# Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says



## Brian R. VanCise

http://news.msn.com/world/global-warming-dials-up-our-risks-un-report-says


----------



## Flying Crane

Vice on HBO recently did a story about it as well.  They went to Greenland and took a look at the glacier melting, it's happening far faster than anyone realized.  The predictions made even five years ago are now proving to fall far short of the melting rates.  We are already seeing damage done 60 years ahead of predictions made even five years ago.  Whatever predictions are being made, reality is showing to be much faster. 

Similar stories have been published in National Geographic as well, September 2013 for starters...

It's very troubling.


----------



## billc

Or...

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/05/greenland-ice-melt-calving




> But don't start building your flood-proof Ark quite yet: Advanced imaging released in August suggested the ice sheet is capable of quickly reversing its melting habit. And a study out today in _Nature_  finds that the sped-up ice loss on the water's edge, while still a  problem, is unlikely to get much worse, even with a big rise in global  temperatures. Taken together, these two studies suggest that Greenland's  ice melt problem isn't as bad as experts like Box had predicted.
> 
> For the _Nature_ study, Faezeh Nick, a researcher at Norway's  University Centre in Svalbard, led a team that took the closest-ever  look at so-called "outlet glaciers," the 200 or so outermost arms of the  ice sheet that flow straight into the sea. Their findings suggest that  the increase in melting rate is about to slow down, suggesting that in a  medium warming scenario these glaciers will likely contribute just  19-30 millimeters to global sea levels by 2100. That's much less than if  the current acceleration of melting were to persist,but still a noteworthy share of the quarter- to half-meter rise projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/media-claims-that-greenlands-ice-loss.html



> The authors find an increase in the





> natural glacier calving process in  this regional, relatively tiny portion of the Greenland ice sheet.  According to the authors, this is due to regional warming found at the  site "HKH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below. The key word here is  regional, which indicates these processes are localized and not  characteristic of global warming. In fact, the authors also looked at  another nearby site "DH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below and found that this site cooled over the past decade.





> Examination of Figure 2 below reveals that over the past 34 years 1978-2012:
> 
> 
> Annual *sea surface temperature anomaly has cooled at both* sites DH and HKH
> June-August summer temperatures sswarmed at site HGH but *cooled* at site DH, and are only about 2C above the freezing point
> Annual air temperatures at both sites increased, but are about 10 degrees cooler than the freezing point
> 
> * These  localized, regional changes were not predicted by climate models and are  not supportive of the CAGW meme, and in fact suggest that other  processes are responsible. For example, geothermal sources have recently been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet, which create lakes under the ice sheet and lubricate the natural slide to calving in the ocean. In addition, storm activity and winds largely control Arctic sea ice, which can act as an impediment to glacier calving. *


----------



## ballen0351

billc said:


> Or...
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/05/greenland-ice-melt-calving
> 
> 
> 
> http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/media-claims-that-greenlands-ice-loss.html




Your facts mean nothing if they don't go along with the preapproved beliefs


----------



## K-man

How did I know we could rely on Bill to put our minds at ease?
:hmm:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> How did I know we could rely on Bill to put our minds at ease?
> :hmm:


My mind was never stressed in the first place


----------



## Big Don

Flying Crane said:


> Vice on HBO recently did a story about it as well.  They went to Greenland and took a look at the glacier melting, it's happening far faster than anyone realized.  The predictions made even five years ago are now proving to fall far short of the melting rates.  We are already seeing damage done 60 years ahead of predictions made even five years ago.  Whatever predictions are being made, reality is showing to be much faster.
> 
> Similar stories have been published in National Geographic as well, September 2013 for starters...
> 
> It's very troubling.


Didn't some global warming believers go for a little boat ride in to Antarctica last December? To study the rapid melting... how did that work out for them?


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> Didn't some global warming believers go for a little boat ride in to Antarctica last December? To study the rapid melting... how did that work out for them?



dunno.  why don't you tell us about it?


----------



## billc

I like this look at global warming...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/global-warming-what-global-warming.php



> Steve is, I believe, cloistered as he plows through the IPCCs latest report on the baleful consequences of climate change. Meanwhile, alarmist headlines are everywhere. But more sophisticated observers are asking, global warming? What global warming?
> 
> 
> At Watts Up With That, Christopher Moncton adds the just-reported HadCRUT4 numbers to the dataset of datasets, which shows zero warming this millennium:


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> I like this look at global warming...
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/global-warming-what-global-warming.php




from here:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm
Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. *While not formally trained in science*, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions.


For a comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check out this presentation by Professor John Abraham. Abraham has compiled many examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research.


typical.


----------



## billc

and the cofounder of green peace...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ade-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder



> There is no scientific proof of man-made climate change, a co-founder of Greenpeace told a committee of the U.S. Senate, rebutting claims made by environmental activists, prominent politicians, and a steady stream of media reports of a nearly unanimous "consensus" among scientists about "overwhelming" evidence that man-made emissions of greenhouse  gases &#8212; mainly carbon dioxide &#8212; are responsible for global warming.
> 
> 
> "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," Patrick Moore said in his prepared remarks to members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Tuesday. A Canadian ecologist and business consultant, Moore was a co-founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace as a Ph.D. student in 1971. Moore left the group in 1986, after it made what he described as a "sharp turn to the political left " and began espousing policies he could not longer support, though opposition to global warming was not then among them.
> 
> 
> "Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now," Moore said. But increases in the earth's surface and atmospheric temperatures are nothing new, he reminded the senators, as he noted little correlation between increases in carbon dioxide emissions and a heating of the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he noted, has declared it "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming trend since the mid-20th century. "





> "'Extremely likely' is not a scientific term but rather a judgment as in a court of law," Moore said. "The IPCC defines 'extremely likely' as a '95-100% probability.' But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been 'invented' as a construct within the IPCC report to express 'expert judgment', as determined by the IPCC contributors." Projections based on "sophisticated computer models" have led to warnings of dire consequences from anticipated increases in temperatures worldwide, Moore said. The historical record suggests otherwise, he argued.
> 
> 
> The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century," which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940, there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year "pause" until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
> 
> 
> The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to "human influence." They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase "since the mid-20th century." Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by "human influence" when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?


----------



## billc

A  quick look at the polar bear populations...

http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming



> *We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard.* All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded&#8212;as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html



> Indeed, when they were put on the US Endangered Species list in 2008, they were the first to be registered solely because of the perceived threat of global warming.
> One prominent scientist said their numbers would be reduced by 70 per cent by 2050 while global  warming proponents &#8211; including Al Gore and Sir David Attenborough &#8211; used emotive imagery to highlight their &#8216;demise&#8217;.
> *Yet there is one small problem: many polar bear populations  worldwide are now stable, if not increasing.*



See, it is important to use polar bears because people like them...so scare people about their plight and they won't question global warming...



> Those who insist the bear population is healthy are not popular.
> Dr Susan Crockford, an evolutionary biologist and expert on polar bears, was criticised as a &#8216;climate change denier&#8217; when she published a paper called Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears earlier this year.
> Population forecasting expert Dr J Scott Armstrong agrees: &#8216;The decision by the US Senate in 2008 to name the polar bear as an endangered species because of global warming was based on flawed information.
> 'The fact is it is almost impossible to get an accurate figure for the number of polar bears &#8211; they do not stay in one territory.&#8217;
> Seeing the polar bear in the wild is a privilege &#8211; but perhaps, thankfully, no longer the rare sight we had previously been led to believe.



Here are the ten reasons...

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/



> 5)* Population decreases in polar bear numbers attributed to earlier sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay (see 4, above) have not been anywhere near as severe as the catastrophic decline that took place in 1974 in the eastern Beaufort Sea, which was associated with exceptionally thick sea ice.* The modest decline in the Western Hudson Bay population that took place between 1998 and 2004 (down 22%) pales in comparison to the 1974 Beaufort event, when ringed seals numbers (i.e. polar bear food) dropped by 80% or more and numbers of polar bears plummeted. Similar events took place in 1984 and 1992, which means that three precipitous population declines due to heavy ice have taken place in this polar bear population over the last 40 years &#8211; but each time, numbers rebounded a few years later. In other words, _due to entirely natural causes_, polar bear numbers can fluctuate quite dramatically over relatively short periods because of the highly variable sea ice habitat they live in.


----------



## billc

And a different take on the IPCC report...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/



> Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, thelatest being released today (March 31).
> 
> So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC&#8217;s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight &#8220;reasons for concern&#8221; which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors&#8217; positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports&#8217; findings.
> 
> Here&#8217;s what the reports say:
> 
> _IPCC: &#8220;Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.&#8221;
> _
> _NIPCC: &#8220;Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.&#8221;
> _
> _IPCC: &#8220;Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.&#8221;
> _
> _NIPCC: &#8220;There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
> _
> _IPCC: &#8220;Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.&#8221;_
> 
> _NIPCC: &#8220;No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB]levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.&#8221;_


----------



## K-man

I feel there are four questions. 

1. Is there global warming?
2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?

The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.

The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information. 
:asian:


----------



## Tames D

K-man said:


> I feel there are four questions.
> 
> 1. Is there global warming?
> 2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
> 3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
> 4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?
> 
> The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.
> 
> The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information.
> :asian:



I'll add a question 5 to this list: 

What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately? 
I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> I'll add a question 5 to this list:
> 
> What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately?
> I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?




Climate is not weather.


----------



## K-man

Tames D said:


> I'll add a question 5 to this list:
> 
> What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately?
> I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?


Not that I claim to have a lot of knowledge on the topic either but I think it is to do with the reduction in the polar icecap meaning less heat is reflected back into space. As a result the polar vortex weakens and cannot keep the cold air mass together. As a result a cold air mass breaks away and heads south over North America producing the freezing conditions you have been experiencing. I fear that in the foreseeable future it is likely to be a regular occurrence.
:asian:


----------



## billc

> Climate is not weather.



And since they can't accurately predict "weather" 72 hours out, it is a little weird that they try to tell us they can predict "climate" 10-20-100 years out...


