Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaius | Hacker News Reader

Well since An Inconvenient Truth was debunked, no-one believes Al Gore himself anymore.

Nobody debunked "An Inconvenient Truth. What part of "ALL Nobel Prize winning scientists agree global warming is threat to humanity." do you not understand?

There is no more controversy about global warming in the scientific community than there is about evolution. Both concepts are considered settled.

There lots of discussion in the corporate owned media because oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled.

Nobody? How about the UK government? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7037671.stm Incidentally, outside of their own field, every scientist is a layperson. Their opinion counts no more than yours or mine.

oil companies buy a whole lot of television time falsely claiming the science on global warming isn't settled

And scientists are not swayed at all by the eternal quest for funding, I suppose? Al Gore doesn't own a carbon offsetting firm? Or live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool?

Climate change is real, sure, anyone who pays attention to the weather can see that. But beware those who are exploiting it for their own political careers. Oh and "global warming" is NOT settled - that is why we now say "climate change" instead. Especially here in the UK where summer has been cold and wet!

I do agree, the debate has not been settled at all.

There continues to be vigorous and divisive debate over the conclusions and we obviously do not have (1) sufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions and (2) do not know enough about the actual physical mechanisms of the planet's climate to make meaningful projections.

I firmly believe we should all be responsible citizens of this planet; being mindful of the environment is the right thing to do. However, the debate over climate change - and the policymaking as a result - are obviously quite politicized.

The current movements for and against climate change are more about protecting fiefdoms, building empires, exploiting subsidies and crushing opponents than it is about being a mindful steward of the planet.

The primary guy the oil companies use to claim the science on global warming isn't settled is a geologist who has taken money to testify as a expert in courtrooms for both cases related to global warming and a court case about Intelligent Design/evolution. He doesn't believe in evolution either. Surprise!

Did you even read your own link?

"...Mr Justice Burton said he had NO COMPLAINT about Gore's CENTRAL THESIS that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans."

Again... What part of "ALL Nobel Prize winning scientists agree global warming is threat to humanity." do you not understand?

EVERY single Nobel Prize winning scientist has TURNED DOWN the big money the oil companies would have paid any/every them to lie and re-state the oil companies global warming talking points.

Every single one of them has agreed and stuck with the evidence showing global warming is a serious threat to mankind.

In that case, all those fancy scientists have agreed on a term that no-one else uses anymore because it does not accurately describe what is really happening, which we call "climate change". So much for Nobel Prizes eh?

It is exactly as I say: outside their specialist field, every scientist is just a layperson like you or I. Perhaps you ought to check out what a real expert, Dr John Theon, has to say: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

Looks like you didn't check your talking points, once again.

"So who is John S Theon?

John Theon was not Hansen's supervisor.

The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe's merry band, writing:

    "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those

who disagree that global warming is man made."

M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe's claim that Theon was Hansen's supervisor is completely untrue:

        Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the

Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation...

    Read the last bit closely. Being "in effect" Hansen's

supervisor is here contrasted with being "in reality" Hansen's supervisor--being the guy who gives Hansen his annual performance appraisal, in other words--which, frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.

Gavin Schmidt writes:

    Dr. Theon appears to have RETIRED from NASA in 1994,

some 15 YEARS AGO. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_the...

Got anyone that isn't so old one suspects they'll say anything to keep from having to go back to the nursing home alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com