The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming hots up but not the weather > Comments

Global warming hots up but not the weather : Comments

By John McLean, published 4/3/2005

John McLean argues that the predictions of global warming could be quite wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Would the real John McLean stand up? What is the point of this person, who vigorously inhabits every forum dealing with global warming under the name "Snowman", making the same tired old points in an opinion piece and then responding to the responses under his pseudonym? And no article submitted to a peer reviewed journal yet either!
Posted by Des Griffin, Monday, 7 March 2005 2:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am 80% sure it is Snowman.

I also think he is paid to peddle his politics on this site.

I am however unsure if his employers know he is just cutting and pasting anti climate change cant, e.g. from Melanie Phillips.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Posted by martin callinan, Monday, 7 March 2005 6:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't the old pro-anthro-warmers get all shirty when someone dares question their pronouncements. John McLean's "tired old points" are nowhere near as old or tired as the increasingly hoarse cries of "consensus" and "the hockey stick". The first means nothing and the second is flawed.

I must be the only one who realises that John McLean and Snowman are one and the same. I didn't know it was a big secret. But on behalf of everyone else a big THANKS to Des and Martin for breaking this ocean level raising news.

Martin has been running around on this thread with http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/ in his tight little fist shaking it in everyones face accusing McLean of plagerism. Bit of a long bow to draw isn't it Martin? (They both quote the same sources). The blog at this link is excellent and I hope everyone has a read.

Des, this world owes much to enthusiastic amateurs. I can't see anywhere where McLean claims to put forward any original research of his own. Seems to me he just gathers facts and puts them together in one place for everyone to see. If every journalist had to submit every article to a relevant peer review journal there would be no such thing as a newspaper.

So far between Des and Martin we've got McLean portrayed as a dishonest person hiding behind a pseudonym, a plagerist, and a receiver of blood money from polluters. Give us a break boys! You only show the weakness of your cause when this sort of thing is your only recourse.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 7 March 2005 7:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point about the scientific concensus being that global warming is both undeniable and human caused needs to be reinforced - A recent survey by Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) of the last ten years’ published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change showed that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise.

Note that the "hockey stick" isn't the only piece of evidence, nor is it the work of a single team - it has been independently verified by at least 3 other climate science groups working independently - spo forget about your personal attacks on Michael Mann.

Bozzie - thanks for pointing out that McLean is a dishonest person hiding behind a pseudonym, a plagiarist, and a paid propagandist - I had thought he was just another extreme right wing nut and that snowman was a different person.
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 March 2005 10:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Replying to another post, "the usual suspect" incorrectly asserts:

---
Decades of research. Really. Little more than two as a matter of fact.
During the 70s and early part of the 80s there was a real fear of a global cooling because the earth had been getting cooler for the previous three decades.
---

If you learn a bit about the history of global warming science you'll discover you are completely wrong on both all counts.

Have a read of this and you might hopefully attain some level of enlightenment - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/.

The theory of greenhouse gas caused global warming first arose over a century ago (by a Swedish scientist in 1896). There was never any sort of scientific concesus that there was human caused global cooling in the 1970's (although there was some media hype about this possibility based on the speculations of some individuals).
Posted by biggav, Monday, 7 March 2005 10:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny - Take a look at the data from the UK's CRU and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These are the recognised international sources for this data and this is where the facts are found - and those facts say that 1998 was the warmest and that carbon dioxide has continued to increase since that year. Of course if you have more reliable and more accurate information than these two sources I can assure you that thousands of scientists will be anxious to learn of your data.

As I said to biggav, I don't need to be an expert climatologist to report what others are saying.

We are often told that only a tiny minority of scientists dispute global warming and there is consensus. I am saying that 25% is not a tiny minority at all.

And for the second time, I am not and never have been a travel writer. It seems that you don't read anything on these forums!

Des - Yes, I am John McLean and I already have "snowman" as a registered name for these forums. No-one told me not to use it for postings to the forum, and no-one has asked. By the way, you show your ignorance if you believe that I could write, have an article peer-reviewed and published in just a few weeks. Be assured that an article is on the way.

Martin - I wish I was paid - I am unemployed at the moment and doing a post-grad uni course. Thanks for showing me Melanie Phillips's site because I wasn't aware of it. As it turns out we do have material from the same sources but it also seems that she misses a few other points.

Biggav - That Science article which claims that no papers refuted global warming was absolute rubbish according to other sources. They say that many papers proposed alternative natural explanations for many events or discussed possible natural mechanisms for warming.

By the way, I am still awaiting your explanation of the situation I mentioned in the opening paragraph...

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy