Yes in the wake of the Climate McCarthyism we see on display against Lennart Bengtsson, I wonder if these people might re-think some of their own roles in the smearing of climate skeptics?
The webcast is on now at Yale Climate Connections, and is titled:
“Re-thinking Climate ‘Denialism’”
May 15, 2014, 2:30pm EDT, 11:30am PDT
From http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/30onclimate-videos/
As discussions drag on over what to do about our warming climate, let’s step back to reconsider the battlefield of rhetoric and discord. And how and whether it eventually can lead to harmony.
Political scientist and climate change policy expert David G. Victor, of the University of California at San Diego, encourages changing labels and strategies in ways that recognize a more complex political landscape. No more “climate denialist” name-calling, he urges.
Co-author of the recently published mitigation report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Victor will be the featured guest on The Yale Forum’s next 30onClimate webcast — May 15 at 11:30 am PDT (2:30 pm EDT).
30onClimate moderator Bruce Lieberman will interview Professor Victor about the complicated rhetorical landscape of climate change, and importantly, what the latest report from the IPCC has to say about where the globe’s climate is headed and what we can do about it.
You can access the webcast either by Google+ or YouTube feed
Have a question? Send an e-mail now!
Some background:
“Bizarre and threatening” is the term U.C. San Diego political science professor David G. Victor uses to describe how many in the climate science community view what some call climate “denialism.”
But Victor thinks a big part of the problem involves just how scientists and their supporters approach the subject — beginning with the use of the term “denialism.”
“If you really want to understand what motivates these people and what motivates the captains of industry and voters who listen to them,” says Victor, “stop calling them denialists.”
Source: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/03/climate-denialism-through-eyes-of-uc-davis-political-scientist/
Looked at part of the webcast. Victor was talking about making people understand climate science. That is simply search for more effective propaganda to spread their point of view. Their point of view is frozen into a belief that the greenhouse effect Hansen told us about is warming up the world. Unfortunately Hansen did not prove that the greenhouse effect exists because he was using a non-greenhouse warming as part of his “proof” that a hundred year greenhouse warming was observed. This means that all the reports of greenhouse warming emanating from the IPCC are just plain wrong, and their climate models coded to use CO2 are false. Neither Hansen nor anyone else has observed greenhouse warming in action. Twenty-four years have passed and billions of climate research dollars have been wasted yet no evidence of the existence of the greenhouse effect has been found. Its absence is not due to lack of IR absorption by CO2 because absorption works just as Arrhenius told us. But Arrhenius theory of greenhouse warming applies only in the case when just one greenhouse gas is present. The earth atmosphere has more, however. To handle the general case when several GHG’s are simultaneously absorbing IR we need the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT). According to him, in such a case there exists a common optimum absorption window which the gases present jointly maintain. In the earth atmosphere the gases that count are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Their optimum absorption window has an IR optical thickness of 1.87, calculated by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just as Arrhenius told us. But that will increase the optical thickness and as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. This, and not the missing heat hiding in the ocean bottom, is the reason why there has been no warming for 17 years despite increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in air. Any greenhouse warming older than that is simply natural warming, misidentified by over-eager “climate” scientists wanting to prove the greenhouse effect. There have been other periods in earth history when conditions were similar to the warming pause we are now living through. In 2010 Miskolczi used the NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 to study the atmospheric absorption of IR over time. And discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial,increase of carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. This is an exact parallel to the pause-hiatus we are now living through and proves that it is a long-term phenomenon. It is possible to interrupt it as the super El Nino of 1998 did but when things settle down a constant temperature is again established. To summarize: the enhanced greenhouse theory does not work at all and the Arrhenius greenhouse theory must be replaced by the Miskolczi greenhouse theory to correctly interpret the climate.
@Russ in Tx –
@Jimbo –
Be aware that simply supporting personal responsibility (i.e., integrity in science), limited government (i.e., no over-regulation or excessive taxation, such as nearly every country in the world now practices), and free markets (i.e., simple economic literacy and freedom of choice) will mark one as right-wing.
I always thought this was centrist – cf. John F. Kennedy. But folks pother than Americans may not agree.
Here’s my take on what is really right-wing today: old money, authoritarianism, we the elite know what’s good for you better than you do, the hoi polloi shall bow and scrape, the making of rules which one is not oneself bound to follow, clinging to inhumane ideas long since discredited. Guess whom I’ve just described: a whole sack of leftist billionaires, starting with good old Bloody Mess (= gore)
True, some of the others like Tom Steyer or George Soros may be new money, but otherwise they’re the same. Today’s left in the US is arguably in lockstep with traditional European right wingers, and the Democrat Party in the US is completely in the possession of these people.
By clarification: I mean the traditional right – hereditary privilege – in Europe.
The classic Right/Left dichotomy fails to recognize that those are simply the tiger’s two front paws, playing both sides against the middle.
The beast has the characteristics of both Right and Left because it is both, where the plutocratic oligarchy is supported by the fascist military-corporate-media-legislative-judicial state providing bread and circus for the masses, encapsulated control of reality on the boob tube, with projection of state power abroad in foreign adventures on the one paw, along with the various teats and troughs of the socialist state, on the other, almost no strings attached.
And this is a tiger who can and does change his stripes.
Using my “Superman” quick scanning abilities (joke…) so far I haven’t seen anyone commenting who actually listened to/watched the webcast. Is that correct?
Anyone here claim to have listened/watched?
You said you think the law establishing the temperature of any volume of atmospheric air
specifically precluding trace species temperature dependence “won’t stand up to challenges.”
I waited a few days to see if telling myself,
you didn’t tell me,
“because all warm air expands, the fundamental law defining gas mechanics can not be distinguished from a counterfeit.”
That’s what you said.
———————
May 16, 2014 at 5:00 am
A. E. Soledad invokes the ideal gas law, but assuming it does accurately describe the atmosphere as he indeed claims, then the natural variations in air temperature over time will simply cause the unbounded atmosphere to expand and contract via the V term of the equation, just like the unbounded oceans do, and any additional greenhouse warming will merely do the same thing, so his paper tiger is toothless.