So who is the Galileo of this issue? Not one so called 'denier' of AGW has advanced a creditable competing theory. In the absence of an alternative, there is no other tool to use.
Once an area of concern has been repeated, there isn't any more money to study that area. So they have to find new ones. Lots of people are out looking, and have been for decades, because they want to be the Galileo of this. But they haven't found anything.
The idea that particles where blocking the sun during the 70´s is embarrasing and unproved, it is just clutching at straws.
It is not me who is biased.
Anyway Stephen Schneider is a liar. I will try to explain again. In a documentary from 1990 he claimed that he did not say that there was a new ice-age coming but then the interviewer opened up his book from the 70´s and showed him that that was exactly what he claimed. This is called a lie.
You should watch the NOVA production "Global Dimming" regarding the impacts of particulate on solar radiation reaching the earth. The study that supplies the data has been running since the end of WWII.
Speaking of embarassing- You might get a grammar checker so that your use of the words "where" and "were" are appropriate.
Schneider speaks of the ice age statements today in terms of what was known then. He uses "we" about the theories then. Name the documentary in which you claim he lied.
Stephen Schneider clearly says that he was not one of the scientists that were in agreement that the new ice-age was underway, but then the interviewer shows him what he wrote 15 years earlier.
He wrote in the 70´s that we were surely coming to a new ice age but denied this in a documentary until the interviewer showed him what he wrote in his book. Busted!
As stated by Schneider in this film, but not this clip, what they knew in the 70s gave them reason to think that, but what has been learned since, and what data provides, is clear that the cooling was due to particulate matter obscuring the sun, actually masking the heating that is taking place by as much as a degree.
Labeling him a liar over this only demonstrates your own prejudice and lack of understanding of the issue. Bring better or be blocked from this page.
Great production value, lovely backgrounds and overall a nice vignette to pull out of an obviously greater narrative. I particularly like the 'social niche' via peer review implications that mean 'bad science' can't sneak through the process.
No sir. the scientific process has no place for either emotion or ego.
It is process driven and the goal is to produce objective, testable and repeatable rusults through experimentation; To dermine Fact without regard toward any desired result.
So who is the Galileo of this issue? Not one so called 'denier' of AGW has advanced a creditable competing theory. In the absence of an alternative, there is no other tool to use.
Once an area of concern has been repeated, there isn't any more money to study that area. So they have to find new ones. Lots of people are out looking, and have been for decades, because they want to be the Galileo of this. But they haven't found anything.
pgregston 3 years ago
The idea that particles where blocking the sun during the 70´s is embarrasing and unproved, it is just clutching at straws.
It is not me who is biased.
Anyway Stephen Schneider is a liar. I will try to explain again. In a documentary from 1990 he claimed that he did not say that there was a new ice-age coming but then the interviewer opened up his book from the 70´s and showed him that that was exactly what he claimed. This is called a lie.
Merany1 3 years ago
You should watch the NOVA production "Global Dimming" regarding the impacts of particulate on solar radiation reaching the earth. The study that supplies the data has been running since the end of WWII.
Speaking of embarassing- You might get a grammar checker so that your use of the words "where" and "were" are appropriate.
Schneider speaks of the ice age statements today in terms of what was known then. He uses "we" about the theories then. Name the documentary in which you claim he lied.
pgregston 3 years ago
The documentary is from channel 4 of the UK and was entitled "The Greenhouse Conspiracy". I cannot remember which part shows him lying.
I have seen documentaries and read about Global Dimming.
I can´t even be bothered to reply extensively about the grammer comment.
Merany1 3 years ago
Watch the doc. at minute 51, Schneider says he has 'no problem' with people quoting him from 15 years before (1975 in this 1990 film).
He does not deny as you say, but points out that we have learned since then.
So your claim is a defamation.
Having seen the literature, you still think dimming false. So you ignore other sources.
And you think your lack of grammar irrelevant.
Why should you be allowed to post?
pgregston 3 years ago
Stephen Schneider clearly says that he was not one of the scientists that were in agreement that the new ice-age was underway, but then the interviewer shows him what he wrote 15 years earlier.
Merany1 3 years ago
Name the time, quote directly. Be specific or be gone.
Viewing your account, you are consistently negative and profane, as well as defamatory. Raise your game or remain noise.
pgregston 3 years ago
I think this video actually defeats its own cause.
It makes you realize that scientists are basically proving each other right.
If a scientist has his or her niche in an area such as AGW then they are not going to negate the IPCC reports are they.
Just as Stephen Schneider says Galilleo would have been wiped out using this process but yet he was the one who got it right.
Merany1 3 years ago
Stephen Schneider is a liar, period.
He wrote in the 70´s that we were surely coming to a new ice age but denied this in a documentary until the interviewer showed him what he wrote in his book. Busted!
Merany1 3 years ago
As stated by Schneider in this film, but not this clip, what they knew in the 70s gave them reason to think that, but what has been learned since, and what data provides, is clear that the cooling was due to particulate matter obscuring the sun, actually masking the heating that is taking place by as much as a degree.
Labeling him a liar over this only demonstrates your own prejudice and lack of understanding of the issue. Bring better or be blocked from this page.
pgregston 3 years ago
Great production value, lovely backgrounds and overall a nice vignette to pull out of an obviously greater narrative. I particularly like the 'social niche' via peer review implications that mean 'bad science' can't sneak through the process.
hayesg01 3 years ago
'Your heart speaking"!
No sir. the scientific process has no place for either emotion or ego.
It is process driven and the goal is to produce objective, testable and repeatable rusults through experimentation; To dermine Fact without regard toward any desired result.
Please leave your 'Heart' out of it.
Bravo21 3 years ago
So are scientists trying to prove or disprove that George Bush really has a brain?
torresd30 3 years ago