Google hangout notes: 'I've never seen Revkin less convinced that CO2 causes bad weather'

Revkin Republicans don’t care about science
=======
Roberts: hard-core deniers know more about climate than casual believers; the deniers would do better on a climate quiz
🙂

People who become journalists because they want to “change things” are some of the most dangerous people in the world.

I’ll be Mann is using his secret “Michael Jackson” gmail account to warn the “team” that Revkin is not to be trusted anymore. LOL

I’ll bet …….. sorry.
DAS

if only Revkin & Co had the humour of sceptics like Monckton and David Rose:
16 June: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Madness of the Met Office Summit meeting to find out why our weather is… normal.
As of lunchtime yesterday, the Met Office wasn’t at all sure how Britain’s weather would turn out today. According to a spokesman, some of its computer models were predicting ‘a rather miserable day for some southern areas’. Others, however, suggested it would be ‘fine and bright’.
‘Sometimes the atmosphere can provide a real challenge for forecasters,’ the spokesman admitted wearily…
This is, of course, the same Met Office that next week is set to host what some have termed an ‘unprecedented’ meeting of climate scientists, an attempt to ‘brainstorm’ whether the ‘extreme weather’ of the past few years has been caused by ‘climate change’…
The cold winter and spring of 2013, the bitter winter of 2010, the floods of 2012 and the disappointing summers of the past seven years – all are up for discussion, together with their supposed origins.
No mention, you may notice, of the droughts and heatwaves we were once told to brace ourselves for as a consequence of what used to be termed global warming.
Then, as an analysis last week demonstrated, the period without a statistically significant increase in global average temperatures has now reached 17 years four months.
Small wonder that the nature of the world’s impending doom has had to be rebranded…
Last week yet another round of UN climate talks broke up without (as usual) an agreement on how to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. They took place in Bonn, which, like Britain, was enduring a chilly spell.
‘Winter has been extended,’ explained a delegate from the Cook Islands. ‘It’s supposed to be really hot, but it’s not, because global warming is happening right now.’…
Centuries ago, when astronomers found it hard to square their observations with the then-orthodox theory that the Earth lay at the centre of the universe, they invented the concept of ‘epicycles’, convoluted wobbles and twists that supposedly accounted for such discrepancies.
Citing some cold British winters and unsettled summers as evidence of climate change has about as much credibility. I suppose we should be thankful that unlike the bogus epicycles, such efforts are not, as yet, being enforced by the Inquisition.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2342434/DAVID-ROSE-Madness-Met-Office-Summit-meeting-weather–normal.html
——————————————————————————–

This idea that republicans don’t care about science has always mystified me. I would say that Repuiblicans do not implicitly trust scientists speaking as unquestioned experts on the necessary POLICY measures. Republicans tend to be skeptical of people telling them they know better how others should live.

Google “hangouts” are nothing new. We’ve had Apple’s Macworld Hangouts, Micro$oft hangouts, Woodstock hangouts, Burning Man hangouts, whatever hangouts. The new yuppies just bored out of their skulls, who can’t think of anything more productive to do than “hangout”.
A person to whom I am blood related, wants to take my car and go hangout with some “really big people” in the film industry; professionals like. At times, this person likes to “hangout” with past high school classmates. One such who isn’t much into “hangouts”, just happens to reside at Lemore NAS in central California. Well he doesn’t hangout; he flies a US Navy F-18 Super-hornet instead.
Hanging out, won’t get you a ride in a Super-hornet.
Revkin and Roberts, ought to try out Burning Man; they don’t fit the Woodstock mold.

The bit that I found most interesting was the attempt by Roberts to analyse the sources of scepticism in sociological terms. There were two things mentioned specifically
1. People deciding what to believe and then looking for evidence to support it.
2. People being strongly influenced in their belief by the group.
What interested me is that this is precisely how I think of alarmists.
1. You can’t tell me that all those keen green young activists protesting with papier mache animals have looked at the evidence and made up their own minds. Most – like that lovely delegate from the Cooks – clearly have not thought about the evidence at all. They are simply parrotting the approved beliefs of their group with brain turned off.
2. It is also clear that many greens are seduced by the idea of an impending catastrophe. Some see technology as sin and warming as the much anticipated flood that will make us abandon our evil ways. Greens of the watermelon variety see it as an excuse to attack capitalism. Others are simply looking for a cause to give meaning to their lives.
I also was interested to note that for Roberts the idea that one could question the science was not part of his world view. He seems to display the attitude that one should simply accept what scientists say. Revkin is less unthinkingly accepting, probably because he knows more science.

Well, well another example of “green initiatives” which will inevitably fail, because their intent is not to solve any problem, but to perpetuate a perceived crisis.