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> and the cofounder of green peace...
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ade-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder



um... so?  if this is an accurate representation of his position, he too is wrong.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Actually Billc scientists in general are pretty good at what they do.  Of course they are not always perfect or right but....... when the vast majority of them believe that some thing is happening don't you think we should pay attention?  I mean after all you or I are not professionals in this area.  Should we not listen closely to what the professionals in this area are saying?

The Vice show mentioned before about Greenland's ice melting was pretty good.  Very interesting in that as the ice melts and water rises we see climate change and this causes dry conditions with more fires, polar vortex, etc.  The fires in turn cause more ash on the ice in Greenland which in turn causes it yet again to melt faster.  It was a very interesting show!  Greenland's ice is melting and well it is undeniable at this point!  


From all accounts with "global warming and climate change" you are going to see more extreme weather such as more fires in California, freezing conditions in the east, etc.  Changes in the overall weather pattern.  One thing does appear to be a for sure is that with the ice melting in Greenland our sea level will rise.  They are also are seeing the same conditions now starting in Antarctica.  

All the reputable scientists believe in "global warming" or "climate change".  I find it interesting that people seem to want to cling to the idea that we are not seeing some kind of significant change.  We have some constants in our life and that is that change and chaos are going to happen.  Why is it hard to believe in "global climate change"?  It is almost like shouting "move along nothing to see here" when there is really some thing to see!  It is almost unfathomable to believe that we as humans are not affecting change on this planet.  Science supports this and if you want to visually see where we have affected some change I will be happy to take you to some places on this planet and show you were we as a species have definitely affected change!  

I do understand not wanting change.  However change *always happens* and nothing always stays the same.  I also understand wanting to protect your interests.  So by not acknowledging change that is happening an industry or country can continue on its course emitting more pollution, etc.  I find it fascinating how some people have followed the big business line in this manner.  Surely you see this?  Or has the other side been played by the scientists?  What then do they really have to gain?


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> A  quick look at the polar bear populations...
> 
> http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html
> 
> 
> 
> See, it is important to use polar bears because people like them...so scare people about their plight and they won't question global warming...
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the ten reasons...
> 
> http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/



take a look at some real science.  from the 2014 report Intergovernmental Panel Report on Climate Change, http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/
From Chapter 28, Polar Regions:

*The primary concern for polar bears over the foreseeable future is the recent and projected loss of annual ice over continental shelves, decreased ice duration, and decreased ice thickness (high confidence). *Of the two subpopulations where data are adequate for assessing abundance effects, it is _very likely _that the recorded population declines are caused by reductions in sea ice extent. [28.2.2.1.2; 28.3.2.2.2]

and more:  

Empirical studies provide direct insight into the mechanisms of climate change impact on polar bears (_Ursus maritimus_) but modelling allows predictive capacity (Hunter _et al._, 2010; Amstrup _et al._, 2010; Durner _et al._, 2011; Castro de la Guardia _et al., _2013).
Polar bears are highly specialized and use annual ice over the continental shelves as their preferred habitat (Durner _et al._, 2009; Miller _et al._, 2012). The recent and projected loss of annual ice over continental shelves, decreased ice duration, decreased ice thickness, and habitat fragmentation is causing reduced food intake, increased energy expenditure, and increased fasting in polar bears (_high confidence_) (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006; Regehr _et al._, 2007; Durner _et al._, 2009; Amstrup _et al._, 2010; Hunter _et al._, 2010; Derocher _et al._, 2011; Rode _et al._, 2012; Sahanatien and Derocher, 2012; Castro de la Guardia _et al., _2013).
Subpopulation response varies geographically. Only 2 of the 19 subpopulations, Western Hudson Bay (Regehr _et al._, 2007) and the Southern Beaufort Sea (Regehr _et al._, 2010; Rode _et al._, 2010a) have data series adequate for clear identification of abundance effects related to climate change. Many other subpopulations show characteristics associated with decline but some remain stable. Declining ice is causing lower body condition, reduced individual growth rates, lower fasting endurance, lower reproductive rates, and lower survival (_high confidence_) (Regehr _et al._, 2007; Regehr _et al._, 2010; Rode _et al._, 2010a; Molnar _et al._, 2011; Rode _et al._, 2012). Condition is a precursor to demographic change (_very high confidence_) (Regehr _et al._, 2010; Hunter _et al._, 2010; Rode _et al._, 2010a; Robinson _et al._, 2011). The decline in the subpopulation in Western Hudson Bay by 21% between 1987 and 2004 was related to climate change (_medium confidence_) (Regehr _et al._, 2007).
Replacement of multiyear ice by annual ice could increase polar bear habitat (_low confidence_) (Derocher _et al._, 2004). Increasing the distance to multiyear ice and terrestrial refugia at maximal melt may result in drowning, cub mortality, and increased energetic costs (Monnett and Gleason, 2006; Durner _et al._, 2011; Pagano _et al._, 2012).
There is _robust evidence _of changes in sea ice conditions changing polar bear distribution including den areas (_high confidence_) (Fischbach _et al._, 2007; Schliebe _et al._, 2008; Gleason and Rode, 2009; Towns _et al._, 2010; Derocher _et al._, 2011). The number of human-bear interactions are projected to increase with warming (_high confidence_) (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006; Towns _et al._, 2009).
Use of terrestrial resources by polar bears was suggested as adaptive (Dyck _et al._, 2007; Dyck and Romberg, 2007; Armstrong _et al._, 2008; Dyck _et al._, 2008; Dyck and Kebreab, 2009; Rockwell and Gormezano, 2009; Smith _et al._, 2010). Polar bears cannot adapt to terrestrial foods (Stirling _et al._, 2008b; Amstrup _et al._, 2009; Slater _et al._, 2010; Rode _et al._, 2010b), and will _most likely _not be able to adapt to climate change and reduced sea ice extent (_very high confidence_). Changing ice conditions are linked to cannibalism (Amstrup _et al._, 2006), altered feeding (Cherry _et al._, 2009), unusual hunting behaviour (Stirling _et al._, 2008a), and diet change (Iverson _et al._, 2006; Thiemann _et al._, 2008) (_medium confidence_).




Theres more, it's a big report, but this is real science.  Something you might want to acquaint yourself with.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And a different take on the IPCC report...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/
> 
> [/SIZE]




Singer, eh?  from Wikepedia...

According to David Biello and John Pavlus in _Scientific American_, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[SUP][51][/SUP] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[SUP][52][/SUP] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". 

and...

*SEPP and funding[edit]*

In 1990 Singer set up the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a skeptical position.[SUP][3][/SUP] He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950&#8211;1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in _The Washington Times_&#8212;with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"&#8212;that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.[SUP][57][/SUP]
Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.[SUP][3][/SUP] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[SUP][58][/SUP] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[SUP][3][/SUP] She writes that *he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil*. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In August 2007 _Newsweek_ reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.[SUP][59][/SUP] The week after the story,_Newsweek_ published a contrary view from Robert Samuelson, one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.[SUP][60][/SUP]ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.[SUP][61][/SUP] The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][62]

wow, this is just rich.  The guy is a Moonie, and gets funding from Big Oil.  Imagine that.[/SUP]


----------



## Steve

http://mynorthwest.com/813/2485630/Prepare-for-gloom-followed-immediately-by-doom

The link above was to local commentary on the subject by Dave Ross, a long time radio news guy here in Seattle.  The gist of it is that this is an example of what we all know to be true.   People decide what they want to believe, look for evidence that supports their unsubstantiated opinion, and actively ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Whether or not climate change is real, man made or ultimately leading to demise, people will choose to believe what they want to believe.  We see it all the time in threads like this.  To paraphrase Dave Ross from this morning's broadcast, humans are risk takers, and will tend not to believe that something is risky until the worst has occurred.  We continue to live on beaches, mud flats and flood planes, buying houses that we believe will never be destroyed... until they are.

The tragic mud slide that occurred recently in Oso, WA is a perfect example.  And it will happen again probably in the same area.  Knowing the risk, people will continue to believe what they want to believe, and actively seek out evidence to support their position while actively ignoring evidence contrary to their position.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> http://mynorthwest.com/813/2485630/Prepare-for-gloom-followed-immediately-by-doom
> 
> The link above was to local commentary on the subject by Dave Ross, a long time radio news guy here in Seattle.  The gist of it is that this is an example of what we all know to be true.   People decide what they want to believe, look for evidence that supports their unsubstantiated opinion, and actively ignore any evidence to the contrary.



yup, it's called "Cherry Picking" and some people here do it a whole lot.


----------



## pgsmith

The problem is that too many political pundits who are scientifically ignorant, have no idea what they are talking about. The large debate is not over whether or not global warming or climate change is happening, it is over *why* it is happening. Most scientists agree that 1) the average global temperature is rising, 2) carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat and cause warming, and 3) our industrial society is pumping large amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere every day. All of the debate comes into being from the fact that it is virtually impossible to say that the global temperature would not be rising if we weren't contributing our CO2 and methane into the mix. There are a great many factors involved in our climate, and no way of saying conclusively exactly what is happening or why due to this complexity. Therefore, a great many people that want less government regulation of industry toss their opinions around and make statements like "there's no proof of global warming", when in actual fact global warming is pretty easy to prove, there's just no definitive proof of the _cause_ of global warming.

However, it is very difficult to get political extremists to think for themselves, just like any other sort of extremist. Therefore, they tend to let others think for them, without making the effort to determine if those thoughts are correct or not.


----------



## Steve

Here's the real issue, IMO.  The topic is far too complicated for a lay person to really understand it.  At some point, we are all picking sources we believe to be credible and taking their word for it.

This is how political pundits work.  It's not that they have no idea what they're talking about, pgsmith.  It's that they (none of them) really give a damn.  There is a political agenda at play on all sides of this issue, just as there is with every other issue, and facts don't matter.  The issue is complex enough that a case can be made sufficient for someone to hold up as "proof" that whatever they WANT to believe is the "truth."

This is, unfortunately, true for people who are not extremists, as well.  You are either apathetic to the situation, knowing that you can't possibly understand it fully, or you make choices about who is credible.  The best a lay person can hope for is to gather information from sources whom we believe are credible.


