Comments SammyOwl has made

  • Perhaps you are right Dr. Dessler...

    and I should take my ad (open letter to the AGU Council) to the Washington Post.  A bit more pricy, but the circulation would be worth it.  

    And I do hope you caught the huge response in the just completed voting for the AGU Council officers in Eos (if you are a member or read it at all).  Seems a whopping 19% of members cast ballots for Council members.  Is that large enough for consensus??? Is it a majority???  How about a purality of members?????  No, sorry, like the statement on AGW, just a few members pushing their minority views on us.  Look for my WashPost ad, you might want to attend my organisational meeting.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • The ad and meeting I wanted to advertise...

    said this, it is the letter I sent to the Council:

    "As an AGU member, I must once again protest the recently released position statement by the Council.  As in my 2003 objections, this does not represent my scientific views, nor the views of many AGU members.  It is acceptable for the Council to express their opinions on this issue (it is a free country and this is a hot Hollywood topic that gets free press), but please leave me, and the many other AGU members who reject your one sided, subjective scientific views and attached political agendas, out of this.  You do not speak for the all membership here, and if you wish to run for election to AGU office on a platform of AGW promotion and political support, please make that clear when we vote for officers and section presidents.  You should issue a clarifying statement to the press about the narrow opinions expressed in this statement.  To continue to leave the impression that you are representing the views of all 50,000 members is dishonest and contemptible.  Thank you."
    On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • And one more thing...

    you assume I am the only AGU member upset about the statement, how do you prove that given the facts of how the Council censors and stifles any dissent?On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • Dr. Dessler..

    then you support the AGU Council not allowing any opinions about the statement except their own?  Do you support censoring members and not allowing them free speech rights in their own paid for media publications? Do you support the Council not allowing free open debate and discussion of their actions?  Are you really a Democrat or a totalitarian?On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • The recent AGU statement...

    so upset me, as I assumed the one from five years ago would die as per AGU bylaws dictate unless renewed, that I wrote and protested.  Nothing happened, no response from anyone I wrote to.  Then I sent in an ad with payment that was for a page to publish my protest letter in Eos.  I was told that was not allowed as an ad.  I then modified it to be a large notice for a meeting of interested members to protest AGU Council actions, as Eos is allowed as a bulletin board for meetings of members.  That was also rebuffed and I was told the executive director would discuss it with me before they would allow it, but guess what, now 3 weeks later no contact, no answer, nothing.  

    AAPG is responsive and a members organization (and I can assure you the majority agreed with the earlier position statement, but leadership was weak), AGU is a closed, political organization for it's elites that rejects members input.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • Once again...

    Dr. Dessler shows his extreme bias and political subjectivity to this subject.  Anyone who wastes their time listening to his rants and self serving sophistry is beyond help.  He is not an obective scientist on this issue, why bother with his slanted opinions?  Just recite the TAMU litmus test slogans for his department and be done with it.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

  • Just more....

    puppy poop on the sidewalk by Dr. Dessler.  Impossible to ignore and even harder to explain.On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

  • I particularly....

    like the military industrial complex supporting AGW, that sure convinces me.  Grey, do you always believe everything you read without thinking?On AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 62 Responses

  • Echo Chamber...

    Hello...Hello....Are you there?....Ar you there?....AGW is real and nothing says otherwise case closed.....AGW is real and nothing says otherwise case closed.......

    Yes, you AGW fanatics are so original and such critical thinkers.  I also love all the Hillary and Obama ads on Dr. Dessler's site, it adds the proper perspective to this "blog".On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 45 Responses

  • Sorry,

    Your conclusion and comments here are just plain wrong.  Try again.On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 45 Responses

  • Very weak..

    post and article.  Your analogies are getting more lame every time, gt some new material.  The cognitive disonance was bad enough.On The parallels between accepting obesity and ignoring global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 71 Responses

  • Spam

    EOMOn Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Great idea, an....

    exchange of thoughts by both sides is far superior to debating the "science" (which really is just political).  In that way each can see where the others are coming from and common ground can be found, rather than rants and personal attacks.On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Read your own...

