Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off

[bigfish]

Ageist nonsense!

Monbiot is a bit younger though.

And so somewhat less qualified, and with far less experience than Dr Zichichi. Zichichi's record in advancing science speaks for itself. Monbiot's record in advancing science says nothing at all.

Zichichi will be 78 this year. So many of those who disregard the enormous amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming seem to be so very old. Could this be Planck's Principle at work?

No. Planck's reference is to the eventual triumph of "scientific truth" over entrenched dogma -- not the other way round.

Monbiot's a dogmatic propagandist, in bed with a multi-billion dollar eco-industrial complex-carbon trading swindle, funded by big banks. Zichichi, on the other hand, operates at the very highest level of scientific integrity.


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Monbiot's a dogmatic propagandist, in bed with a multi-billion dollar eco-industrial complex-carbon trading swindle, funded by big banks. Zichichi, on the other hand, operates at the very highest level of scientific integrity.

Good grief. I'm not a fan of Monbiot but you really are coming out with some prize lunacy. Carbon trading? That's capitalism turning climate change into a business opportunity. I don't know any environmentalist who thinks carbon trading is a good thing - same goes for Kyoto - more guff and greenwash for business to spew out. As for 'eco-industrial' - see Wikipedia on Oxymoron.

 

[bigfish]

...the enormous amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming...

There is NOT an "enormous amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming". There's an "enormous amount" of PROPAGANDA and any number of computer generated scenarios, monkeyed together by researchers with a vested interest in maintaining themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed from government gravy boat funding.

Michael Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick" Millennial temperature reconstruction, which was presented by the IPCC as "evidence" for AGW in its previous report, was subsequently comprehensively discredited by McIntyre & McItrick and the Wegman Panel.

For anothert example, see: The decay of the hockey stick at Nature's new blog
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html#comment-86863

 

[bigfish]

{deleted ad hominem] Carbon trading? That's capitalism turning climate change into a business opportunity. I don't know any environmentalist who thinks carbon trading is a good thing...

Carbon trading wouldn't stand a chance without the systematic demonization of carbon dioxide by "environmental activists" like... well, like fake leftist, George Monbiot, for instance. Have you noticed how his work is almost always bereft of any social dimension? Africa may develop, but only within the straightjacket of environmental sustainability. Or, in other words, Africa must stay where it is. It cannot be allowed to industrialize and electrify, because... well because industrialization produces CO2 which causes global warming, you see?

What a scam!

"Heat" by George Monbiot.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0713999233

 

[dash_two]

Zichichi, on the other hand, operates at the very highest level of scientific integrity.

He sounds a bit of a rum old bugger, from the Wikipedia entry on him:

However, he has been criticized from many quarters for his biased views. In his book on Galileo, Galilei, Divin Uomo: as many book reviewers have pointed out, this is a book with an ideological agenda, in which objectivity is sacrificed to the demonstration of the thesis that Galileo was a deeply committed Catholic more than a scientist and was therefore disposed to renounce his scientific convinctions for his faith. Elio Fabri, professor of Physics at Pisa, Enrico Bellone, professor of the history of science at the University of Milan and Piergiorgio Odifreddi, mathematician at Cornell University and at the University of Turin, have all criticized his essays both with regard to form and with regard to contents (often pointing out errors in the scientific part itself). Odifreddi has even been sued by Zichichi for defamation for having pointed out the numerous contradictions in his writings in an article entitled "Zichicche", which later became a book consisting of a collection of writings about Zichichi by various people.

 

[dash_two]

Michael Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick" Millennial temperature reconstruction, which was presented by the IPCC as "evidence" for AGW in its previous report, was subsequently comprehensively discredited by McIntyre & McItrick and the Wegman Panel.

Doesn't look all that bad to me from this article on Realclimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

Anway, I thought your position was that global temperatures were getting warmer, but that this was likely due to the influence of solar events. In which case, the hockey stick is probably not far off the mark - all that is in real dispute is the cause of recent warming.

Or are you again endorsing two contradictory positions, as with Lindzen versus Novak?

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Carbon trading wouldn't stand a chance without the systematic demonization of carbon dioxide by "environmental activists" like... well, like fake leftist, George Monbiot, for instance. Have you noticed how his work is almost always bereft of any social dimension? Africa may develop, but only within the straightjacket of environmental sustainability. Or, in other words, Africa must stay where it is. It cannot be allowed to industrialize and electrify, because... well because industrialization produces CO2 which causes global warming, you see?

What a scam!

"Heat" by George Monbiot.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0713999233

So let me get this straight.

Monbiot writes utter nonsense.
Monbiot writes about anthropogenic climate change.
(Therefore) Anthropogenic climate change is utter nonsense.

Water-tight reasoning there then. Your syllogistic fallacy ain't fooling no-one.

I'd be more impressed if you demonstrated why the work of climate scientists is inaccurate.

 

[Fruitloop]

Carbon trading wouldn't stand a chance without the systematic demonization of carbon dioxide by "environmental activists" like... well, like fake leftist, George Monbiot, for instance. Have you noticed how his work is almost always bereft of any social dimension? Africa may develop, but only within the straightjacket of environmental sustainability. Or, in other words, Africa must stay where it is. It cannot be allowed to industrialize and electrify, because... well because industrialization produces CO2 which causes global warming, you see?

What a scam!

"Heat" by George Monbiot.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0713999233

This is a ludicrous mis-characterisation of his position, as you should know if you've actually read any of it.

 

[Buds and Spawn]

Apologies if it's been posted before but here's a link to a Royal Society publication 'Facts and fictions about Climate Change'.

Crucial reading for anyone who's a wee bit confused out there.