Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Top MIT Climate Scientist disses Bernie Sanders position on mmgw

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

MIT. A far more legit choice of engineering college, methinks...

 

Of course, Bernie Sanders, the socialist, wants mmgw to

be the official position...

 

it's all about the money, for re-distribution of all the wealth that everybody has.

 

socialism.

 

Top MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Senate’s Climate Change Vote Is Ludicrous’
by Wochit 1:00 mins
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen slammed this week’s amendment introduced by Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders that would make it the official position of the Senate that man-made global warming is real and a threat. Lindzen said Sanders’s amendment to a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline an “attempt to hijack science for political purposes.” “Climate change is of course real; change being the normal state of affairs in climate,” Lindzen told Climate Depot. “Climate change has caused catastrophic problems on occasion throughout the earth’s history. While man may have contributed somewhat to climate change in recent years, his contribution to the above is highly questionable, and continues to be debated.” “In the case of Bernie Sanders, a socialist, he is undoubtedly dreaming about nationalizing the energy industry,” Lindzen said. “For the U.S. Senate to accept guidance from Sanders’ bizarre dreams is ludicrous.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

It also is interesting to me, that I've posted studies and scientists before (as have many other posters on here) that have been dismissed for being from "liberal elitist professors and universities". "They are funded by our liberal govt." Etc etc etc. But now, this one scientist says something you agree with (which isnt that man made climate change isn't happening, he's just questioning the severity) and now it is ok to listen to a scientist.

 

Besides the fact that, it looks like there are plenty of other scientists and groups that disagree with this guy and think he misinforms more than anything else.

 

Oh, and what makes someone a "Top" scientist? I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stewie Newbie

Stewie

Posted
Posted

It also is interesting to me, that I've posted studies and scientists before (as have many other posters on here) that have been dismissed for being from "liberal elitist professors and universities". "They are funded by our liberal govt." Etc etc etc. But now, this one scientist says something you agree with (which isnt that man made climate change isn't happening, he's just questioning the severity) and now it is ok to listen to a scientist.

 

Besides the fact that, it looks like there are plenty of other scientists and groups that disagree with this guy and think he misinforms more than anything else.

 

Oh, and what makes someone a "Top" scientist? I'm just curious.

No Woodley. You're missing the point. Recall those lunatics Copernicus and Galilei who believed that the sun, not the earth was the center of the solar system. The Church in those days had great influence over the scientific community.

 

Do you see the parallel Woodley?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

In your example, the scientific, forward thinking individual is being silenced by a very, very unscientific group. The church doesn't think differently because of its own experiments and use of the scientific theory. They think differently because of an old book and because they see "science" as a threat to their control over the masses.

 

In this case, it is one scientist that disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other scientists and groups. These groups though, unlike the church, have arrived at their ideas through experiments, data, etc and the scientific method. They have reason to disagree outside of mere censorship.

 

This scientists is disagreeing with the extent at which we need to worry about climate change, and other scientists and groups have pointed out flaws in his statements, or just that they're incorrect in general. He exists as the very small minority not because he is expressing some status quo breaking, Earth shattering idea, but because there isn't the evidence to back his idea up. The scientists you mentioned had evidence, the church had none. They aren't doing this to censor him, they are doing it for science. There isn't some evil, liberal, hive mind of scientists trying to redistribute the wealth by tricking everyone into thinking climate change is real. If you believe that, then you have no reason to believe this particular scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadbrownsfan Newbie

sadbrownsfan

Posted
Posted

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

 

Global Highlights
  • The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
  • The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F), breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.
  • The 2014 global average land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record.
  • Precipitation measured at land-based stations around the globe was near average on balance for 2014, at 0.52 mm below the long-term average. However, as is typical, precipitation varied greatly from region to region. This is the third consecutive year with near-average global precipitation at land-based stations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

  1. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year...

    Mar 30, 2013 · The fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expectedglobal warming pattern is now widely accepted. Picture: Ray Strange Source: The ...

  2. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission... Cached

    Jul 04, 2011 · Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures didnot rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper ...

www.economist.com/news/...rising-temperatures-over-past... Cached

Mar 08, 2014 · Global warming Who pressed the pause button? The slowdown in risingtemperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained

www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon... Cached

Mar 06, 2013 · New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Yeah one of them is from whatsupwitthat I wouldn't trust it but the economist and Forbes ought to be somewhat reputable.

FWIW, the Economist article basically explains the pause in temperature rise, ending with:

 

 

 

The solar cycle is already turning. And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances that have put the planet’s temperature rise on “pause” look temporary. Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I simply posted more than one article, in response to one.

 

CO2 is going up, and there has been a huge lull in gw.

 

Go figure, when the libturds keep parroting Al Gorish with

asinine, politically oriented alarmism.

 

It always comes around to liberal political power, and money...

which is what that one UN official admitted - that global warming was

the only chance for global redistribution of wealth.

 

Which means, any lie is a good lie, and any half truth, is a good truth,

to the "end justifies the means".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ballpeen Experienced

ballpeen

Posted
Posted

I don't see what you have a problem with woody? He essentially just posted four articles. I'm not reading them, or yours, because I couldn't give a shit about global warming but the fashion in which he posts his isn't bothersome to me.

I agree. Who gives a shit? We, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have survived before the oceans rise 8 inches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

I agree. Who gives a shit? We, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have survived before the oceans rise 8 inches.

 

I would still feel bad about fucking over my great great grandkids. (or maybe just great grandkids for me, idk your age).

 

I think the notion of "it isn't affecting me now, so it is not my problem" is part of the reason we are here right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

I simply posted more than one article, in response to one.

 

CO2 is going up, and there has been a huge lull in gw.

 

Go figure, when the libturds keep parroting Al Gorish with

asinine, politically oriented alarmism.

 

It always comes around to liberal political power, and money...

which is what that one UN official admitted - that global warming was

the only chance for global redistribution of wealth.

 

Which means, any lie is a good lie, and any half truth, is a good truth,

to the "end justifies the means".

 

You describe it as a "huge lull", but that isn't necessarily the case. This slow down was addressed in a link I posted. That site does a good job explaining it all IMO.

 

You then go on about "libturds", and "Al Gorish" and politics in general. My suggestion would be to ignore the politicians, and look at the scientists. The real experts in the field. Look at the peer reviewed studies and impartial data. No lies, no politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LogicIsForSquares Apprentice

LogicIsForSquares

Posted
Posted

I haven't seen a State of the Union by a president yet that wasn't just complete horse shit. Every president does it but the thing that irritates me the most is the "...and that reminds me of (insert male name) and (insert female name) from Podunk, Iowa who sent me a letter...." It could be on any subject and all of a sudden they can go to the mail bag and come back with some great or awful tale for the audience to gasp or applaud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...