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> And since they can't accurately predict "weather" 72 hours out, it is a little weird that they try to tell us they can predict "climate" 10-20-100 years out...



First off, depending upon where you are, weather forecasting out to three days can be fairly accurate and useful-it's also improved a great deal over the last 20 years or so. This is less  due to  increases in understanding of weather patterns and the forces that affect it, which actually have been pretty substantial, than it is an increase in computer capacity and improved mathematical modeling.....still, the weather is, even where it generally follows the most stable of patterns, subject to chaos and unpredictability that are difficult to mathematically model much beyond three days: we've gotten better at predicting severe weather and changes within those three days, but even those have potential to change dramatically within that time frame.

And, yes, global warming actually can  mean more severe winter weather in some places for a time-just as so much of the country saw this year, or it could have just been the weather, and just as global warming likely isn't _entirely_ anthropogenic, it may have just been the "weather." If you don't understand that, well, it's no different than your not understanding how a particle can be in two places at the same time if you're not a physicist:

Science *is* "weird," unless you're a scientist in the field.....as for the predictions, they're based on models, all of which have one inherent flaw or another at the least, and unknown factors at most.


----------



## elder999

K-man said:


> Not that I claim to have a lot of knowledge on the topic either but I think it is to do with the reduction in the polar icecap meaning less heat is reflected back into space. As a result the polar vortex weakens and cannot keep the cold air mass together. As a result a cold air mass breaks away and heads south over North America producing the freezing conditions you have been experiencing. I fear that in the foreseeable future it is likely to be a regular occurrence.
> :asian:



And there's a pretty fair explanation of *just one way* that "clobal climate change"  can lead to more severe winters...at first. 

As for the original article, political unrest, war and disease all have come from lack of resources and changes in the environment in the past-it's completely reasonable to see that there might just be wars over water, even without global warming-it's a limited resource, and more precious than oil, when you get down to it.


----------



## aedrasteia

Steve said:


> Knowing the risk, people will continue to believe what they want to believe, and actively seek out evidence to support their position while actively ignoring evidence contrary to their position.



AKA:   *Magical thinking*.   
Rampant in adolescents, persistent in some adults (as counted by number of years).

Function?  Resolution of extreme emotional dis-comfort caused by cognitive dissonance.


----------



## ballen0351

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Or has the other side been played by the scientists?  What then do they really have to gain?



The gain $$$$.  If I set out as a scientist to solve a "problem" only to discover its not solvable I've worked my self out of a job.  However when I create a catastrophe that will kill us all. Now I can pretty much print money hand over fist.


----------



## ballen0351

Not to mention the billions made on "green" power.  They have a vested interest in global warming as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> The gain $$$$.  If I set out as a scientist to solve a "problem" only to discover its not solvable I've worked my self out of a job.  However when I create a catastrophe that will kill us all. Now I can pretty much print money hand over fist.



as compared to the huge money to be gained by the fossil fuels industry because there is still oil and coal to be gotten and profited from.  They have a huge financial interest in convincing everyone that there's nothing to worry about, so they can continue to profit thru pollution.  yeah, it's energy and we do need energy, but it is disastrously pollutive.  Their financial interest is vastly the larger.


----------



## Flying Crane

pgsmith said:


> The problem is that too many political pundits who are scientifically ignorant, have no idea what they are talking about. The large debate is not over whether or not global warming or climate change is happening, it is over *why* it is happening. Most scientists agree that 1) the average global temperature is rising, 2) carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat and cause warming, and 3) our industrial society is pumping large amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere every day. *All of the debate comes into being from the fact that it is virtually impossible to say that the global temperature would not be rising if we weren't contributing our CO2 and methane into the mix. There are a great many factors involved in our climate, and no way of saying conclusively exactly what is happening or why due to this complexity. Therefore, a great many people that want less government regulation of industry toss their opinions around and make statements like "there's no proof of global warming", when in actual fact global warming is pretty easy to prove, there's just no definitive proof of the cause of global warming.
> *
> However, it is very difficult to get political extremists to think for themselves, just like any other sort of extremist. Therefore, they tend to let others think for them, without making the effort to determine if those thoughts are correct or not.



there is truth in what you say, but there is very clear evidence linking significant acceleration of the climate changes, starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when pollution increased on a large scale.  People who wish to cast doubt on humanity's very significant contribution to the problem do so by ignoring the evidence and instead focusing on the complexities of climate and weather.  it's a half-truth, designed to mislead and send a message that is the opposite of the truth.


----------



## billc

And then there is "Climategate"...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



Image via Wikipedia


> A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
> 
> 
> Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political &#8220;cause&#8221; rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) *many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.*





> &#8220;I&#8217;ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,&#8221;writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get &#8211; and has to be well hidden,&#8221; Jones writes in another newly released email. &#8220;I&#8217;ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.&#8221;





> The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. &#8220;Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?&#8221; Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. &#8220;Keith will do likewise. &#8230; We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!&#8221;





> These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting  that his fellow Climategate scientists &#8220;must get rid of&#8221; the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.


----------



## Tgace

Well...if the UN says so......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

I also like this bit of "science"...



> More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
> 
> 
> Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary, writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
> 
> 
> I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run, Thorne adds.
> 
> 
> Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive  there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC, Wigley acknowledges.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> there is truth in what you say, but there is very clear evidence linking significant acceleration of the climate changes, starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when pollution increased on a large scale.  People who wish to cast doubt on humanity's very significant contribution to the problem do so by ignoring the evidence and instead focusing on the complexities of climate and weather.  it's a half-truth, designed to mislead and send a message that is the opposite of the truth.



from EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Earth&#8217;s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leavingthe planet&#8217;s system . When incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth system, Earth warms. When the sun&#8217;s energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When energy is released back into space, Earth cools. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth&#8217;s energy balance, including:




View enlarged imageModels that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming over the past century. Models that also account for the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are able to explain this warming. 
Source: USGRCP (2009)



Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth&#8217;s atmosphere
Variations in the sun&#8217;s energy reaching Earth
Changes in the reflectivity of Earth&#8217;s atmosphere and surface
These factors have caused Earth&#8217;s climate to change many times.
Scientists have pieced together a picture of Earth&#8217;s climate, dating back hundreds of thousands of years, by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in Earth&#8217;s orbit around the sun.[SUP] [1][/SUP]
The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[SUP] [1][/SUP]
Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And then there is "Climategate"...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
> 
> 
> 
> Image via Wikipedia



written by James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute???  Now THAT'S FUNNY STUFFF!!!!  HAHAHAHAHA!!!

bill, you have zero credibility.  zero.


----------



## Flying Crane

Again from Wikipedia, here's some info on The Heartland Institute, one of Billc's favorite sources of info.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute



In the 1990s, *the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, *and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the _New York Times_ as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[SUP][15][/SUP] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[SUP][16][/SUP] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[SUP][17]

AND THERE'S MORE: 

Heartland Institute questions scientific opinion on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming might be beneficial if it did occur.[SUP][19][/SUP] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[SUP][20][/SUP] In _Merchants of Doubt_,Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for *its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research*, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."[SUP][14]

AND THERE'S MORE:

In 2013 the Institute falsely portrayed a translation of one of its documents on global warming by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a major shift towards skepticism by China's leaders.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] This was despite a preface in the translation saying it was to help them understand the public debate and was not an endorsement of the position contained in the document.[SUP][26][/SUP]

AND YET MORE:


Between 2008 and 2012 the Heartland Institute sponsored seven International Conferences on Climate Change, bringing together hundreds of global warming skeptics. Convention speakers have included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a research scientist and climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville; S. Fred Singer, [OH YEAH, THAT GUY AGAIN...]who is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute[SUP][27][/SUP] and was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist and former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and Dr. John Theon, atmospheric scientist and former NASA supervisor. In the first conference, participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] *The BBC reported that the heavily politicized nature of the Heartland conferences led some "moderate" climate skeptics to avoid them.[SUP][16][/SUP]*At the conclusion of the 2012 7th International Conference, held at the Chicago Hilton, Heartland president Joseph Bast announced that the organization was discontinuing the conferences.[SUP][29][/SUP]

AND MORE AGAIN...

*Smoking[edit]*

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][38][/SUP] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[SUP][39][/SUP]

[/SUP][/SUP]
GOOD STUFF, THAT.
and some more...

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[SUP][51][/SUP] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[SUP][23][/SUP] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[SUP][51][/SUP]
The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[SUP][36][/SUP] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline,Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[SUP][47][/SUP] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[SUP][54][/SUP] _The Independent_ reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[SUP][13][/SUP]
As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the_Louisville Courier-Journal_ defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the_Courier-Journal_ stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[SUP][55][/SUP] The _St. Petersburg Times_ described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[SUP][55][/SUP] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[SUP][55][/SUP]
In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak (see below) and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. *The shortfall led to the Illinois coal lobby sponsoring the institute's May 2012 climate conference &#8211; the "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry".[SUP][34][/SUP] Following the leak they also lost "a couple of directors and almost its entire branch in Washington, DC."[SUP][56][/SUP]*



So that's The Heartland Institute.  

These are the people that Billc likes to rely on for his facts and information about Climate Change.  So far I don't see any credible sources of information.  All these people are shown to have an agenda set on disproving climate change (as opposed to genuine scientific research on the topic), as well as dubious financial connections to the Fossil Fuel Industry and other 'interesting' industries like Big Tobacco and taking money from Walmart in exchange for taking a defensive posture on how Walmart treats its employees.

It's an interesting piece, people might want to go to Wikipedia and read the whole thing.

Zero credibility.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> as compared to the huge money to be gained by the fossil fuels industry because there is still oil and coal to be gotten and profited from.  They have a huge financial interest in convincing everyone that there's nothing to worry about, so they can continue to profit thru pollution.  yeah, it's energy and we do need energy, but it is disastrously pollutive.  Their financial interest is vastly the larger.



Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad.   Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad.   Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.




oh puh-leeeze.

hide your head in the sand.  You've said over and over here in the forums that that is what you'll do.  So do it.  It's clear that you either lack the capacity, or have decided to simply refuse to understand even in the most simple way, what climate change is all about.  you are utterly unsurprising.


