When the facts are in dispute there cannot be an unbiased source of information, because what is or is not information is part of the disagreement. The closest one can come is a source that presents both sides.
But I object to the term bias being applied to anyone who has a position in a controversy. Bias is a flaw, but strong belief is not necessarily wrong.
JC, you should be ashamed of your celebrating Heartland’s demise for one really stupid act, for which they are strangely unrepentent. I eagerly await your such death dance for Pacific Institue or other AGW prostitues.
“both sides” is a bias that tends to equate very unequal parts as 2 equal and opposite ‘sides’.
If that was a celebration, it was a very muted one.
Stern Report would have being correct; if GLOBAL warming is for real; but is not!!! Therefore, Stern report was a dirty trick. It’s exactly the same as: ”if the moon was supposed to fall on Manhattan; as economist – with his calculator, he can predict precisely the cost of the damages. But the question, before he started using his calculator on taxpayer’s expense, is: ”is the moon going to fall on New York / are the constant big / small climatic changes related to the phony GLOBAL warming”?!?!?!
More than half of the members in UN are not democratic, one expecting from them openness – is same as expecting honesty / openness from Steven Mosher, Tony Brown and WebHub the fanatic telescope. I had to grow up east of the Iron Curtain = I know how they operate – can predict in advance any of their moves. Their end result is scary. The phony GLOBAL warming interpretation is nothing but the new version of ”Das Kapital” in Green Covers, but all the pages in are still in red. Why am I including Tony Brown? Tony stands for ”Skeptics and against carbon tax” same as East Germany was called Deutsche ”Democratishe” Republic / ”Democratic” Republic of Congo / ”People’s” Republic of North Korea – where people can say something critical only ones. (Tony / Vuk are skunks in a cuddly sat’s skin) Nothing personal, just the truth
Experiment: guess what the temperature is in your room first; then look at the thermometer = on most occasions, you will be wrong by 1-2-3 degrees.
Between Antarctic – Christchurch – Hawaii and Easter Island is not a single thermometer monitoring – 30% of the planet’s surface area – Tony & Co know if it was ”warmer or colder than normal there” – not just for this year and last; but on the same area for 300y ago, and for 1000y ago, and for 2000y ago and for 6000y ago…??? I wander why people waste money for thermometers, when we have Tony, Mosher, Vukcevic…?! Just ask them, they have lots and lots of thin air inside their crystal balls for harvesting from… Damages to the kid’s brains in school, trillion of $$$ spent to STOP the climate from changing – compare them, with Bernard Madoff. Better not, because Mr. Madoff can get you legitimately, for defamation.
Climate didn’t stop changing, for one day in 4 billion years – but they are presenting it as the phony GLOBAL warmings. In couple of years, when most of the secular people realize that: climate keeps changing / but not a hint of any GLOBAL warming – criminologist will have lots of evidences; that they have being skilfully avoiding my proofs; on the expense of humanity. (90% of the people are secular believers / secular Skeptics. The percentage in the blogosphere fundamentalist is different than on the street) Time is against the fundamentalist from both sides of the sandpit
What happens when governments dismiss risks because of scientific uncertainty?
http://www.nature.com/news/new-twists-in-italian-seismology-trial-1.10049
An interesting argument from seismology applicable to doubt in climate due Type I Error:
..And yet look at what a 6.3 earthquake has done to this city. That knowledge was not used, and scientists are responsible for that. They were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever,” he said.
The problem is in part a scientific one, Mualchin said. The Italian scientists based their analysis on the frequency of earthquakes in the area. This is known as the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA), a method that is state of the art in many countries, but that, in Mualchin’s view, systematically underestimates seismic hazard because it does not consider extreme and rare events.
“Frequency is not important, what really matters is the largest earthquake we can expect, the strongest one that has happened in the past. Risk prevention should be based on that,” he said. This is the philosophy behind deterministic seismic-hazard analysis, a method that Mualchin says has been mostly abandoned by the scientific community, to the point that younger seismologists do not even learn about it.
“PSHA is a bad model California has exported elsewhere, and we see the results here in L’Aquila,” he told Nature after the hearing. Mualchin worries that the new building codes approved in Italy after the L’Aquila earthquake show no improvement. “They never consider the worst-case scenario for any particular area, and this can lead to new disasters in the future”.
And Libertarians rely one one moral foundation – respect for the individual as an end within himself.
“Am god” is dogma backwards.
And then there is the plain egregious crap – such as Al gore wanting everyone to live in a cabin eating porcupines.
But Judith appreciates it.
Go Team!
The truth about globull warming and record temperatures:
Indianapolis 500 records
Highest Race Temperatures
Races with air temperatures equaling or surpassing 90°F (32°C)
Year Degrees Race Winner Notes
°F °C
1937 92° 33° United States Wilbur Shaw
1919 91° 33° United States Howdy Wilcox
1953 91° 33° United States Bill Vukovich
With anecdotal, “unofficial” testimony placing air temperature at the track during the race near or surpassing 100°F / 38°C, potentially the hottest race in history, with at least one fatality, United States Carl Scarborough, due to heat exhaustion
1977 90° 32° United States A.J. Foyt
1978 90° 32° United States Al Unser
Note 96°F / 35°C, claimed for the start of the 2010 race, but subsequent data reviews indicate an inaccurate reporting
Coldest Temperature at Start of Race:
51°F / 11°C, 1992
References
^ National Weather Service archives for Indianapolis, up to 26 May 2012.
Andrew, you say it yourself. Heartland no more represents “all skeptics” than the IPCC represents all warmists. It may hold views which are common to many sceptics, but – as was the point of my first post – Heartland is not the hub of a climate contrarian network; there is no network; climate sceptics are not an organised group funded by big oil, the tobacco industry or any other similar fictitious rendition of the “evil denier machine”. These oft-repeated nonsenses are deliberate lies touted specifically for the purpose of demonising climate sceptics and the very act of holding climate sceptical views through guilt-by-association.
@@ WebHubTelescope | May 26, 2012 at 1:15 pm
WebHub, before lunch you hate yourself, for not having shares in oil; after lunch, you hate the rest of the world.
Without use of fossil, would have being enough food for 3 billion people on the planet. Tell us first: how to get read of the other 4 billion people; what’s your plan / model? A] only the working people / producers would have belong in those 3billion – in which billions do you belong?! B] Hitler got read off 50 million people, and many people think that he was a freak; what does that make you and your camarades; by wanting to starve to death the other 4 billion people?!?!?! Fossil fuel is the life support for the other 4 billion now, INCLUDING FOR YOU.
Great vid,
All the denizens should be made to watch the whole hour and a half.
Welcome to the mind body problem. What do you propose? That we stop feeling, stop believing, or both? Conviction is not an illness.
I have a different take on conservatives and liberals. I see conservatives as stodgy old coots who whine about the way the world is changing around them. Constipation makes them cranky and they pass a lot of gas, so I would prefer not to be around them. I see liberals as youthful and energetic, and wiling to embrace change. They are refreshing to be around. Of course these generalizations don’t apply to all conservatives and liberals.
Srp
Brilliant.
Thank you.
Here is something similar Professor Richard S. Lindzen wrote:
“When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.”
http://bit.ly/2X21Vg
Louise, “You are crazy” is not hate speech, in fact it is standard rhetoric in the climate debate. In my collection I am particularly fond of “Skeptics are delusional ignoramuses,” a most colorful variant. You were there I believe, when I collected it, because we were discussing your Spice Girls attack on Dr. Curry. That was you, right? Nothing hateful about that, right? Hate and hateful are two different critters. Hate is serious, while hateful is just boorish and rude.
