Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter"Climate change denial is not necessarily a speciality of Washington DC think tanks - sometimes it can also be found in old Europe. Right now there is a little media storm passing by in France evoked by an article from Claude Allègre in L’Express. Who is Claude Allègre? He is one of the most decorated french geophysicists specializing in geochemistry and the use of paleomagnetism. Being a longtime friend of the former prime minister, Lionel Jospin, he even became Minister of Education and Research in the former Socialist government. He still plays an active role within the Socialist party and though he has never published anything directly related to anthropogenic climate change, one would assume that he has some understanding of the scientific matter. But this assumption would be wrong.
I'm gone from the forum for two days and you take it upon yourself to impugn my good name? I hope you like crow:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
In the French weekly journal l’Express he exposed his “sceptical” views in an article entitled “The snows of Kilimanjaro”. In the short editorial, he somehow became lost when following Ernest Hemingway to East Africa. Allègre mentions two scientific examples to demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong in the IPCC statements on the reality of climate change. First, he commented on the disappearing glaciers of the Kilimanjaro, sometimes treated as the “Panda” of anthropogenic climate change. Citing a "Nature" study (which was in fact published in Science) by Pierre Sepulchre and colleagues from my laboratory, he claimed that this modelling study demonstrated that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are controlled by tectonic activity. In fact, the article describes the impact of tectonics of the East African Highlands on Indian ocean moisture transport ---- on a time scale of millions of years! This confuses glacier variability over the last ~100 years with rainfall trends extending back to the time of the early hominids (such as Lucy).
In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the situation on the Kilimanjaro is a bit more complicated than a simple “atmosphere gets warmer/ glaciers are melting” equation (for instance, see this previous post on tropical glacier retreat). Furthermore, the real link to climate change does not come from the retreat of one single tropical glacier, but from the fact that, to my knowledge, all studied tropical glaciers have retreated over the 20th century, and the retreat rates have generally increased in recent decades.
Allègre's misunderstanding was immediately followed by another one. Citing a recent study on relatively stable Antarctic snowfall over the last 30 years (Monaghan et al, 2006, discussed here) , he highlighted what he thought was a clear contradiction to future climate simulations of global circulation models (melting of the Antarctic ice sheet). However, that's not what they predict. All models predict a comparably stable Antarctic ice sheet for the 21th century in which comparably moderate temperature changes in Antarctica are compensated by slight increase in snowfall. The Monaghan et al study does not contradict these model scenarios.
The French climate research community was of course not very pleased about this short sequence of misrepresentations and personal attacks (“les Cassandres&rdquo😉 and corrected Allègre in an open letter published here on the website of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace (which includes links to the ongoing back and forth, for those that speak French).
Curiously enough, twenty years ago Allègre wrote in “Clés pour la géologie", (éd. Belin/France Culture):
"En brûlant des combustibles fossiles, l'homme a augmenté le taux de gaz carbonique dans l'atmosphère, ce qui fait, par exemple, que depuis un siècle la température moyenne du globe a augmenté d'un demi-degré."
(Translation)
“By burning fossil fuels man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century”.
But at that time he used this argument against the anti-nuclear energy movement. It might be that there is simply a bit too much politics in Allègre’s life... "
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/arctic-and-antarctic/
Seems your heroes grasp of science is about as in-depth as your own. 🙄
D
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAlfred P Sloan, who for some mysterious reason writes under the alias "Richard Lindzen" has this written about him...
Here's some more Canadian girlfriends:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611298.shtml
In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
D
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI can easily come up with 10 valid links for every 1 of your useless links.
I'm gone from the forum for two days and you take it upon yourself to impugn my good name? I hope you like crow:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
And you still didn't answer my question. Do you think pollution is good for humans?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_warming.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-02-02.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,981127,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0615-04.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html
Originally posted by CliffLandinScientific advancement is not about orthodoxy, so it doesn't matter how many links you have if all of them have reached the wrong conclusion.
I can easily come up with 10 valid links for every 1 of your useless links.
And you still didn't answer my question. Do you think pollution is good for humans?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_warming.asp
http://www.wa ...[text shortened]... ss.climate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOutright lies are pretty much standard fare from the skeptics crowd (what else do they have when science is not on their side?) - here is a thread you started a few months ago in which you contend that the observed warming is insignificant.
I've never contended that it wasn't getting warmer
Thread 53076
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou might want to tell your buddies at ExxonMobil, it looks like they've reached the wrong conclusion:
Scientific advancement is not about orthodoxy, so it doesn't matter how many links you have if all of them have reached the wrong conclusion.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate.asp
Why would they want to cut CO2 emissions if it has no effect?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeSummary for anyone who doesn't care to wade through the swamp of ElleEffSeee's name calling and other misrepresentations:
Outright lies are pretty much standard fare from the skeptics crowd (what else do they have when science is not on their side?) - here is a thread you started a few months ago in which you [b]contend that the observed warming is insignificant.
Thread 53076[/b]
DSR: The hockey stick is broken.
EES: The study is biased.
DSR: It's still a fact.
EES: NCPA=Exxon
DSR: It's still broken -- see ya later.
ElleEffSeee, you really need to get a new hockey schtick.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeGovernment subsidies. Restraint of trade. Domination of the new "green" market. Honestly, do I have to do all your thinking for you?
You might want to tell your buddies at ExxonMobil, it looks like they've reached the wrong conclusion:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate.asp
Why would they want to cut CO2 emissions if it has no effect?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo now you are going back to the claim that global warming doesn't exist.
Summary for anyone who doesn't care to wade through the swamp of ElleEffSeee's name calling and other misrepresentations:
DSR: The hockey stick is broken.
EES: The study is biased.
DSR: It's still a fact.
EES: NCPA=Exxon
DSR: It's still broken -- see ya later.
ElleEffSeee, you really need to get a new hockey schtick.
Do you even have the first clue what this 'hockey stick' represents?