----------



## K-man

Flying Crane said:


> written by James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute???  Now THAT'S FUNNY STUFFF!!!!  HAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> bill, you have zero credibility.  zero.


Not to mention that the article was written nearly three years ago and they were old emails then.
:s40:


----------



## Tgace

Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad.   Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.


I have no team. I do have a bush property here that my son wants to build on but with increasing fire danger in the area we may not be able to do so. In Victoria, we now have a huge desalination plant in place for the time when we don't have enough rainfall in an area that has always had plentiful rainfall. Our average temperatures have been increasing for the past 50 years and almost every year breaks new records. The seasons no longer make sense with earlier spring and longer summer. And the rainfall ... last month 50% down on the average.

I don't have any doubt that the climate is changing. We can't give up on fossil fuel in the short term so don't stress yourself over going for a spin in the Bronco, but perhaps an acknowledgement of what is happening in the world around you mightn't be a bad start, if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> oh puh-leeeze.
> 
> hide your head in the sand.  You've said over and over here in the forums that that is what you'll do.  So do it.  It's clear that you either lack the capacity, or have decided to simply refuse to understand even in the most simple way, what climate change is all about.  you are utterly unsurprising.


Had a nice drive it was a nice night.  Burned a few gals of that deadly fossil fuel.  Lol. You keep on keeping on my heads not in the sand  I don't believe either side they are both out for their own interest.  So I'll take the common sense approach.  We are exiting from the last ice age.  So if we are leaving an ice age it's only natural that the ice will melt.  Shocker I know.  However a 100 years of smoke stacks won't change that.  
But of it makes you feel better to question my ability to understand things that's fine.  I also have no desire to surprise you.  Again when you give up all use of fossil fuel then you can lecture me.  Until then keep spitting in the wind


----------



## Flying Crane

Tgace said:


> Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



oh now THAT is funny!


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> I have no team. I do have a bush property here that my son wants to build on but with increasing fire danger in the area we may not be able to do so. In Victoria, we now have a huge desalination plant in place for the time when we don't have enough rainfall in an area that has always had plentiful rainfall. Our average temperatures have been increasing for the past 50 years and almost every year breaks new records. The seasons no longer make sense with earlier spring and longer summer. And the rainfall ... last month 50% down on the average.
> 
> I don't have any doubt that the climate is changing. We can't give up on fossil fuel in the short term so don't stress yourself over going for a spin in the Bronco, but perhaps an acknowledgement of what is happening in the world around you mightn't be a bad start, if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.
> :asian:


So were coming out of an ice age and temps are on a slight rise over the last few hundred years.  Go figure


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Had a nice drive it was a nice night.  Burned a few gals of that deadly fossil fuel.  Lol. You keep on keeping on my heads not in the sand  I don't believe either side they are both out for their own interest.  So I'll take the common sense approach.  We are exiting from the last ice age.  So if we are leaving an ice age it's only natural that the ice will melt.  Shocker I know.  However a 100 years of smoke stacks won't change that.
> But of it makes you feel better to question my ability to understand things that's fine.  I also have no desire to surprise you.  Again when you give up all use of fossil fuel then you can lecture me.  Until then keep spitting in the wind



the record speaks for itself.


----------



## ballen0351

View attachment $areligionofglobalwarming.gifhttp://www.globalosophy.com/images/areligionofglobalwarming.gif


Tgace said:


> Nothing gets a true believer more irritated than not believing in their religion....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> the record speaks for itself.



You give up using that evil fossil fuel yet?


----------



## billc

From their own emails, they falsified data, they destroyed their data, they tried to keep other scientists from examining and testing their theories and tried to get people fired for allowing them to publish papers that didn't agree with them...and these are the people we are supposed to trust about global warming...:lfao:

When you are a scientist and you believe in your work...you don't do any of the things listed above...



> if you can leave behind Bill's BS sources.



You mean the very scientists whose own e-mails show they lied about their data...those sources...

Of course the scandal was whitwashed by the same people who cleared the Sandusky scandal at Penn state...

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/...te-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/



> *Money not Morals Motivated Penn. State University Board*
> At the height of the Climategate controversy statistical experts like Steve McIntyre and Edward Wegman demonstrated that Mann&#8217;s mangling of the statistics &#8220;erased&#8221; the Medieval Warm Period, along with other well established temperature variations. [1.]
> McIntyre noted: &#8220;It&#8217;s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate &#8220;investigation&#8221; into Penn State&#8217;s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program.&#8221;
> Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes, &#8220;The Penn State ethics review [of Mann] was &#8220;designed as a whitewash. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong.&#8221; Ebell and other critics argue that, as with football coach Sandusky, Michael E. Mann brought huge financial rewards to the university. The smell of money swayed the senses of Spanier because in his world money and success equated to integrity and prestige. This was tellingly revealed in the reasons he gave why Mann should be exonerated.
> Such critics point to Spanier&#8217;s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann&#8217;s:
> &#8220;level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research&#8230;&#8221;





> *Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. *In particular, evidence reveals a statistical &#8220;trick&#8230;to hide the decline&#8221; in reliability of proxy data in Mann&#8217;s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he&#8217;s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he &#8220;shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.&#8221;
> As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: &#8220;I would like to have him answer the following: (1) Name (all) the other IPCC authors he shared the prize with; (2.) How much of the money coming with the prize did he declare in his tax return for that year?&#8221;


----------



## billc

And another look at the "climategate" scandal...the original release of e-mails by these "scientists."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

And in the beginning there was "Climategate"...



> In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.
> But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."






> In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
> I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
> 
> *Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."
> *
> You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."
> 
> Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."
> 
> *So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
> *
> Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.



Yeah, there is no money in global warming...:lfao:



> For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
> This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not _just _scientific fraud. It is also a _criminal _act. *Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money*-*Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers.* It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.


----------



## Makalakumu

Let's assume global warming is a real problem for a moment.  Why aren't any of these low cost solutions even being considered?  

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-warming-s-cheap--effective-solution



> It is remarkable to consider that we could cancel out this century&#8217;s global warming with 1,900 unmanned ships spraying seawater mist into the air to thicken clouds. The total cost would be about $9 billion, and the benefits of preventing the temperature increase would add up to about $20 trillion. That is the equivalent of doing about $2000 worth of good with every dollar spent.



Why have so many people bought into the idea that we have to destroy our society, kill half the population, and create a tax on life itself (carbon tax) in order to solve this problem?


----------



## billc

Another look at "Climatgate"...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794

And CBS news...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fallout-over-climategate-data-leak-grows/



> Hans von Storch, director of the Director of Institute for Coastal Research who was assailed by Mann in one e-mail message, calls the CRU axis a "cartel" and suggests that Jones and others avoid reviewing papers. A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said Mann and his allies "should be barred" from future United Nations proceedings and warned that "the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas."


----------



## billc

Of "Climategate," and tree rings...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford



> McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology &#8212; that of cherry-picking data &#8212; when he assembled his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have also used in paper after paper.





> It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa&#8217;s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> From their own emails, they falsified data, they destroyed their data, they tried to keep other scientists from examining and testing their theories and tried to get people fired for allowing them to publish papers that didn't agree with them...and these are the people we are supposed to trust about global warming...:lfao:
> 
> When you are a scientist and you believe in your work...you don't do any of the things listed above...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the very scientists whose own e-mails show they lied about their data...those sources...
> 
> Of course the scandal was whitwashed by the same people who cleared the Sandusky scandal at Penn state...
> 
> http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/...te-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/


Well I suppose I should thank you for me spending time researching this issue with regard to Mann. Are you deliberately trying to hide the truth by misrepresenting the published information or are you incapable of reading anything but propaganda?

Mann's original paper covered a period during which they used an approximation that people funded by the oil companies challenged. The data was reanalysed using different criteria and the result was replicated. 



> In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.





> More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.



Your information on the stolen emails was also explained but you obviously read nothing of that. When I tried to open the links that you posted one wouldn't open at all and the other went to some over the top religious site. 



> The most quoted phrase took words from an e-mail of 16 November 1999 written by Phil Jones which referred to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999. Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. "In science, the term "trick" is slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, in this case Michael E. Mann's technique for comparing two different data sets, and "the decline" referred to the already published divergence problem with tree ring density proxies affecting the post 1960 part of Keith Briffa's reconstruction graph. Despite this and the fact that 1999 had just seen record breaking global temperatures, the email was widely misquoted as a "trick" to "hide the decline" as though it referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, an accusation made publicly by the politicians Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe.



So as to the people to trust in relation to global warming we have a small number of people funded big time by the oil companies and hundreds of reputable scientists on the other. What I found very interesting was funds made available, not to prove climate change research was wrong, to discredit reputable independent scientists.



> When a later Wall Street Journal editorial used a graph without error bars in this way, Gerald North described this as "very misleading, in fact downright dishonest". Funding was provided by the American Petroleum Institute for research critical of the graph.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and wrote* "My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review."* Barton's committee spokesman sent a sarcastic response to this and to Democrat Henry A. Waxman's letter asking Barton to withdraw the letters and saying he had "failed to hold a single hearing on the subject of global warming" during eleven years as chairman, and had "vociferously opposed all legislative efforts in the Committee to address global warming .... *These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree."*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy



It is far easier to find misleading articles from skeptics than articles from more reputable sources but if you look hard enough ...



> The critics of the original 'hockey stick graph' might want to spend some time looking at the actual advance of scientific understanding in this area of research -- which is just one piece of the complex mountain of research on human-caused climate change.
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...ht-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/


If anything any doubt I had on man's (no pun intended  ) involvement in global warming has been dispelled. I suppose I should thank you for that too. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> Let's assume global warming is a real problem for a moment.  Why aren't any of these low cost solutions even being considered?
> 
> http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-warming-s-cheap--effective-solution
> 
> 
> Why have so many people bought into the idea that we have to destroy our society, kill half the population, and create a tax on life itself (carbon tax) in order to solve this problem?


Mainly because at the moment this approach is only theory and has not been tested.