    "Of course, I can't prove that, but you can't prove otherwise."   Yes, your arguement is intact.  
    On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • A Mexican standoff..

    since Dr. Dessler, you can't prove your point and thus can't falsify mine.  I have no interest in proving you wrong, what a triffle, the logic is overwhelmingly against your sir, you have no case, just a political point of view.  Why not argue that?  It seems to be your strength and experience.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • Well....

    I rest my case your honor.  On Commentary on science via comics posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

  • My, my,...

    Suc venom and hate toward those with different scientific views of a scientific subject.  Mr.Black, you obviously are not a scientist who cares about scientfic facts and uncertainties put in proper context and discussed like rational human beings.On Commentary on science via comics posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

  • UCS funds much

    In fact, ask Dr.Dessler about one of his allies and associates in the fight against AGW from TTU who openly and arrogantly lists funding for her research from UCS.  And all you need do is look at where Pew and the others put their millions every year for climate change policy research, much ends up in academia.  Do your research and get back to me.

    And Dr. Dessler, can you prove to me that the amount of funding for pro-AGW research is less than the anti-AGW research and that the political point of view of researchers has no bearing on grants?  I think if you look into it, as the Marshall group has, you will find the vast majority of climate research funds go to those scientists who have drunk the TAMU type Kool-Aid and/or compromised their values and scientific integrity for cash.  Book deals too.  If you can't then your ideas end up in a place much more dark and nasty than a dustbin.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • Disagree Doc,

    Absolutely not, more money AND government control comes with more fear, more angst, more hyperbola talk about threats and doom, read H. L. Mencken for reference, or just look at the war on terror as an example.  Do you honestly think that lots of money would flow to academics (poor by nature and upbringing, thus craving of cash) if they said the case is wide open and humans may not be to blame at all??  

    If humans are not to be blamed for all manner of disasters visited on the earth, research into AGW and climate and the resulting "policy" actions to fix it(read government control, taxes, dictated personal lifestytle choices, etc.) would be moot.  How can you logically think that would draw buckets of cash to climate research?  Could it be your political views??? Yes, indeed.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • Asked and answered

    Once again Dr. Dessler, you propose and answer your own question to your satisfaction, but in a vacuum with no input from anyone else or any objectivity, that's political science I think.  How nice to be a powerful professor that underlings have to follow and believe or get an "F".  And it is your blog where you can say and justify anything and have the last word and bully anyone.  

    However, I would propose a moratorium on funding of AGW research, how would you like that?  If the case is closed, the science settled and no motive thus exists for anyone to publish, hold press conference, or testify in legislative bodies about AGW for any funding, I for one would welcome it.  Do you honestly and logically think that will happen?  If what you say is true, it should.  But if you were to Google just a few key words about AGW funding money, you will see the AGW gravytrain is chugging along at full speed, AGU showed it in spades.  Perhaps you should ask Pew, UCS, MoveOn, NRDC, Friends of the Earth, GreenPeace, and dozens of other left wing think tanks and lobbying/pressure groups where their money is going too.  Follow the money Doc.  On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • Exactly

    You don't need faith, just your eyes (and brain fully engaged).  So Dr. Dessler, why do you practice faith based AGW when the geoscientists and paleoclimatologists show you (and if you use your brain, prove to you) that the earth's climate has been much warmer in the recent and ancient past, colder, cyclical, and little of it has to do with CO2, and none of it with human CO2?  You must have great faith beyond science facts, is it POLITICS?  Indeed, it has to be to have such strong faith based belifs.On Commentary on science via comics posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

  • Idiotic

    That what this guy is, and thanks for posting it, now we know who the kooks are in the bible belt.On An interview with green evangelical leader Richard Cizik posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

  • Your Friends?

    You forgot your biggest friends, Babs Boxer, MoveOn.org, DailyKos, and the Socialist Workers Party in numerous countries.On Today: Chris Allen posted 1 year, 11 months ago 19 Responses

  • Faith based AGW believers

    So you think this guy is a religious nut?  I'm afraid the AGW promoters have used the same logic and tactics, from Sen. Boxer's infamous testimony of evangelicals on AGW to this quote from a speech by the Peace Prize winner:  

    ""Every faith tradition has teachings that are directly on point [to climate change]," Gore told the packed audience, which included former first daughter Chelsea Clinton.

