Marshall Shepherd: Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate Science
It’s one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio stations. One of the nation’s leading climate scientists explains how he goes about knocking down the “zombie theories” that plague our discussions about climate change.
One of the nation’s leading climate scientists explains how he goes about knocking down the “zombie theories” that plague our discussions about climate change. What is a zombie theory? Says Shepherd: “It’s one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio stations.”
As the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, Shepherd is a leading international expert in weather, climate and atmospheric sciences, and recently briefed the U.S. Senate on climate and extreme weather.
A professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Georgia, Shepherd is director of the University’s Atmospheric Sciences Program. Shepherd spent 12 years as a research meteorologist in the Earth-Sun Division at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center.
Shepherd was recently named the UGA Athletic Association Professor in Geography and 2004 was honored at the White House by President Bush with a PECASE award as one of the top young scientists and engineers in the country.
About the Author: Chris Machens
POPULAR
RECENT COMMENTS
- Chris Machens on Study: Earth’s strongest ocean current is slowed by melting Antarctic ice
- Bob Bingham on Study: Earth’s strongest ocean current is slowed by melting Antarctic ice
- Vbell on Collision Course: 3-degrees of warming & humanity’s future
- Richards Adele on Collision Course: 3-degrees of warming & humanity’s future
- Bob Bingham on Artificial intelligence generated a video highlighting Sea Level Rise
Zombie theories, drought was caused by global warming, cherry picked graphs
that start right after 30 years of global cooling, the discredited Marcott
et al hockey stick, cherry picked arctic sea ice graph that starts in 79,
it was cooling from 1945-1977, new normal, thinking that when the sun
activity drops off, that temps respond immediately, the idea that the
billions of dollars don’t corrupt climate science, the idea you can trust
the UHI polluted temperature record, energy renaissance.
One of the nation’s leading climate scientists explains how he goes about
knocking down the “zombie theories” that plague our discussions about
climate change. What is a zombie theory? Says Dr. Marshall Shepherd: “It’s
one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and
time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio
stations.” #TEDxAtlanta
I’m disappointed in you, I thought you were smarter than that. Guess not.
One of the nation’s leading climate scientists explains how he goes about
knocking down the “zombie theories” that plague our discussions about
climate change. What is a zombie theory? Says Dr. Marshall Shepherd: “It’s
one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and
time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio
stations.” #TEDxAtlanta
I would like to see all the climate scientists who believe in climate
change line up opposite those who don’t on the National Mall. That would be
a powerful visual/demonstration.
You’re asking the wrong question. We know climate changes, we even know CO2
is a GHC and has an effect on climate. What you really want to ask climate
scientists if they believe man made CO2 is a major cause of climate change.
You didn’t point out anything Mr. G-R-A-V-I-T-Y. I’m not offended by the
groundless assertions in the least.
I am not overly impressed by credentials. I am only impressed by what a
person says.
Glad to see you agree with me. “Dr. Shepherd’s opinion is based on
science.” When he gets around to the science let me know. “what data? what
studies? what reports?” I am not going to bring up all the data I have been
going through for the last 12 years. I am not here to educate you. Go learn
some things on your own first.
The president of the American Meteorological Society attacks undying
“zombie” arguments of climate change: Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate
Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at TEDxAtlanta
So. Zombies on steroids. Got it. Ted’s in great hands.
via Phil Plait.
Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Good talk!
Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Dr. Marshall Shepherd talks about “climate science zombies”, by which he
means allegedly-scientific arguments against climate change that have been
completely and categorically refuted, but which denialists still regularly
trot out and represent as contrary science.
A point to note right out of the gate — you remember this “scientific
controversy” over climate change we keep hearing about? Well, here’s the
extent of the “controversy” : 3% of climate scientists describe themselves
as merely ‘cautious’. The other 97% describe themselves as ‘concerned’ or
‘alarmed’.
Some “controversy”, huh?
Remember, according to young-earth creationists, there is a “controversy”
about *evolution*. I hate to break it to you guys, but your evolution
“controversy” is spelled D-E-N-I-A-L.
+Stan Warren, recall the debunking article you reposted the other day, on
which I pointed out that the guy was cherry-picking his data? Look at the
global temperature animation in this talk. It illustrates the point
perfectly. Sure, the *tropics* have scarcely changed; but look at what’s
been happening in the arctic and the upper latitudes.