> *Advantages*
> The techniques use natural and reusable resources i.e. sea water and wind
> Cloud albedo levels can be monitored via satellite and the sea spraying mechanisms could be adjusted to fit the data.
> Albedo enhancement is considerably cheaper than many other geoengineering techniques.
> It utilizes already existing technologies to send sea water droplets into low level oceanic clouds.
> The location of the albedo enhancement of clouds can be controlled and localized. This could prevent ecological problems.
> Cooling can happen in only the places in which it is required.
> 
> 
> *Disadvantages*
> Most of the information on albedo enhancement on clouds is from models and computer simulations. The actual results from spraying sea water into low level clouds may differ from the predicted effect.
> Currently the two most commonly proposed plans for sea water dispersal are airplanes and turbine powered ships. The use of airplanes will be time consuming, labor intensive, and result in a large amount of carbon emissions. Turbine powered un-manned ships are the most ecologically friendly, but their capacity to fulfill the role is still not known.
> The technique is strongly dependent on wind patterns.
> If CO2 increases beyond the predicted rate then albedo enhancement of clouds may not be strong enough to cool the Earth.[25]
> The effect of aerosols and its impact on albedo enhancement of clouds has not been significantly researched.[26]
> Does not address the problem of ocean acidification caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
> 
> 
> *Further research*
> The amount of water droplets that enter clouds and form additional droplets is not currently known and is affected largely by meteorological factors. Research must be done to assess what percentage of particles will be successful and what the effect of the weather is.
> Charging sea water particles to utilize the Earth's electric field may be beneficial.
> Climatological and meteorological ramifications must be studied as the technique will alter rainfall, temperature, static stability, and ocean currents.
> The effect of aerosols on low level clouds must be better understood. The aerosols may negatively impact efforts to enhance the albedo of clouds.


:asian:


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Another look at "Climatgate"...
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794
> 
> And CBS news...
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fallout-over-climategate-data-leak-grows/


Perhaps you should read up more on your boy. He is not one of your climate skeptics.



> *SPIEGEL*: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?
> 
> 
> *Storch*: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.
> 
> 
> *SPIEGEL*: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?
> 
> 
> *Storch*: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.
> 
> 
> *SPIEGEL*: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?
> 
> 
> *Storch*: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.
> 
> 
> *SPIEGEL*: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
> 
> 
> *Storch*: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html


:asian:


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Of "Climategate," and tree rings...
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford


So, another credible source ... or maybe not?



> Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier. He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit"), somehow the co-winner of the 2007 Best ScienceBlogs award (yeah, you just read that) and prime source for cranks in the field. McIntyre is guilty of the same shenanigans as most deniers: distortion of facts, egregious use of quote mining, statistical trickery, conspiracy theorizing, excessive whining, gross hypocrisy, and general stupidity. He is also a Canadian who hates hockey sticks.
> He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication.
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> Mainly because at the moment this approach is only theory and has not been tested.
> 
> 
> :asian:



That's just a matter of priorities, which is really the point I'm making. Why don't the people in charge of the purse strings focus on researching these feasible low cost solutions to global warming? Why do they instead focus on completely reshaping society, instituting a global carbon tax, and creating an overarching global bureaucracy to manage it all?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...xes-proposed-by-the-united-nations-last-week/


----------



## ballen0351

> So as to the people to trust in relation to global warming we have a small number of people funded big time by the oil companies and hundreds of reputable scientists on the other. What I found very interesting was funds made available, not to prove climate change research was wrong, to discredit reputable independent scientists.


Except these 100s of "reputable" scientists are being paid by someone they are not just doing it to be swell guys.  They have a financial stake in making sure global warming is real and is man made so they can keep getting funded


----------



## billc

A video that explains the " trick"...the trick used to hide the temperature decline, not the math "trick" they lied about...


The discussion of the "trick" comes in at minute 2 on the video...before that he explains why other scientists agreed with something that wasn't true...they trusted a lie...
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/was-manns-hockey-stick-fraudulent/



> That is a easy call for anyone with an IQ over 10.
> 
> 
> Mann plotted a thousand years of proxy data as reliable, and then threw out the post-1960 proxy data &#8211; because they didn&#8217;t show the warming he was out to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proxies showed exactly what thermometers did at the time &#8211; before Hansen altered the thermometer data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As alarmist hero Richard Muller said &#8211; &#8220;we don&#8217;t do that in science&#8221;


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> That's just a matter of priorities, which is really the point I'm making. Why don't the people in charge of the purse strings focus on researching these feasible low cost solutions to global warming? Why do they instead focus on completely reshaping society, instituting a global carbon tax, and creating an overarching global bureaucracy to manage it all?
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...xes-proposed-by-the-united-nations-last-week/


I agree with you. I have difficulty understanding how a carbon tax will do anything but increase costs to those least able to pay. The more wealthy will just complain and cough up, but in the end I don't see how that will reduce polution.

There should be initiatives at all levels. However, in the longer term we do need to eliminate things like coal fired power generation. Another huge problem is the clearing of old growth forests in places like the Amazon basin and Indonesia. In the past mankind has lifted to the occasion and I hope that this will happen again. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Except these 100s of "reputable" scientists are being paid by someone they are not just doing it to be swell guys.  They have a financial stake in making sure global warming is real and is man made so they can keep getting funded


A cynical view considering what the oil companies are paying.


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> Well I suppose I should thank you for me spending time researching this issue with regard to Mann. Are you deliberately trying to hide the truth by misrepresenting the published information or are you incapable of reading anything but propaganda?
> 
> Mann's original paper covered a period during which they used an approximation that people funded by the oil companies challenged. The data was reanalysed using different criteria and the result was replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your information on the stolen emails was also explained but you obviously read nothing of that. When I tried to open the links that you posted one wouldn't open at all and the other went to some over the top religious site.
> 
> 
> 
> So as to the people to trust in relation to global warming we have a small number of people funded big time by the oil companies and hundreds of reputable scientists on the other. What I found very interesting was funds made available, not to prove climate change research was wrong, to discredit reputable independent scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> It is far easier to find misleading articles from skeptics than articles from more reputable sources but if you look hard enough ...
> 
> If anything any doubt I had on man's (no pun intended  ) involvement in global warming has been dispelled. I suppose I should thank you for that too.
> :asian:



It just isn't difficult to cut thru Billc's BS.  A very little bit of searching uncovers the truth about his sources.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> A video that explains the " trick"...the trick used to hide the temperature decline, not the math "trick" they lied about...
> 
> 
> The discussion of the "trick" comes in at minute 2 on the video...before that he explains why other scientists agreed with something that wasn't true...they trusted a lie...
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/was-manns-hockey-stick-fraudulent/


Please! You have to do better than this guy. He doesn't even have the guts to use his real name.



> &#8220;Steven Goddard&#8221; is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year&#8217;s &#8220;sea ice wrap-up&#8221; videos.
> http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/





> Steve Goddard must be feeling shell shocked. Only a few months ago at the winters peak, the Arctic Sea Ice extent (not volume) was almost normal which he touted loudly on his blog, only to see the fastest melt on record to a new low. With the Battle lost he turns his attention to the Antarctic winter and the growing ice there.
> http://reallysciency.blogspot.com.au





> Steven Goddard got again debunked for producing false data. All two of his graphs on his blog site "Real Science" (the name alone is a scam) were tampered. I could get him so far that he changed the first one. He called it "a small error", but it disproved his whole article.
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/last-october-through-march-was-the-snowiest-on-record/
> http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/between-science-and-hard-place.html


Yep! He sure is credible.

Now for your other guy, Richard Muller. How does he stack up?
Mmm! Not much better. You can check out his misinformation here.


> Climate Misinformer: Richard Muller
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm


:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And another look at the "climategate" scandal...the original release of e-mails by these "scientists."
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html




regarding the author of this article, from here http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_Robert_Tracinski

*Who is Robert Tracinski?*


In: Uncategorized    [Edit categories]

Answer:
A right wing, inflexible, completely biased political author who caters to exploiting our more intellectually challenged citizens of this country.



I saw a link to a website called conservatives4palin.com  that says a lot about his credibility.  or lack thereof.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Except these 100s of "reputable" scientists are being paid by someone they are not just doing it to be swell guys.  They have a financial stake in making sure global warming is real and is man made so they can keep getting funded



wow, you really cannot see the difference?  holy smokes.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> A cynical view considering what the oil companies are paying.



Again both sides are paying billions unlike you I think they are both full of crap.  I dont believe either side you just seem to bash oil alone.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> wow, you really cannot see the difference?  holy smokes.



You give up the fossil fuels yet?


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> You give up the fossil fuels yet?



hahahaha.  you are an odd duck, sir.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> hahahaha.  you are an odd duck, sir.



So that's a no yet you want to lecture others


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> So that's a no yet you want to lecture others



HAHAHAHA

when did i tell you to stop driving?  when did i say i would stop driving?  show me.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> HAHAHAHA
> 
> when did i tell you to stop driving?  when did i say i would stop driving?  show me.



You support the folks that do...................


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> You support the folks that do...................



HA!  pathetic simpleton.  show me where i told you to get rid of your car and stop driving.  show me.  oh, that's right, you can't.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> HA!  pathetic simpleton.  show me where i told you to get rid of your car and stop driving.  show me.  oh, that's right, you can't.


The people you support say it so you do by association, only they don't want it to apply to themselves.  They fly around in private jets and demand I drive a Prius.  You call people names for not following you like a sheep how dare I question the "science" because they have never been wrong lol.  Yet you make no changes in your own life and chastise others for saying they disagree.  But typical since I don't agree with you then you must resort to name calling. Get over yourself your just not that important


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> The people you support say it so you do by association, only they don't want it to apply to themselves.  They fly around in private jets and demand I drive a Prius.  You call people names for not following you like a sheep how dare I question the "science" because they have never been wrong lol.  Yet you make no changes in your own life and chastise others for saying they disagree.  But typical since I don't agree with you then you must resort to name calling. Get over yourself your just not that important



once again the record speaks for itself.