    "The Book of Revelation [says] God will destroy those who destroy his creation," Gore said, noting that some evangelical Christian leaders have expressed concern about climate change. "Whatever works," Gore added, prompting applause and laughter. "On Today: Chris Allen posted 1 year, 11 months ago 19 Responses

  • Good summary

    A very good summaary of the knowledge or lack thereof about AGW jLab.  However, it is doomed to be rejected and ridiculed by the AGW promoters since it is "independent" and thus objective and unaffected by the IPCC bias and political influence of the UN and the partisan agenda IPCC was created to push.  The IPCC does operate as a classical consensus process in one way, it is strongly unified to reject and personally attack all those who would question it.  That is one characteristic of a consensus process that is the strongest once formed.  Remember what the IPCC Peace Prize winner called Lomborg.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

  • Oil and gas OK?

    Interesting that the AGW promoters are parsing their energy sources while still focusing exclusively on CO2 as the only threat to humanity from AGW.  You might make a great political coalition of left wing enviro-AGW promoters, oil and gas companies and nuclear against coal, oil shale, and tar sands.  That kind of compromise would work even today in America, but I doubt Grand Lord Hansen and his manadarins would have any part of that, and Gore would also reject it, as would the IPCC political powers from the EU and the developing countries, which have their hand permanently out for welfare.  Senator Byrd (brain) would also block it.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

  • IPCC lead authors also not qualified

    If the Inhofe list has many without climate science publications and research resumes solely on climate science, then Dr.Dessler you also need to look into the AR4 lead authors, not staff.  Again, we have biochemists, computer science, math, fluid dynamics, space physics, etc.  And how about the curious Susie Solomon?  How long and in how many ways has she been politically active in saving the world from one disaster or another?  Like Pavlov's dogs, AGW had ones like her salivating for more money and fame to save the world once again.  And they all appeared agian as IPCC lead authors with much fanfare and PR quotes, while those like Dr. Christy were attacked as heretics and somehow unclean and unscientific.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

  • Your "experts" vs. Inhofe's

    Again Dr. Dessler, I do not defend Inhofe's list, nor do I think they are the be all and end all for AGW theory.  But likewise the IPCC "experts" are no better except they have been in the clique and members of the IPCC "club" for enough years to think they are experts and have spent decades convincing politicians and scientific societies (bent on establishing themselves in the government lobbying business for more AGW gravy train cash) of the same.  That doesn't make it a fact any more than a few years of high temps proves AGW as CO2 goes up. That merely proves availability bias and pre-disposed political views.

    Therefore I find the "governments and societies" you refer to to be as thin and weak as your IPCC "experts" resumes for scientific credibility.  Only you could confuse partisan agenda driven political power for scienific process.  You say the IPCC doesn't use economists for climate science.  Perhaps you should tell the Indian fellow who stepped on the stage in Oslo with Gore and lectured the world about AGW.  I'm sure he would object to your pigeon holing him as not qualified to speak on the science.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Flim Flam computer junk

    Yes, it is true that all the IPCC has are some very biased and shrill scientists (many of which have credentials that are thin, political, and unrelated to AGW).  Ah but they have tons of GCMs that can't predict or hindcast anything.  But they persist in hoodwinking a gullible and uneducated public by proclaiming the case is solv-ed and if you don't agree it is because you don't understand computers and don't have the proper publication history.  That is perjury if done under oath, as Cicerone once did.  

    Without the GCMs their entire case collapses, as they have nothing else of substance and of solid scientific foundation.  The skeptics have many facts and observations from billions of years of earth's climate history to back up their arguments, as well as holes in the recent climate variations AGW theories big enough to drive an SUV through.

    And yes Earth, the tactics of the AGW promoters and activists is to decalre victory in any debate by claiming they are the only credible sources of knowledge and if you don't agree you lose, simple minded logic for simple minds.  Works at RC too.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Vast, vast incompetence, or opinion?