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd Slaying the
“Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at TEDxAtlanta
Slaying the “Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd Slaying the
“Zombies” of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Show me then. Show me scientific evidence that all this data is wrong. As
for money, who has the most to loose if climate legislation gets through?
Oil companies! Who has a lot of money to fight climate legislation? Oil
companies! Who pays millions to politicians to stop such legislation? Oil
companies! Name three lobbying sources that combined have more money than
Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, or any of the other big oil companies.
*What is a zombie theory?*
Says Shepherd: *”It’s one of those theories that scientists have refuted or
disproven time and time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs
and on the radio stations.”*
h/t to +Gran Dan big time
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
It is the data that is showing the CAGW “theory” to be wrong. (Just as
Feynman stated.) CO2 as a problem is all model-generated and those models
are unable to predict ANYTHING that has yet to be verified. Totally useless
yet that is what the whole meme is based on. Check your numbers. Greenpeace
and other “green” organizations spend thousands of times more than oil
companies on lobbying efforts in this sector. Big oil is making a mint from
the new paradigm so why would they not support it?
Feynman cautioned against “believing” a theory in the face of experimental,
measured data that refuted it. See the evaluation of models vs. reality at
Dr. Roy Spencer’s site. “STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs.
Measurements, Running 5-Year Means” Since 1998 the US government has spent
almost a 100 billion on science and technology research, administration,
education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks related to “climate
change”. That is one big trough and none of that went to auditing .
He is one out of thousands of climate scientists. He is also of the opinion
that Earth was “created by God’s intelligent design,” thus is “robust,
resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human
flourishing.” That is dangerous thinking for a scientist to have. As for
data, the 9/10 of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade,
Arctic ice is near the lowest it’s been in decades; it was at it’s lowest
in 06/07. C02 is the highest it’s been in millennia.
Today’s TEDxTalk: Climate change is happening now: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at
TEDxAtlanta
The Bishop Hill web site is climate denier zombie central.
An ad hominem is stating that a person is stupid, therefore their argument
is invalid. My argument was that he holds a belief specifically about the
environment that is stupid, therefore his argument should be taken with a
grain of salt. That is not ad hominem and it is a legitimate argument.
Hi Mate “exonerated” is a legal term McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross
(2003). “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998)McIntyre, Stephen;
McKitrick, Ross (2005). “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere
Climate Index.Its dead scientifically.You did not touch my other correction
for good reason.
The 97% canard One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate
change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to
warm. re the 97% canard,,again science by polls..which was crap anyway..not
sure your trying that.In fact, only 33.6 per cent of the 12,000 papers (
roughly 1/3 of the 12,000, or about 4,000 papers) referred to anthropogenic
global warming. It was 97% of that one-third who agreed that “human
activities are causing the planet to warm.”
The reason I didn’t touch your other correction was because I am unfamiliar
with it, not because I had good reason to avoid it. After a quick look, the
only criticism I see are from the deniers with little scientific merit. I
understand what exonerate means. My point was that at no point was Mann or
his colleagues ever found to have committed scientific misconduct. As for
the scientific validity of his, his colleague’s and others’ findings, there
are still models being made and they still agree.
lol u are stupid
#imoocac13
i could answer that one for you ..But …It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,
so you probably wouldn’t understand. By the way, what data are you guys
talking about …he didn’t present any data ….pictures of cartoon zombies
is NOT DATA!
Excellent talk. I think Dr. Shepherd’s argument against “Scientists want
grant money” at 12:20 was probably the weakest part of his presentation. He
argued “[if a scientist wants more money, report ‘dunno’]”. This builds on
the assumption that money is granted to those who say ‘dunno’, rather than
to those who say what the money-hander-outers want to hear, which might be
an answer in one direction rather than the other. That may be true, but all
Dr. Shepherd said was “I don’t understand”.
“You are assuming that what he is saying is reality” No, thats not an
assumption, it’s observed fact.
Reality is relative to the observer. Take off your blinders and step into
the light so that you can see better.
If you do not believe in climate change, I wonder if you believe in
pollution.
6:50 I think they ask that question because they are used to people
thinking God causes weather in order to punish sinners.
Yeah.. the climate changes… no one is arguing that the climate is not
changing. This is a political scheme to create a global tax that will fund
global government and begin systematic global de-population. Google:
Georgia Guidestones for proof.
Someone who says that you can not cherry pick the data, is to often picking
that last cherry.