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> I agree with you. I have difficulty understanding how a carbon tax will do anything but increase costs to those least able to pay. The more wealthy will just complain and cough up, but in the end I don't see how that will reduce polution.
> 
> There should be initiatives at all levels. However, in the longer term we do need to eliminate things like coal fired power generation. Another huge problem is the clearing of old growth forests in places like the Amazon basin and Indonesia. In the past mankind has lifted to the occasion and I hope that this will happen again.
> :asian:



It's good that we can find some common ground here.  I'll admit, I'm skeptical of climate change claims after Climategate, but I don't entirely rule it out either.  This is why I think exploring these low cost and effective solutions will ultimately be important.  I don't see how an agenda of controlling the global society from the top down will ever be able to address this.

Speaking of controlling the global society from the top down, that's what we're really talking about here.  Humans can easily solve climate change if it's a problem. For example, the US could give up a few months of war fighting and solve this issue for the whole world.  The real issue is the agenda for world government that is being pushed behind climate change.  We don't need an overarching global bureaucracy to manage everyone to solve climate change, but people like Al Gore and the rest of the technoplutocrats would have us believe this.  

This is an issue that I wish that all of the greenies/liberals would wake up to.  There is an agenda being pushed behind climate change that is not meant to solve this issue.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> once again the record speaks for itself.



According to you.  
problem is there is more then one record.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Again both sides are paying billions unlike you I think they are both full of crap.  I dont believe either side you just seem to bash oil alone.


Most of the science is undertaken by university researchers in many cases PhD students. They are not paid billions. Many work off government grants. The guys promoting "there is no global warming" are the same guys who were paid to say there was no health problem associated with passive smoking. 

I haven't bashed oil. My only reference to reducing greenhouse gasses was in regard to coal fired power generation and clearing of forests. I did say that the oil companies were paying billions to discredit reputable scientists and that is still the case. No one had to pay anything to discredit their lackeys as the rubbish they peddle does that free of charge.

But you are missing the whole point. Until people like you who aren't unintelligent can accept that the world has a problem the situation will just get worse. There is global warming, it is already causing climate change, the changes are already impacting the environment and it is not going to resolve anytime soon. if at all, unless some really bright people can come up with some really smart ideas really soon.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Most of the science is undertaken by university researchers in many cases PhD students. They are not paid billions. Many work off government grants. The guys promoting "there is no global warming" are the same guys who were paid to say there was no health problem associated with passive smoking.
> 
> I haven't bashed oil. My only reference to reducing greenhouse gasses was in regard to coal fired power generation and clearing of forests. I did say that the oil companies were paying billions to discredit reputable scientists and that is still the case. No one had to pay anything to discredit their lackeys as the rubbish they peddle does that free of charge.
> 
> But you are missing the whole point. Until people like you who aren't unintelligent can accept that the world has a problem the situation will just get worse. There is global warming, it is already causing climate change, the changes are already impacting the environment and it is not going to resolve anytime soon. if at all, unless some really bright people can come up with some really smart ideas really soon.
> :asian:


The individual researchers my not be getting billions but the schools are getting paid big money.  Im not missing the point I've never said the climate doesn't change it is always changing that's why we go in and out of ice ages.  Its been that way for millions of years.  I find it amusing that people are going nuts over gradual warming trends when we are in the process of warming up from the last ice age.  To think a few smoke stacks over 50 years has made such a huge change on a process that's millions of years old well we are a little full of ourselves


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> The individual researchers my not be getting billions but the schools are getting paid big money.  Im not missing the point I've never said the climate doesn't change it is always changing that's why we go in and out of ice ages.  Its been that way for millions of years.  I find it amusing that people are going nuts over gradual warming trends when we are in the process of warming up from the last ice age.  To think a few smoke stacks over 50 years has made such a huge change on a process that's millions of years old well we are a little full of ourselves


You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.



> During the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. If global warming emissions continue unabated, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century, inundating coastal areas with salt water, accelerating coastal erosion, threatening vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupting wetlands and natural habitats.
> Excerpts from Our Changing Climate: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center, Draft Report, 2006
> http://www.climatechoices.org/impacts_coasts/


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.



Yep the farther away from the Ice age we get the warmer we are and the faster ice melts so the higher the water rises.  7 inches over 100 years however is hardly alarming


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> You are right in saying that the world cycles in and out of ice ages but in the past it has happened over thousands of years. Now there is rapid change, not gradual, and it is going to have massive consequences. If you think that a few smoke stacks have caused the problem, that is simplistic. If you don't believe millions of smokestacks and billions of cars have had an effect, that is naive.



you've said it much more gently than i would have.

and that link to california coast rising sea levels, from 2006.  what is proving to be true is that predictions from even five years ago are way behind in the actual changes being observed and measured.  like 60 years behind.


----------



## Flying Crane

regarding Climategate, one of Billc's favorite boogeymen, once again from Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The *Climatic Research Unit email controversy* (also known as *"Climategate"*)[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at theClimatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summiton climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.
The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs,[SUP][6][/SUP] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[SUP][7][/SUP] Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] *The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]*
The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December.[SUP][12][/SUP] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[SUP][13][/SUP] *In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that theEarth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[SUP][14][/SUP]*
*Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[SUP][15][/SUP]* However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[SUP][16][/SUP] *Thescientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.*[SUP]*[17]*


and another excerpt...

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[SUP][28][/SUP]According to an analysis in _The Guardian_, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[SUP][21][/SUP]
*Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[SUP][29][/SUP] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[SUP][21][/SUP]* The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[SUP][29][/SUP] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as *one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t".[SUP][20][/SUP] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[SUP][30][/SUP] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP]*
Many commentators quoted *one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[SUP][32][/SUP]* John Tierney, writing in the _New York Times_ in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[SUP][33][/SUP] *The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP]* *The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.*[SUP]*[36]*

lots more there, this is just a taste of reality.  When Billc throws something into the mix, everyone needs to understand that there's a whole lot more to the story that he is not telling.  Billc is either willing to perpetuate the fraud, or is himself a blatant liar.[/SUP]
[/SUP]


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> you've said it much more gently than i would have.


lol internet Rambo don't hold back tough guy


> and that link to california coast rising sea levels, from 2006.  what is proving to be true is that predictions from even five years ago are way behind in the actual changes being observed and measured.  like 60 years behind.


all natural rise and fall warm and cold.  its been going on for millions of years


----------



## ballen0351

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/


> John Coleman, the founder of _The Weather Channel_, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a hoax. It is, but its more than that, its criminal.
> Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:
> Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.
> Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it werent getting warmer.  Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.
> Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not,* since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years.* By the way, does anybody know what the right amount of global heat is?


----------



## James Kovacich

That is true, we also had an ice age. But it scares that so many would discount what the majority of the world is saying. The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

Yes, this video, again, explains the trick used by the climate "scientists" to hide problems in their data, and their emails show them hiding and destroying data, as well as trying to get editors of peer reviewed journals fired if they had the gall to allow different opinions on man made global warming in the journals...the left wing journalists covered for them but the emails actually exist...



> A video that explains the " trick"...the trick used to hide the temperature decline, not the math "trick" they lied about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of the "trick" comes in at minute 2 on the video...before that he explains why other scientists agreed with something that wasn't true...they trusted a lie...
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...ck-fraudulent/
> 
> 
> That is a easy call for anyone with an IQ over 10.
> 
> Mann plotted a thousand years of proxy data as reliable, and then threw out the post-1960 proxy data  because they didnt show the warming he was out to prove.
> The proxies showed exactly what thermometers did at the time  before Hansen altered the thermometer data.
> As alarmist hero Richard Muller said  we dont do that in science


----------



## billc

> That is true, we also had an ice age. But it scares that so many would discount what the majority of the world is saying. The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...


actually, they aren't saying that...they are saying the little people must sacrifice advanced life styles while the "scientists" politicians and their supporters continue their advanced lifestyles...and if you live in Africa, or any other third world country you will be expected to forgo technological advancement in the name of this religious/science movement...


----------



## billc

From Wikipedia...



> proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion



From the video I posted, the scientist shows that the "trick" the climate gate conspirators used was to leave out a large chunk of data that made their findings wrong....that was the trick and the liberal believers in journalism just accepted what they were told about the " trick."

The scientist in the video points out this lie at the 2 minute mark in he video, and he also points out that other scientists fell for this trick because they didn't't bother to check it themselves, they just,accepted what Mann and his buddies told them...and they don't like the skeptics,either which also made it easy for them to ignore the truth...


----------



## ballen0351

James Kovacich said:


> The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


I agree with taking care of the planet but don't feed me a bunch of Bull poo about how were all going to die if I don't drive a Prius and I don't pay a carbon tax on my electric bill and in same breath say well we can't expect other countries to cut back since they have not had their industrial revolution yet.  Don't feed me that nonsense that Al Gore can fly around in his jet because he planted trees.  Don't tell me China and India are exempt because they just don't want to do it but we can just cut back more.  Tell me the truth we can't keep cutting down trees because your kids and grandkids won't be able to go camping,  we need to clean up out water so your kids can still go fishing,  we need to protect the environment so your kids can go hunting or vacation at the beach or by the lake.  Don't make up phony catastrophic man made issues we can't control in the name of new taxes and kick backs to politician's who back "green" energy and get rich off it while they add corn to my gas to drive up the price of both gas and food and kill your engines faster


----------



## billc

The whitewash of climategate explained...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/



> This two-part series addresses the conduct, conclusions and criticisms of four investigations into possible irregularities and misdeeds revealed in publicly exposed communications among prominent climate scientists. Part two, which will follow next week, discusses three of these investigations that took place in the United Kingdom.




the "Trick," explained...



