“Terry Hughes is on record as saying Bleaching is a new phenomena — it never happened before the 1980s. It is an absurdity –we just discovered it to science in the 1980s.
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. (emphasis added) So what makes this report special? Only one thing: The Washington Post published it on November 2 1922 – 94 years ago. Snopes: True
He is not a reliable source. He is a "working scientist" as a salaried merchant of doubt. He works for a conservative think tank. He is a Trojan Horse. I am 90% sure of this. Just look at what he says. He doesn't know why it went from global warming to climate change? Really? As if it matters. A red herring. He doesn't know much about climatology if he is unsure about this. And he calls himself a "scientist". He's pretty vague about this isn't he. What kind? He seems to think that the difference between satellite and ground based is reason to question AGW? This misinformation has been debunked long ago, in the science and by me on here, but he still brings it up. Classic obfuscation tactic. He constantly uses classic MOD tactics like ad-homing climatology by calling it "Hansen's hypothesis". No, it's the greenhouse effect. It's climate science. It's not dependent on Hansen at all. If anything it should be called the Arrhenius hypothesis. He found out the GH effect of CO2 120 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science Yes Hansen also has theorized a positive feedback effect. By all indications this feedback is happening. Darker/lower albedo Arctic, release of stored methane and CO2 in permafrost etc. But none of these postive feedbacks are included in the climate projection models and in fact are not needed for catastrophic climate change to occur. So it's another red herring. I'm not a CT'r, and I know you doubt me, but I think it highly probably that he is working for the FF interests. I don't reach this conclusion easily. There is no question that think-tanks have operators working social media spreading doubt. Pie fits the mould perfectly. I can see no other reason for his behavior on this matter. Notice how he hardly ever (has he ever?) counters jem's absurd arguments.
"For almost five years, I was a paid Internet troll. Yes, I admit.But first let me state that I never performed my job here on ATS, though I believe I have occasionally seen a handful on here who were using a script similar to what I was assigned. I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of "Online Communications Associate" at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on. Utilizing six artificial personas, I was active in social networks and bulletin boards. But since I came to love and respect this site, as I stated, I never performed my functions here. Each week, I and presumably several others, were provided with information to use in our online postings. At first the information was comprised of fully conceived scripts, but as I became more and more experienced, it eventually became simple bullet or talking points. At first I needed to provide links to my postings, but when the company name changed (never knew the real names of any people there), that requirement stopped. The pay wasn't very good, but since I was working from my apartment, I suppose it wasn't bad and I was able to do several other writing assignments on the side." http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-do-i-get-paid-to-be-on-line-troll.html
Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil: • Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence. • Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public. • Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade the media and the public that there is still serious debate among scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences. • Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global warming with misleading charges about the need for “sound science.” • Used its extraordinary access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming. The techniques used by contrarians and skeptics today include: Ad hominem attacks – in the absence of their own reputable evidence, they attempt to undermine those who oppose their views by trying to discredit the opposition, usually with unsubstantiated allegations. Fear – they float trial ballons about the supposedly outrageous cost of doing something in spite of the fact that it has been shown that the cost of doing nothing will drastically outweigh that of taking action. Sidestepping and deflection – like many politicians, they attempt to divert attention away from the real issue, raising “red herrings” and swamping commentary with irrelevant side issues. Appeal to authority – they refer to pseudo-experts who take contrarian positions with a gloss of believability which disappears upon deeper examination, claiming frequently fraudulent credentials. Deliberately confusing weather and climate, insisting that a recent change (natural variability) shows a long-term trend. Exaggerating uncertainty and demanding proof. That’s not how real science operates; scientists are cautious and invite real skepticism and there are never absolute proofs in science. They also confuse the scientific definition of “theory” with the popular definition – the former is a much stronger concept. Demands for a “balanced” view, akin to the outrage expressed by those arguing for “intelligent design” in discussions about the science of evolution. Outright denial – they repeat their disinformation derisively, saying that there is no proof and that there is a massive and corrupt conspiracy to steal money from us poor taxpayers and consumers https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/
its funny... everything you wrote above is used by the agw nutter side. Your entire argument is a failed appeal to authority. 97% consensus... is an appeal to authority. Without science supporting a finding that increases in man made co2 causes warming, pretending 95 out of 97 scientists in a survey of 10000 equals a 97% consensus is the most devious appeal to authority I have seen. ever. Its not even an appeal to authority... its a fraudulent appeal to an illegimate authority. all you have to do is produce some science showing man made co2 causes warming. you can't since there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming. so you started in on this strawman crap. there is serious doubt about man made co2 causing warming because there is no peer reviewed science showing it. All you have is failed computer models.
Actually, that's argumentum ad populum. Yes, that they are experts in their field is a reference to authority, but it is the authority of expertise which, hopefully, still gets some respect in this world.
1. its a fake argument to a consensus. When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle 2. its an appeal to authority when the authority says something and you argue that it must therefore be true - absent any scientific finding. If you are arguing a scientists opinion is some sort of expert and reliable opinion it should be supported by science. Since no scientists has created a peer review article stating man made co2 causes warming (not based on failed models) and very few scientist even state they know man made co2 causes warming. The whole man made co2 argument is supported by scientists is a fallacious appeal to authority as well.
Good news for you! http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-names-rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-2016-12 Trump picks Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state