Comments on: Exile for non-believers

By: PaddikJ

PaddikJ — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:08:10 +0000

I just noticed the post by “NeroFiddles” (ooohh – how clever & ironcially prescient!) about the “publicity-hound cum scientist”(sic).

To be accurate, Nunavut, while primarily Inuit, is not specifically an Inuit sub-principality, like, say, the Navaho Nation; it is just a new province of Canada and was created for more efficient governance.

The smear that Dr. Taylor was in the back pocket of the Inuit Nation originated shortly after his “Last Stand of Our Wild Polar Bears” statement by some environmental Council, Institute, Center, whatever (can’t remember which one – there are so many). Even if the Inuits were calling the shots, how do you suppose they were paying him off – whale oil? Bear grease? Ahh, the sneaky bastiid – he’s probably stockpiling whale oil against the day when Alberta’s tar sands run out.

Why didn’t I think of that sooner?

Report this

0 1

By: PaddikJ

PaddikJ — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:40:04 +0000

Somehow I missed this post last year (I miss very few of Jo’s excellent posts). The particular sub-scandal of one of the world’s leading PB experts being disinvited to a meeting of a body that he helped to form (sub-scandal because several other researchers have gotten the same treatment) is now old news, and I wouldn’t bother posting a comment except that I have a statement from 2006 by Dr. Taylor in which he clearly & specifically stated that he did not deny AGW in general, but merely wanted to correct Tim Flannery’s wild assertion that polar bears would be gone in 25 years (Taylor’s actual statement was “It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change . . . “). But apparently even this was not enough for the high priests of AGW, who will not tolerate so much as a whiff of apostasy.

BTW, did anyone notice the size of that monster? Even allowing that the camera makes foreground objects look bigger, its head appears as big as Taylor’s torso! Just thinking about handling one of those, even sedated, makes my stomach feel like I just swallowed an ice ball. And yet wildlife experts like Laurie David will publically bleat about the “poor cuddly polar bears!”.

Report this

0 1

By: Amada Seim

Amada Seim — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:17:49 +0000

I was looking up small solar panel information and found this article. I discovered similar websites, like http://www.propeller.com/story/2010/01/20/small-solar-panels/ that help you install your own solar panels but I was trying to figure out where to get the photovoltaic or pv panels.

Report this

0 0

By: ------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------ - Page 934 - The Environment Site Forums

------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------ - Page 934 - The Environment Site Forums — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:52:09 +0000

[...] Taylor thinks that it is due to too many bears competing for food rather than Arctic warming. Exile for non-believers [...]

Report this

0 0

By: Isbjørnforsker utestengt – støtter ikke “konsensus” — synop.no

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:58:31 +0000

[...] joannenova.co.au Les mer om Taylors syn [...]

Report this

0 0

By: John Nicklin

John Nicklin — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:39:03 +0000

NeroFiddles:

… Mysteriously, the one publicity-hound cum scientist who agrees with them happens to put bread on his table by working for an Innuit government which wants to be able to keep hunting polar bears.

Dr. Taylor doesn’t work for the government, he retired. If you want to do the “follow the money” trail, then you must also draw conclusions about the veracity of others like Gore. But then its only the skeptics that draw such accusations. You would be further ahead if you could show why Dr. Taylor’s findings are wrong. What research can you quote to refute his views on the health of Polar Bear populations in his studies?

Report this

0 0

By: Mike M

Mike M — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:36:06 +0000

NeroFiddles- There really should be no need for any of us to prove anything. It is UN and the warming alarmists who have yet to satisfy the inconvenient requirement of proving their theory, (and hanging some real numbers on it as well), to establish it as a fact worthy of anyone’s concern let alone shackling my children’s future to a bleak economy running on less energy. (Don’t bore me with windmills and solar cells either.) CO2 going up or down, temperature going up or down, correlations, consensus – all meaningless things that do nothing at all to prove that ‘X’ more CO2 CAUSES measurable global warming.

Don’t look now but Lindzen and Choi just shot down a MAJOR radiative assumption made in IPCC and NASA climate models that a warmer ocean in the tropics acts to reduce radiative cooling – the so called ‘positive feedback’ that Gore refers to that will reach a runaway ‘tipping point’, (and then the earth melts!). Well, it ain’t so, the feedback remains NEGATIVE so the warmer it gets even MORE heat is radiated back out to space.

By the way, nobody disagrees that smog is bad, (and thanks to CAPITALISM to pay for it in a free society, smog has been greatly mitigated by technology over the last 20 years), but more CO2 would actually be GOOD – ask a plant, (you know, those ‘green’ things lurking outside of your house). What is good for them HAS TO BE good for us because without them we’d be dead.

Report this

1 1

By: NeroFiddles

NeroFiddles — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:12:40 +0000

In the comments above, amateur scientists stumble over various bits of data, sometimes looking at wrong tables or mis-typing things or using last year’s data to refute a 200 year trend, but always earnestly “proving” something-or-other that pleases them. Lots of CO2 and smog is actually good for us (suck it up, folks). Mysteriously, the one publicity-hound cum scientist who agrees with them happens to put bread on his table by working for an Innuit government which wants to be able to keep hunting polar bears.

Report this

0 0

By: John Nicklin

John Nicklin — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:20:13 +0000

Gore’s old proffessor, Dr. Revelle co-authored a paper with Fred Singer just before he (Revelle) died. The conclusion of the paper was that it was too early to say whether CO2 had any influence on the climate and called for more research. When confronted with this during his run for office, Gore had his aids try to have the paper removed from publication and/or to have Revelle’s name removed from the paper. Both attempts were denied by the publisher. Like many people, Gore heard what he wanted to hear, not what was actually said.

As for Dr. Taylor, I’m sure that if he shared the PBSG’s views on global warming, he would have been invited to attend even if he was not appointed by the government.

Report this

0 0

By: Henry chance

Henry chance — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:24:30 +0000

Speaking of Gore, back in the Spring of 2007, Senator Jim Inhofe challenged Gore to take a pledge to reduce his energy use. Because Gore insists that global warming is the result of human energy use and the current means of producing that energy is by far the major source of human CO2, Gore should lead by example by pledging to use no more energy than the average US citizen.

Two years later Gore still refuses to make this pledge thus underscoring his elitist hypocrisy. Reportedly, Gore uses more electricity in one week than the entire country of 20 million Ugandans use in a whole year. Gore’s refusal is just further proof that he is a fraudulent scam artist, (and always was IMO).

Mike M:
September 30th, 2009 at 2:54 am

Ok Mike. If Algore isn’t human, his combustion and consumption transcends environmental impact. He just GLOs and radiates brilliance to the planet.

Report this

0 0