> Dr. Lindzen&#8217;s bewilderment is understandable.  Concerning the Committee&#8217;s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) &#8212; characterizing the &#8220;trick&#8221; to &#8220;hide the decline&#8221; as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology, ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann&#8217;s own research methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed, the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.
> First, there is a widespread misconception that the reference to a decline refers to concealing an observed fall in global temperatures since a peak in 1998, the warmest year for some time. Instead, it really has to do with graphic trickery suggesting that man-made CO2 emissions over the past 40 years have produced a nearly vertical temperature escalation.
> 
> 
> A 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. *Why change in 1961? Well that&#8217;s when tree ring proxy data calculations by CRU&#8217;s Keith Briffa began going the other way in a steady decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. Briffa did, and the decline became even greater.*
> This presented what Mann referred to as a &#8220;conundrum.&#8221; Emails reveal that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as &#8220;diluting the message&#8221;, was a &#8220;problem&#8221;, and posed a &#8220;potential distraction/detraction.&#8221; Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a &#8220;field day&#8221; if Briffa&#8217;s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would &#8220;hate to be the one&#8221; to give them &#8220;fodder.&#8221;* So one aspect of Mike&#8217;s &#8220;trick&#8221; was reportedly to show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, but simply cut off Briffa&#8217;s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.*



Yeah, that is simply a "math trick," :rofl:


and as to deleting information...



> Regarding the second allegation, determining if Mann had directly or indirectly deleted or destroyed emails or other information, the findings were at least very lenient. When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK&#8217;s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied &#8220;I&#8217;ll contact Gene about this ASAP&#8221;.  *And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann&#8217;s message and complied. *Accordingly, it would appear that Mann was at least &#8220;indirectly&#8221; involved in deleting information when he passed along those instructions. *And since there are no records to prove otherwise, everyone is asked to take Mann&#8217;s word that he didn&#8217;t do the same.*


----------



## billc

More on climategate...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...g-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/



> As if the first round of e-mails purloined from the U.K.&#8217;s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) network weren&#8217;t damning enough, the new batch of about 5,000 more obtained through an anonymous source identified as &#8220;FOIA&#8221;are truly stunning. Many clearly confirm that top IPCC scientists consciously misrepresented and actively withheld important information&#8230;then attempted to prevent discovery. Included are CRU&#8217;s Director of Research, Phil Jones, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) climate&#8217;s analysis section head, Kevin Trenberth; and beleaguered Penn State University &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; originator, Michael Mann.
> 
> &#8220;If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today [November 22] make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,&#8221; said Myron Ebell, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute&#8217;s Center on Energy and Environment. &#8220;Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars.&#8221;
> 
> Phil Jones, who served as a lead author for one of the key chapters in IPCC&#8217;s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), leaves no doubt of intentions to keep embarrassing and conspiratorial disclosures under tight wraps:
> 
> I&#8217;ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. *One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get &#8211; and has to be well hidden.* I&#8217;ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
> 
> ​



Yeah, I guess people just "misinterpreted" what he meant with the idea to delete emails...


----------



## billc

> The bottom line, they are telling us to take care of our planet...




they are telling us to shut down coal fired power plants, the ones that actually work like a charm, and to switch to poor quality, unreliable green energy, wind and solar...and if you live in a cold state...Illinois experienced it's coldest winter on record this year...then this could mean power outages in the middle of winter...not exactly just saying "take care of the planet."



> During an interview with Thalia Assuras of _Energy Now News _last week, EPA chief Lisa Jackson was asked about the agency&#8217;s regulatory boom and the resulting mass retirements of coal-fired plants which provide the majority share of all U.S. electricity. *First she correctly denied that the EPA requires shutting down any plants. Of course, she&#8217;s right&#8230;EPA only writes rules so stringent that they are no longer economic to operate.*
> Then Jackson went on to explain:
> No, I can&#8217;t say what a business will decide to do. Some businesses are investing in nuclear, some are looking at natural gas. There are some states that are leading the way on solar and wind&#8230;What EPA&#8217;s role is to do is to level the playing field so that pollution costs are not exported to the population but rather companies have to look at the pollution potential of any fuel or any process or any plant or any utility when they&#8217;re making investment decisions.​So let&#8217;s be really sure we understand. The EPA&#8217;s latest new role is to &#8220;level the playing field&#8221;? And by &#8220;pollution&#8221;, we&#8217;re referring here to CO2&#8230;the basic nutrient all plants (and thereby all animals) depend upon to live?





all based on faulty science...


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Yep the farther away from the Ice age we get the warmer we are and the faster ice melts so the higher the water rises.  7 inches over 100 years however is hardly alarming


Obviously you didn't read past the end of the first sentence. "*If global warming emissions continue unabated, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century."  *

How will that affect things?  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/w...-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0

Countries like Bangladesh will be hardest hit with millions displaced. 

And even then, rising water levels are only a small part of the overall problem. Rising temperatures and changes in rainfall, cyclones etc. are potentially far more damaging. If we lose arable land there will be food shortages also.
:asian:


----------



## billc

Rising temperatures would mean longer growing seasons...more food, more people not dying from freezing temperatures, less use of fossil fuels for heating, that is what the greenies want isn't it,  so the benefits actually outweigh the downside...but you won't here that from the greenies who want to use the earth warming and cooling naturally as an excuse to control the lives of other people...


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/


Try 8:25 to find out more about John Coleman. 
http://climatecrocks.com/tag/john-coleman/ 
If he was your star witness in a court case would you be confident of success? The guy is a fraud!



> Coleman attacks with slides and statistics. But his narrative is distorted, riddled with holes, falsehoods and slivers of data that skew reality. These are the same errors he accuses climate scientists of making.
> 
> 
> John Coleman is 75, a Rancho Bernardo resident whos been the face of weather at KUSI since 1994. He was the first weathercaster on Good Morning America and co-founded The Weather Channel. He calls himself a blue-collar meteorologist. Im not a big damn scientist, he says. His college major was journalism; his meteorology training came from a Penn State University correspondence course. Hes no longer accredited by the American Meteorological Society. Too much politics, he says.
> http://voiceofsandiego.org/2010/05/09/the-kusi-weathermans-cloudy-climate-claims/


_"The point is not to be accurate or to speak the truth - the point is to confuse, to fog the issue."_

If you want to debate the issue great, but at least use reputable scientists to back your claims. By quoting 'experts' like this guy, you lose credibility real fast.
:asian:


----------



## billc

and the whole Bangledesh thing...not so much...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/


> Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution&#8230; nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can&#8217;t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD&#8230; a period which was considerably colder than now.





> *
> Larry, no, reality is a good deal more complex than that. First of all, the accelerated warming that was forecast to produce catastrophic sea level rise flooding Bangladesh and Pacific islands causing hundreds of millions of refugees to flee coastal regions hasn&#8217;t occurred*. This isn&#8217;t to say either that the planet hasn&#8217;t been warming, or that sea levels haven&#8217;t risen.  Of course they have, although these are hardly new developments. I can also make an argument that rising sea levels and warming periods may be somewhat disconnected matters.





> Larry, it would be if it was all really that simple. However much depends upon other influences and the time scales involved. It&#8217;s one thing if warmer temperatures persist for millennia. In that case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting rate will increase, and so will the sea level increase rate. On the other hand, short term warming fluctuations lasting decades or less are a different matter.





> *Again, regarding temperature influences upon sea levels, consider, for example, what happened when the global climate sharply warmed between 1920 and 1940. Data shows that the sea level actually rose during that period, and then accelerated after temperatures cooled.* How can this happen? One important clue is that a warming ocean evaporates more water, and a lot of it rains out in polar regions, transferring that water to the ice caps. This produces a net sea level lowering influence, counteracting the rising influences of glacier melts and ocean thermal expansion.





> The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That&#8217;s some range!
> The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
> The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
> The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft&#8230;then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.
> The good news here, if there really is any, is that each of the successive summary report maximum estimates decreased, all being much smaller than the 600 cm sea level rise trumpeted by former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science activist James Hansen and climate multi-millionaire Gore.
> 
> 
> A draft of the IPCC&#8217;s 5th report that was leaked to the press now projects a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm (16-40 inches) &#8230;about double of what they showed six years ago. What is particularly remarkable about this is that the report shows zero sea rise values before 1880, while the coral data and coastal sediments do.


----------



## billc

global warming would lower sea levels?



> So Fred, what is the answer? If global warming actually lowers the sea level that some are so worried about, and we can help that along by burning more coal and other fossils, should we start doing so right away to save Venice residents and tourists from drowning?
> 
> 
> 
> No Larry. That&#8217;s really not my point here. I only wish to offer a modest appeal for the public and politicians to take note that better, more honest and objective science is needed, to be wary about motives and claims of U.N. climate treaty negotiators, and to understand that draconian regulatory limits upon energy use will not quell rising tides.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Yes, this video, again, explains the trick used by the climate "scientists" to hide problems in their data, and their emails show them hiding and destroying data, as well as trying to get editors of peer reviewed journals fired if they had the gall to allow different opinions on man made global warming in the journals...the left wing journalists covered for them but the emails actually exist...



Obviously you you have difficulty in comprehending. Of the thousand of emails stolen only one was targeted and it was explained to the satisfaction of the scientific community.  'Climategate" was exposed as a scam so stop quoting it as fact. It is BS.



billc said:


> actually, they aren't saying that...they are saying the little people must sacrifice advanced life styles while the "scientists" politicians and their supporters continue their advanced lifestyles...and if you live in Africa, or any other third world country you will be expected to forgo technological advancement in the name of this religious/science movement...


That is a blatant lie. For a start who are '_they_' and where have _they_ stated what you have quoted them as saying?



billc said:


> From Wikipedia...
> 
> From the video I posted, the scientist shows that the "trick" the climate gate conspirators used was to leave out a large chunk of data that made their findings wrong....that was the trick and the liberal believers in journalism just accepted what they were told about the " trick."
> 
> The scientist in the video points out this lie at the 2 minute mark in he video, and he also points out that other scientists fell for this trick because they didn't't bother to check it themselves, they just,accepted what Mann and his buddies told them...and they don't like the skeptics,either which also made it easy for them to ignore the truth...



You actually posted the rebuttal to the 'trick' but didn't understand what you posted. But congratulations, it is the most credible reference you have posted on the topic. 



billc said:


> More on climategate...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...g-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/
> 
> Yeah, I guess people just "misinterpreted" what he meant with the idea to delete emails...



Goodie! Another 'expert' with no credentials and no credibility.

