Researcher: Global Warming Caused by 'Natural Variations'

Post Reply New Topic

Wow. Even a lead author of the "anthropogenic climate change " notion is backing away from the hype. Climategate rolls on.

Global warming it seems was just an excuse to push through laws to allow some people to get rights to natural gas, under other peoples property, by fracking.

Now as for a problem, fracking, with earthquakes, injecting highly toxic materials, breaking up layers that held the water table, adding Methane to the water through leakage, was not studied, reviewed by Science, because, the global warming emergency.

Now that we are Fracked, with no way to get unfracked, the science lies are no longer needed.

In the old Que Bono, Who Benefits? The climate scare tactics of science only benefitted fracking laws being rammed through at the national and state level, because natural gas is the answer.

Next it will be having a computer chip implanted in all the children for their own safety. Anyone who objects is supporting ISIS.

The BP rig, Deepwater Horizon is still killing life in the Gulf, because the monthly inspection of the blowout preventer was not done for nineteen months, and Minerals Management of the USA, changed their name. The head guy retired, and they were the agency that was to protect the people. They seem to think the people they were to protect were themselves, and the oil companies.

Fresh water is more important than gas and oil, is running out faster, and is being bought up by Corporations.

California is in drought, laws prevent watering lawns and washing cars, yet great amounts of water are being used in fracking, which is destroying other sources of groundwater. The State of Texas just told local cities they can not restrict fracking to protect their source of groundwater.

The same Science that said Climate Change, also said, Fracking is Harmless.

Next Corporations will figure out how to own the air.

Much of the church of global warming acts like the climate never changed until the 19th century. They refuse to look at the rocks/ice.

This is misleading. Firstly, he is a well known denialist, not a "leading author of the anthropogenic climate change notion", whatever that means. Secondly, he is not a "leading climate researcher and physicists" as such. He is a leading chemical engineer who has contributed to sections on energy policy in IPCC reports. That is, he doesn't deal with climate science, but potential responses to it.

I'm slightly confused by the "past 100 years" reference (why 100?), and I'm not sure standard deviation is a relevant statistic here. I believe that is supposed to be used to assess individual data points, not trends. You use things like Spearman's Rank to judge trends. Use of a simple descriptive statistic in this case seems quite fishy to me. It could be that the person who wrote the article just didn't understand the statistics properly, or it could be selective analysis.

In the recent past, climate data has been sent blindly to statisticians, and they've reliably found a warming trend. Analysis by other climate scientists also consistently shows a warming trend. Whilst this analysis must be considered, it is very much an outlier; we would be wrong to put undue weight upon it.

This is completely untrue. Indeed, historical temperature data is the most convincing argument in favour of dramatic anthropogenic climate change.


The main objectors to fracking were also the main proponents of taking action to prevent global warming, so this conspiracy doesn't make much sense.

Well, a 2005 U.N. IPCC "Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage" ( https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports ... report.pdf ) described him (at page 195) as a "Lead Author" of the study which described itself as providing "information for policymakers, scientists and engineers in the field of climate change and reduction of CO2 emissions. It describes sources, capture, transport, and storage of CO2. It also discusses the costs, economic potential, and societal issues of the technology, including public perception and regulatory aspects. Storage options evaluated include geological storage, ocean storage, and mineral carbonation. Notably, the report places CO2 capture and storage in the context of other climate change mitigation options, such as fuel switch, energy efficiency, renewables and nuclear energy...."

Well, yes, exactly.

True but the panel is appointed/elected with the 5 permanent members of the UN having great sway on who gets on it.
Bush actively gave people who worked for the oil companies key positions regarding environmental regulators, panels and other positions.
Hell his appointed to run the EPA was part of the oil industry being the first and only controversial head of the EPA and the only head of the EPA to have worked and be connected to the oil industry.
He was tasked with disproving global warming and other known environmental issues, ground the EPA to complete halt, discredit the EPA, and lastly have congress defund and disband the EPA in order to kill all environmental regulation.

You should be able to remember how effectively carried out is job, because it lead to huge public outcry forcing Bush's hand post 2006 election to pick someone better.

The EPA has since been stuck catching up, while actively trying to rebuild it's credibility.