Articles Tagged "Jim Peden"
Tuesday, July 21st 2009, 10:47 AM EDT
Attached is Marcel Crok's article on the Mann affair.
Assume that a company would like to attract investments for some big project and would handle calls for additional in-depth information by potential investors the same way as Mann did, how would you qualify this behaviour? And what would happen with those who deliberately frustrated due diligence, resulting in huge losses for the investors concerned?
Hans H.J. Labohm
Updated below with comments from Norm Kalmanovitch and Jim Peden
Thursday, December 18th 2008, 6:13 PM EST
Here's the most popular graph being used by the "deniers", ( including myself).
Friday, January 30th 2009, 5:03 PM EST
From Jim Peden
The cold hard reality of the alarmists vs deniers battle is, one side or the other is dead wrong. I "came out of retirement" to study the issue at the request of others, and confess at the beginning of my personal investigation, I was inclined to believe the popular notion that mankind had indeed mucked up his environment ( again ). I come from an era when science was a noble profession where we all strived to diligently uncover the truth, shared our findings with others, and would quickly change our minds on a particular theory if material evidence proved otherwise. The mantra at the time I began my personal investigation was that the science was settled, the debate was over, and the time for rapid and radical overhaul of our entire civilization was long overdue. It didn't immediately appear illogical to me at the time, because I still trusted science, and scientists in general.
Updated Below from Vincent Gray
Monday, December 15th 2008, 4:24 AM EST
by Noel Sheppard
Despite the nation experiencing its tenth straight year of temperatures cooler than 1998's peak, and much of New England experiencing its worst ice storm in decades, the Associated Press on Sunday published one of the most hysterical articles concerning global warming I've ever seen. Obama left with little time to curb global warming
In writer Seth Borenstein's view, climate change is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.".."Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it."
Friday, January 16th 2009, 4:24 AM EST
The alarmists, not having a scientific leg to stand on, always resort to ad hominem attacks, usually accompanied by accusations of being in the pay of the oil companies.
The fact remains that this planet has been warming for about 12,000 years and will continue to warm until it decides to have another 100,000 year ice age. During that time, sea levels have risen perhaps 400 feet and will likely continue to rise at a millimeter or two per year until long term cooling sets in again.
Sunday, July 26th 2009, 4:58 AM EDT
Chicken little was walking around one day when an acorn fell from a tree and struck him on the head. Having but a chicken-sized brain, and further having failed all courses related to the sky when he was in barnyard school, he immediately assumed the sky was falling. He quickly produced an extensive documentary, An Inconvenient Falling Sky.
Hollywood loved his documentary, and awarded him an Oscar. Then the United Nations adopted his falling sky charts and made it official: the sky is indeed falling, and it's all the fault of the chickens. Shortly thereafter he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for alerting the barnyard of the coming disaster. Computer models at NASA determined that the cause of the falling sky was definitely chicken shit. The barnyard government quickly took steps to impose a huge tax on chicken shit, with the biggest chickens obviously paying the most.
Monday, July 21st 2008, 6:50 PM EDT
Good Morning, Folks,
I may have discovered the one item that really frightens the climate modelers - the fact that none of their predictions seem to be bearing any fruit and in fact the opposite of their predictions seems to be happening.
I posted the below comment at.....
.......and of course Gruppenführer Schmidt did not allow it to go live on the page, but it seems to indicate that even a casual summary of the actual situation appears as a threat to all of the failed climate modeling.
My original ( not allowed ) post is below for your enlightenment. Feel free to post it elsewhere if you wish, but I'd recommend you also include the note that this is the type of information that "Real Climate" doesn't want the general public to know. How ironic that "Real Climate" is not interested in the actual real climate of today.
Saturday, March 14th 2009, 2:08 AM EDT
I think we're all being a bit too hard on Revkin. He is, after all, only doing his job... to support and defend the liberal editorial policies of his employers. In case you haven't noticed, the New York Times - once arguably one of the premier news sources on the planet - is slowly dying. It hasn't had a genuinely honest journalist on it's staff in more than two decades, and anyone who attempts to put the Genie back in the bottle at this late stage of the game would likely find himself out of a job.
It's also important to understand that Revkin lacks the in-depth academic background in physics and math necessary to genuinely understand the molecular radiation absorption/emission phenomena associated with the mis-named "greenhouse effect". Undergraduate biology students aren't typically handed a large plate of coupled 2nd order partial differential equations. Can you imagine the scalping knives that would come forth if Revkin were to write, "Golly, it looks like CO2 doesn't really play any serious role in the heating of the atmosphere, and the so-called "greenhouse effect" really only affects the speed with which the air cools after the sun goes down." The NYT would drop him faster than the ball in Times Square on new year's eve.
Tuesday, July 15th 2008, 6:48 AM EDT
As a ubiquitous prowler of the literature, world-wide, I stumbled across this interesting 2002 paper from Ecuador.Global warming: What does the data tell us? E. X. Alb´an and B. Hoeneisen
Alb´and Hoeneisen analyzed global surface temperature data obtained at 13472 weather stations from the year 1702 to 1990. Below is a portion of the abstract ( emphasis mine ).
We analyze global surface temperature data obtained at 13472 weather stations from the year 1702 to 1990. The mean annual temperature of a station fluctuates from year to year by typically ±0.6oC (one standard deviation). Superimposed on this fluctuation is a linear increase of the temperature by typically 0.40±0.01oC per century ever since reliable data is available, i.e. since 1702 (errors are statistical only, one standard deviation). The world population has doubled from 1952 to 1990, yet we see no statistically significant acceleration of global warming in this period. We conclude that the effect of humankind on global warming up to 1990 is 0.0 ± 0.1oC. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, the data support the view that human activity has had no significant effect on global warming up to the year 1990 covered by this study.
9 articles found
showing page 1 of 1
« previous 1 next »