    I see Dr. Dessler.  So if someone educated and experienced in computer science, biochemistry, fluid dynamics, math, space physics, industrial engineering and economics DISAGREES with your vast wisdom and opinion on AGW then they are unqualified to comment on the AGW hypothesis, and that you say is the vast, vast majority.  However, if they happen to have been involved in the righteous, unerring and beyond question IPCC effort and AGREE with your vast wisdom and opinion of AGW they are imminently qualified to express their views of the AGW hypothesis.  

    I also suspect that meteorologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, geologists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists and chemists, and glaciologists who are involved with the unquestionable and unassailable IPCC process and AGREE with your vast wisdom and opinion of AGW are also qualified AGW hypothesis experts.  But those in these same scientific fields who DISAGREE with your vast wisdom and opinion of AGW are likewise unqualified as AGW hypothesis experts.  Have I got that right?  

    Yes, it seems you have a singular definition of who is qualified as an expert on AGW, and it has nothing to do with scientific education and academic credentials, experience, or research background.  Rather it is of point of view, belief, and perhaps a visceral dislike and disdain for those who have the temerity to question and disagree with you.  Is it true your illustrious institution requires professors to take a pledge on the doctrine of AGW (do you put your right hand on Al Gore's book?) to be in your department?  Or is that signature on the doctrine of AGW taken of free will?  Has anyone refused to take the pledge?  What would happen if they did?
    On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • No relevant expertise?

    Well I agree with you Dr. Dessler.   However the specialties I listed are the strengths and research interests of many of the IPCC AR4 lead authors of the scientific technical section.  And of course the last strength (industrial engineering and economics) is the field of the leader of the IPCC who accepted the Peace Prize for their work.  

    So, yes the IPCC lead authors have about as much credibility as Inhofe's list, except that many have worked the AGW gravy train payouts for decades and most of their publications are IPCC related, not original research.  So would you claim being a member of the IPCC club for many years is relevant experience as a climate expert even with the unrelated degrees and research backgrounds?  You see that is the problem I and many other scientists have with the gurus of IPCC pontificating and telling us what to think and who to trust.  They have no credibility over Inhofe's list, as we are capable of calling BS on these political types.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Experts?

    OK, Dr. Dessler, how about these scientific fields as "climate experts":
    Glaciology, Biochemistry, Fluid Dynamics, Computer Science, Math, Space Physics, and lastly Industrial Engineering and Economics.  Can you guess who has these scientific research specialities and academic backgrounds who claim to be "climate experts" that we (other scientists and the public at large) should trust and believe without question?On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Debate Debased

    Glad you have finally come around to the fact that these debates are a waste of time, my thoughts exactly.  The AGW advocates and activists will never move and the skeptics are the same, with the same old, tired talking points on both sides unaccepted by the other. Since it is really politics that's no surprise, except that you thought it otherwise.  However, as with the NPR debate, which the skeptics won easily, the public still knows there is controversy over the cause of climate change. And thus the "what do we do about it" remains mired in the uncertainty of the cause and thus the probability the "solutions" will work.  

    I am fine with moving the discussion and debate to what we do about "it".  In that one political realities and economic sanity will succeed where these debates with believers vs. skeptics may fail.  That is a good thing, and as the cooling and natural forces emerge once again to show themselves more powerful than AGW believers, things will again become more rational and less religious/political on the science of climate change.On Climate skeptic plays hookey posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

  • "Experts" ? Who's?

    Your analogy on cancer is quite lame as compared to AGW.  AGW is a complex, multi-discipline field of study that any one particular specialization (climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics, etc.) cannot full grasp and is not fully credible.  The earth has a long and complex climate history which also needs to be brought into the conversation if the natural variations aspect of the hypothesis of AGW is to be fully and objectively evaluated.  Thus it is quite unlike cancer.  

    As for scientific skeptics of AGW, they are numerous and active, and always will be.  They may not have resumes that the AGW advocates and activists want to recognize, but none the less they do have scientific credentials and expertise.  But more importantly, they also have the ears of many legislators and will continue to object to AGW theory with scientific evidence that the activists (with vested interests, financial and otherwise, in the outcome of the hypothesis) will continue to have a hard time debunking given their lack of credibility.
    On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses