lonely spot of green surrounded by snow white all over the Northern Hemisphere…

Accuweather Global Warming: A Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts

February 4, 2008

There is a giant reporting bias in the MARA findings and I wonder if I am the only one able to spot it (or otherwise, if I am just very wrong on this point).

For example on “Human Health” there is no mention of the obvious reduction in cold-related deaths. At least, I hope there has been some reduction. Actually, if there has been none, THEN that would be a major finding on its own

The trouble is that one cannot simply say “let’s look at the changes” and then report _any_ change that is seen, and especially the bad ones. There is lots that keeps changing every day every where, but each particular item may or may not be of any significance.

Observations should follow some underlying hypothesis. Otherwise, everything that changes is going to be a “finding”: worse, there will be all the chance for a “pick and choose” of findinds in one direction or another.

William M. Briggs, Statistician: Is climatology a pseudoscience?

January 30, 2008
  • 26. Maurizio Morabito  |  January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 am

    I wonder if Park’s warning signs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 apply to several “anti-AGWers” aka “skeptics”?

    1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media
    2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work
    4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
    5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries
    6. The discoverer has worked in isolation

Accuweather Global Warming: Clarification on the Global Warming Groups

January 24, 2008

I recently found an interesting classification of degrees of skepticism:


It relates to people skeptical of the paranormal but with some modification could be applied to the AGW debate as well…

more details at Four Degrees of Skepticism

Climate Resistance: Physician, Heal Thyself

January 18, 2008

maurizio morabito said…The AR4-WG2 report is interesting on several other fronts as well. It is the one place where (in its chapter 1) there is an analysis of hard data about the present-day world, instead of predictions about the future or discussions about models. I hope you will find the time to read it in detail, and comment it here.

For now I point out to an evident bias in what is reported: “Global Warming May Be Just European”

18 January 2008 19:21

Accuweather Global Warming: Initial Poll Results

January 17, 2008
Skepticism is the only answer. Everything else is by definition unwarranted.

And by the way…when something becomes self-evident, it’s not science any longer 😎

Climate Skeptic: Response to Greg Craven’s “How the World Ends” Video

January 17, 2008

I have watched Craven’s “Most Terrifying Video” and found it rather…anti-climactic 8-)He’s basically saying is that we should refer to scientific authorities. Yuck…is THAT it?


Something I haven’t seen yet is an understanding that risk management cannot be seriously done if one of the “four boxes” is so heavily catastrophist, whilst the consequences of action are disregarded as minimal and confined to economics alone.

Somebody please google about “Bufo marinus”…

The tragedy is that we’ve been this way before, many times, and scientist-advocates have already brought us disasters around their pet ideas. Eugenics, and the Bufo Marinus.

I say, I am catastrophist myself, and if the human race decides to waste all resources in fighting the AGW fake monster, it’s going to be “amen” and “r.i.p.” to all of us

BigCityLib: Auditing Climate Audit

January 15, 2008
Blogger Maurizio Morabito said…
Has anybody else noticed that the IPCC has dropped the hockey stick, of late?That graph resembles no Hockey Stick anybody will ever want to play with. Looks more like a wide-bodied, irregular golf club…

5:58 AM