[Pete Ridley (OP)]

As a bit of light relief after the heavy stuff in Another Hockey Stick Illusion?  (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.msg352889#msg352889) and What does Iain Stewart's "CO2 experiment" Demonstrate?  (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.msg352651#msg352651) I thought that it might be nice to post up a few examples of climate science “scaremongering”. Here’s a starter that I have just had E-mailed to me.

  []

Alarming Report - Greenland Melting
There is a lot of water in this world -323,722,000 cubic miles of it in the oceans alone-and there is more coming.
According to Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish geophysicist, a mysterious warming of the Arctic climate is melting the Arctic ice, including the vast Greenland ice-cap. As this ice melts, water is pouring into the ocean and raising the sea level at what geologists regard as a dizzy rate.

Dr. Ahlmann told the Geophysical Institute of the University of California that the ocean level in the Spitzbergen area had risen one inch in thc last 25 years. He said that if the ice areas continued melting at the present rate, the ocean surface would rise to catastrophic proportions and peoples living in lowlands bordering the seashores would be inundated.
"The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis," he said

This report is from the Perth Sunday Times, Sunday 22 June, 1947.   [] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/4517333?zoomLevel=1

Here’s the link to the source of this comment http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/1947-greenland-melting-sea-level-rising-at-a-dizzying-rate-speedy-international-intervention-needed/ .


Enjoy the comments there too.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[Geezer]

As a bit of light relief after the heavy stuff in Another Hockey Stick Illusion? 

At the risk of seeming impertinent, "Another Hockey Stick Illusion?" was a source of much light relief to this poster. Not because of the question, but because of the manner in which the question was presented.

I was wondering if you ever studied the works of Dale Carnegie?

[JP]

Pete, do you have a science question for discussion, or is this just an editorial comment?  The use of this forum is generally for asking and answering science questions.  It is not here to provide a platform for editorializing.

[BenV]

A question like that would certainly be thrown out of court for leading the witness!

[Bored chemist]

"Is “Scaremongering” a mandatory module for science postgradutes?"
No but it seems to be part of some journalism courses.

[JP]

"Is “Scaremongering” a mandatory module for science postgradutes?"
No but it seems to be part of some journalism courses.

Actually, working as a teaching assistant for undergraduate courses usually is mandatory.  This is certainly scaremongering among the undergraduate students, especially around exam time.   []

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

JP I stand corrected that

It is not here to provide a platform for editorializing

Is there a spot for "editorialising"?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[JP]

JP I stand corrected that

It is not here to provide a platform for editorializing

Is there a spot for "editorialising"?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Not really.  You can post your own theories in the "new theories" board, but that's mostly for the discussion of non-mainstream theories.  The "just chat" board is for chatting and not discussing science.  The rest of the forum is mostly for science Q&A. 

If you want to editorialize there are other websites which are better suited to it.

[frethack]

I am a climate science student.  Im also somewhat skeptical of the magnitude of CO2's role in current climate change.  I havent been subject to any real scare mongering by climate scientists...mostly just journalists and politicians.

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

frethack, it’s good to hear that you

havent been subject to any real scare mongering by climate scientists

but, as you say, you are a climate science student, not one of the general public. My “tongue-in-cheek” question was asking about the education of scientists and I asked it because of the pure scare mongering that I see not only by politicians, journalists, the power hungry and extreme environmentalists but also by some scientists. I am referring to those scientists who share the opinion expressed in 1989 by sadly departed Professor Stephen Schneider. I mentioned this on the “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.0) in my opening post.

I don’t expect scientists to offer anything other than what they believe to be the truth and there are plenty well-respected scientists who agree with that. I also expect them to make it absolutely clear when they are guessing at answers and speculating about outcomes. In my opinion, as a member of the general public, this is not happening as far as “climate science” is concerned. Lies abound because politicians, the power hungry and environmental extremists are driving the issue and presenting the IPCC as a scientific authority when it is really nothing more than a part of their propaganda machine.

Please don’t anyone come back with the suggestion that I have a vested interest because I am paid by big business, especially the energy industry, to spread lies about honest scientists who are simply trying to save the world, or that I am just a selfish capitalist or that I’m just an old git suffering from dementia. Others have tried that one but it’s like water off a duck’s back.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be for light relief, talking about scary claims about climate change from many decades ago. I’d much prefer to have one of you scientists provide a direct answer to my direct question raised in my opening post on “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”. Is anyone associated with The Naked Scientists able to do that?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[BenV]

Is anyone associated with The Naked Scientists able to do that?

How many times do I need to tell you, Pete?

[JP]

Apparently you didn't get the point about editorializing.  Thread locked.