Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kim

0
0

Tested against thermometers, catastrophic alarmism is down seven touchdowns at the two minute mark.
========


Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Skiphil

0
0

FOMBS,

as Chrissie Hynde said so well,

“stop your sobbing!”

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Tuppence

0
0

More a blinkered ideologue than a chump, I would say.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Canman

0
0

Can others point to propaganda statements commonly offered in support of causes they favor?

Reason Magazine’s motto: Free minds and free markets.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Team Denier watches each others backs. Ain’t that special?

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by kim

0
0

Well, she’s making history, I’ll say with a light laugh, but not in a good way.
==============

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Jim D

0
0

Land has warmed 0.3 C per decade since 1980, but you didn’t know that, so you might be excused. When this kind of factual information is communicated to some people it is just met with resentment.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by DeafDumbBlind

0
0

Global warming, climate sceptics keep staying, has stopped for the last 16 years or so. But nobody seems to have told the fish, who keep moving towards the poles as previously cool waters warm up.

Tropical species are increasingly moving into temperate seas, a bluefin tuna has been caught off Greenland, and Britons are facing having to change the way they eat fish and chips, all as a result of the climate change, say researchers. Marine ecologist, Dr. Adriana Vergés, of Australia’s New South Wales University, says: “The magnitude of the change is so large that it is very obvious.”

.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282695/theres-something-distinctly-fishy-about-claims-that-global-warming-has-stopped/


Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kim

0
0

Attribution is still for temperature change, too.
==================

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Skiphil

0
0
Willis says it all so succinctly! I want to add another pithy expression, originally applied to the Peter Gleick travesties but applicable to all statements, articles, and campaigns from CliSci which exceed or falsify available evidence: [emphasis added] <blockquote><b> "After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else." </blockquote> </b> <a href="//www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/”" rel="nofollow">Megan McArdle on the Gleick Affair</a>

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Rob Ellison

0
0

Joshua – with not the slightest clue about some exceedingly simple calcs – themselves little more than pedagogical aids – describes himself as a realist. Oh the unintentional irony.

The simple model suffers from 2 errors – either of which would be fatal. It presumes that nothing else changes – against a backdrop of vigourous decadal variability this is so wrong as to be incomprehensibly silly.

e.g. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

The second concerns the inability to convincingly attribute warming against a backdrop of large natural variability.

The reality is that climate is unpredictable as a result of emergent behavior in a multiply coupled, nonlinear system. .

The deficit model applies only to climate science as far as I know. It arises from the odd idea that if only it were communicated more effectively we would all embrace the Borg collective of distorted science and the fringe social movement endorsing it. How’s that working out ya think?

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Skiphil

0
0

this is definitely where I am with many/all of the “consensus” climate scientists — I regard them as so committed to The Cause that I distrust whatever they seek to “communicate” to me….

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Tuppence

0
0

It’s common in the media to say that skepticism is associated with right-wing politics, because (some) right-wingers seek to limit state coercion of society.

But you never hear the far more obvious converse : alarmism is associated with left-wing politics, because left-wingers seek to advance state coercion of society.

And that the very science that supports more state coercion of society in the field of climate, is all paid for by the state itself. The state uses tax-payers’ money to beneit itself.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Jim D

0
0

From the producers of Coal, the other green fuel.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Skiphil Limbaugh uses Hynde’s “My City Was Gone” as a theme song to his rancid anti-science talk show, but in exchange a usage payment is donated to PETA. Funny. Skiphil ought to start sobbing.

BTW, Ray Davies may have said it better because he said it first back in 1964.


Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by GaryM

0
0

“This is a very simple model to predict global average earth surface temperature change as a function of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but it is far more accurate in forecasting upper bounds for AGW compared to much more complex GCMs used in research today.”

I don’t suppose you published your own predictions of global average surface temperature 20-30 years or so ago so we have something more than an assertion about how easy it is to do more accurately than the GCMs?

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Tuppence

0
0

Realitically then, the alarmist consensus is 95% propaganda, 5% science. More or less unavoidable, given that 95% of the money comes from single source.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Wagathon

0
0

Charging money to get rid of poisonous CO2 in your house sounds like a Gypsy scam on a global scale to me. You can’t commission a research vessel these days without having to listen to the bureaucrats throwing in the need to do something about climate change as a justification for the expense.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Gail

0
0

THE IPCC, always the gold standard of politically-motivated one-sided alarmism, now described here as “too conservative” on alarmism.
Goodness, the scientivists really are getting desparate.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by popesclimatetheory

0
0

AGW is not dragging Climate Science anywhere. AGW is not any kind of science. AGW is headed to a bad place, but it does have no influence on real science.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images