Hysterical alarmism from Chris Field
This guy is getting way too much coverage. ACM has already blogged this yesterday (see Sunday Alarmism), but not to be outdone The Sydney Moonbat Herald parrots the whole damn thing (without any thought), and, under the doom-laden headline "'Feedback' could amplify climate change peril", goes into full-speed carbon-fuelled alarmism:
Hilarious - "thrusting the machinery of climate change" - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! And at the bottom of it all is our friend Chris Field.
Funny, ain't it? It's never less that previously though - always more.
Top scientist? Newsbusters puts it like this:
Now that's an image I'm going to have trouble erasing from my imagination...
Read it here.
New studies have warned of triggers in the natural environment, including a greenhouse-gas timebomb in Siberia and Canada, that could viciously amplify global warming.
Thawing subarctic tundra could unleash billions of tonnes of gases that have been safely stored in frosty soil, while oceans and forests are becoming less able to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, according to papers presented this weekend.
These phenomena mean more heat-trapping gases will enter the atmosphere, which in turn will stoke global warming, thrusting the machinery of climate change into higher gear.
Hilarious - "thrusting the machinery of climate change" - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! And at the bottom of it all is our friend Chris Field.
Research presented on Saturday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago suggested the frozen soil of the tundra stored far more greenhouse gas that previously thought.
...
Scientist Sergei Zimov has studied climate change in Russia's Arctic for almost 30 years. He believes that as organic matter becomes exposed to the air it will accelerate global warming faster than even some of the most pessimistic forecasts.
Funny, ain't it? It's never less that previously though - always more.
"Melting permafrost is poised to be a strong foot on the accelerator pedal of atmospheric carbon dioxide," said Chris Field, a professor at Stanford and a top scientist on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.
Top scientist? Newsbusters puts it like this:
Chris Field is not a "top climate scientist." In fact, he isn't even a climate scientist at all. Just a wee bit of googling on the part of [Reuters reporter Julie] Steenhuysen would have revealed that Chris Field is a professor of biological sciences whose shtick is pushing something called "global ecology." Field has no more expertise in predicting future climate patterns than, say, a proctologist performing brain surgery.
Now that's an image I'm going to have trouble erasing from my imagination...
Read it here.
posted by Simon from Sydney at
6:55 PM
8 Comments:
Funny aint it how the deniers think its always less and never more when the evidence does not rule out more but does rule out less.
By
Anonymous, At
February 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM
No, the point is that it is never less, because the media only report those stories where it is worse, and therefore alarmists continually up the ante in order to get published (and hence keep their research grants). There are plenty of stories where evidence does not rule out less, but they never make it into the MSM.
In any case, if the science is so settled, why are we constantly hearing that things are so much worse than we thought?
By
Simon from Sydney, At
February 24, 2009 at 9:27 PM
"alarmists continually up the ante in order to get published (and hence keep their research grants)." is patently untrue. The GISS in NASA had its funding substantially cut after Jim Hansen raised serious concerns about the effect carbon emissions were having on climate.
By
copirineo, At
February 27, 2009 at 4:10 AM
That might be the case for GISS, but in general, the media will only take notice of "doom and gloom" stories - "things aren't as bad as we thought" stories never, and I mean never get printed.
And unfortunately governments have been brainwashed by the IPCC to believe that billions of dollars ($50 billion since 1990) should be pumped into research on climate change, so what scientist in their right mind would say, hey, actually there's no problem here?
And to be honest, I don't blame them. Funding for research is a very tight, and as there's an apparently limitless source of money for research into climate change, you can understand why this is self-perpetuating.
By
Simon from Sydney, At
February 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Again what you say is not true Simon. Although there is consensus within the scientific community and in journals, amongst the public there is still confusion over the issue. And the reason: the oil and coal lobby have poured vast sums to sow doubt in the public mind. In the past year alone some 770 companies hired over 2,000 climate change lobbyists and spent an estimated $90 million to influence US federal policy on climate change. This outnumbers alternative energy lobbyists by eight-to-one!
By
copirineo, At
February 27, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I notice that you have decided not to publish my response in your blog. It illustrates the fact that the only way climate change deniers, such as yourself, have succeeded so far is by doing just that ... hiding the facts!
By
copirineo, At
February 28, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Both your comments are there now - see? It's called having to do other things on the weekend than work on my blog.
The tedious, hackneyed old argument about any sceptic has to be in the pay of big oil - sorry, buy that's so last year. And why are you so scared of doubt in the public's mind? Are they too dumb to make up their own minds? Do we have to be spoon-fed by our governments, because we don't have the intelligence to think for ourselves?
If you truly believe that the public is not utterly overwhelmed by alarmism, then you cannot read the papers or watch TV. Far from being given the option to see the alternative, the public is brainwashed by governments and media. It is the alarmists who shriek "the debate's over", "the science is settled" (when any fool can see it isn't) thereby stifling free speech and open debate on the matter.
If the case for AGW is so strong, it will stand up for itself. If it isn't it will fall over... and I predict it will fall over.
By
Simon from Sydney, At
February 28, 2009 at 7:51 PM
You fools, don't you have children?
Your descendants will despise you, just as we now despise the likes of Chamberlain and Quisling, who argued that the Nazis posed no threat!
By
Kiwi Rob, At
May 23, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and may take some time to appear on the blog. Publication of a comment does not indicate endorsement or approval by Australian Climate Madness.
Please note that this blog is a humorous and satirical look at climate change propaganda in Australia and around the world. Please comment accordingly! Thanks.
<< Home