&#8203;





> Larry Bell
> Credentials
> Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston.
> AIAA, ASCE. Registered Architect and urban planner.
> Master of Fine Arts, University of Illinois.
> Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois,
> 
> 
> Background
> Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and space architecture at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). According to his profile at climateofcorruption.com, Bell also co-founded several high-tech companies. Bell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate.
> 
> &#8220;Regarding climate science there is at least one certainty: There is absolutely no reason to believe that Earth is any warmer now than it was during past periods when life flourished&#8212;times when agriculture was abundant, pyramids and cities were built, and world citizens became connected in trade and culture.&#8221;
> http://www.desmogblog.com/larry-bell





billc said:


> Rising temperatures would mean longer growing seasons...more food, more people not dying from freezing temperatures, less use of fossil fuels for heating, that is what the greenies want isn't it,  so the benefits actually outweigh the downside...but you won't here that from the greenies who want to use the earth warming and cooling naturally as an excuse to control the lives of other people...



I just have to run up the flag. Just show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that agrees with you. :bs:



billc said:


> and the whole Bangledesh thing...not so much...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/


Oh great! Another charlatan.


> Who is S Fred Singer?
> 
> S. Fred Singer is one of the few climate deniers with scientific credentials.  Armed with a Ph.D in Physics from Princeton University, Singer worked as a U.S. government scientific administrator during the 1970s and 1980s and as a professor at the University of Virginia from 1971-1994.
> 
> 
> However, he has long since sold his scientific reputation and credentials to both the tabacco and oil industries.  Here are some of his most notable activities:
> 
> ....
> 
> 2012 - Speaks at the Heartland Institutes's annual International Conference on Climate Change. This conference denies human induced global warming exists. Between 1998 and 2010, the co-sponsors of this conference received more than $21 million in funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers. Internal Heartland Institute documents show they pay Singer $5,000 per month for his cimate denial work.
> 
> http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_s_fred_singer


:s40:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> If you want to debate the issue great, but at least use reputable scientists to back your claims. By quoting 'experts' like this guy, you lose credibility real fast.
> :asian:


By reputable you mean only ones that agree with your position.

By the way John Coleman didn't write that article the author just said people like Coleman claim man made warming is wrong.


----------



## ballen0351

The funny part of all this is when it was first reported few decades ago it was "global WARMING". Then when it was shown were in a cooling trend for 5 or 6 years straight it was oh wait ummmm we met "Climate Change" global warming is causing the cooling.  You guys crack me up.


----------



## ballen0351

By the way Kman your using www.exposethebastards as your creditable website for info?  I'm sure they have no bias there lol


----------



## billc

> Then when it was shown were in a cooling trend for 5 or 6 years straight



Now it is what, 17 years of no warming...


----------



## billc

> That is a blatant lie. For a start who are '_they_' and where have _they_ stated what you have quoted them as saying?



Listen to the liberals talk about the third world sometime and what they think about "letting" them develop...

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/0...-countries-denounce-world-bank-res-51099.html



> Rogério Studart, the World Bank executive director for Brazil, seven other Latin American and Caribbean countries and the Philippines, called the agency's plan to prevent middle-income countries from accessing loans to build new coal plants, but still grant them to the poorest nations, a dangerous precedent.
> "It's like you have a club and you say we're not going to have people smoking inside anymore -- except for the poorest people," Studart said. But, he cautioned, that's not to say he thinks loans for coal should be eliminated altogether. Far from it. *Banning coal, he said, would only hurt the poorest countries that currently can't afford cleaner or renewable alternatives.*
> "I'm personally concerned about coal, because I'm concerned about the future of my children," Studart said. *But, he argued, "some countries cannot provide energy access, particularly in Africa, without coal, and the bank knows that. *It would be bizarre to say we're not going to do coal."



And do you really think  they will ever let even the poorest countries have money to develop coal and natural gas...you don't know the greenies that well...



> More than a year in the making, the energy strategy has become the stage where governments and environmentalists play out the same intractable fights they wage at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change -- namely, how much of the burden of fighting rising carbon emissions should developing nations bear?
> *An 'awkward' conversation over sustainability*
> Environmental groups are pressing the World Bank to eliminate coal from its energy plans altogether. Many have described the proposed energy strategy as a good first step but still inadequate.* Developing countries, meanwhile, are fighting back hard -- arguing that wealthy, coal-gobbling Western nations should not try to address global warming on the backs of their citizens, many of whom are still forced to cook using dung for fuel and to wash clothes by candlelight.*
> At the Committee on Development Effectiveness yesterday, sources said China and others called the strategy discriminatory and accused Western nations of co-opting the bank on coal.



And then there is this...the greenies in the U.N. like to keep poor countries poor...for their green agenda...

http://www.newsmax.com/MarcMorano/UN-Climate-Fund-African/2011/12/12/id/420654/



> Louw said the entire premise for the U.N.'s climate fund is an admission that their goal is to keep poor nations poor.
> 
> The U.N. is admitting &#8212; this is implicit in the fund &#8212; that combating climate change is very costly, especially for poor people. It's devastating for poor countries.* What the U.N. is saying is: 'We want you to indulge our opinion of climate change and if you do so it's going to cause a great deal of poverty and unemployment in poor countries.' You cannot, as a poor country, subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol and grow. The two are mutually exclusive,&#8221; Louw explained *
> 
> &#8220;The U.N. is saying to poor countries: 'Those of you who adopt more anti-prosperity, anti-jobs, and anti-growth policies, under the pretense of environmentalism, we will enrich you. It doesn't matter &#8212; as long as you cause poverty &#8212; we will enrich you.'&#8221;
> 
> Louw asserts that the developing world does not need the wealthy Western world to achieve riches.





> Louw says that if left alone, the developing world can gain wealth and freedom.
> 
> &#8220;They can actually overtake the rich countries like Hong Kong did. They become richer than the rich countries. China and India are headed that way. So now what the rich countries do is a kind of eco-imperialism. The rich nations say to the poor nations: 'Now you have to stop growth, you have got to stay poor. If you &#8212; the government &#8212; manage to keep your country poor, undeveloped and backward, we will then compensate you.'
> 
> "It is not a compensation for what the rich countries have done, it's a compensation for the ability of the governments of the poor countries to stop them from becoming rich,&#8221; Louw concluded.



Green or nothing...and they prefer that poor countries have nothing...I don't want to derail the thread...but how about the rich greenies fighting against "Golden Rice" for poor countries...they don't want that either...


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> By reputable you mean only ones that agree with your position.
> 
> By the way John Coleman didn't write that article the author just said people like Coleman claim man made warming is wrong.


Not at all.  I am more than happy to look at all the information and I would love to change my position. Just don't quote discredited sources. The gold standard in science is a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal.

(and for the record ... Global Warming/Climate Change ... same/same)
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> (and for the record ... Global Warming/Climate Change ... same/same)
> :asian:


It is now that temps are dropping lol


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> By the way Kman your using www.exposethebastards as your creditable website for info?  I'm sure they have no bias there lol





> As expected, Dr. Fred Singers recent talk at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA was very well-attended by climate scientists.Also as expected, he made a case that modern climate change is due to natural causes, and not mans activities. He did not deny the climate is changing, and he even conceded that both anthropogenic and natural forces probably play a role, but he argued that natural causes are far more important.
> 
> 
> Unexpectedly (at least by me), his presentation was unbelievably shoddy. While he deftly wielded lofty terms and discussed complicated situations with the fluency of one who has spent a lifetime in the realm of physics, close computation, and complexity, this was very obviously a front. The facade was toppled by the simplest of questions, such as what acronyms stand for, where the data were taken, and why he chose to omit other data. He could answer none of these questions.
> http://350orbust.com/2011/03/02/fred-singer-is-a-fraud/



Sorry, can't cut and paste off this site.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/t/story?id=4506059&ref=https://www.google.com.au/



> It's worth noting that the BEST team has been careful enough to provide a comparison with other datasets analising only stations not used by other groups (fig. 1 here). Singer's attempt to cast doubt on BEST results based on the common use of the GHCN has then no merit.
> 
> 
> Singer then continues his attempt to undermine station based datasets by claiming that
> 
> 
> "unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean  according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons."
> What is the atmosphere for Prof. Singer, the whole atmosphere or just the troposphere, is not clear. Assuming he's referring to the latter, all of the lower tropospheric satellite datasets show warming. For example, we can easily check UAH and RSS datasets just plotting the data.
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/fred-singer-denies-global-warming.html





> 1.Heartland's publication, Environment and Climate News, is rife with "science" stories that are demonstrably untruthful or misleading.
> 2.Heartland has spent lavishly on conferences whose only apparent function was to sow confusion about climate science. It also has paid government employees and politicians to attend these events.
> 
> 
> 3. Heartland has sponsored Fred Singer and Craig Idso to produce the so-called Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change s a regular and organized attack on the legitimate reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This too was corroborated in the Heartland budget documents, which show that both Idso and Singer on on retainer at Heartland.
> 
> 
> 4. While insisting in its tax filings that it is a think tank, Heartland constantly advertises among potential donors its ability to reach and influence US legislators in apparent violation of lobbying rules.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/60...profit-fraud-fraudulent-climate-change-denier





> Dr. Fred Singer, the expert whom Representative Doolittle referred to, has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having "published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971. A search for his relevant publications in the atmospheric sciences reveals two peer-reviewed pieces since 1971: a 2-page "Technical Comment" criticizing a study showing increased UV-B light at the surface in response to ozone depletion (Michaels et. al., 1994), and one piece of original research, a 1988 paper on "nuclear winter" (Singer, 1988). A search of the Science Citation Index, the comprehensive scientific journal database that indexes virtually every citation a journal article gets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, reveals that this paper, which Dr. Singer calls a "key research publication", has been cited exactly zero times, as of 2004 (for comparison, Dr. Steven Schneider's 1988 publication in Nature on the same topic, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war", has gotten 16 citations). Furthermore, the think tank Dr. Singer founded and currently runs, The Science and Environmental Policy Project, has received substantial industry funding, including contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil, calling into question the objectivity of his testimony (Gelbspan, 1998).
> http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp



Not my sort of guy ... really.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> It is now that temps are dropping lol


Not true.



> (Reuters) - Global warming poses a growing threat to the health, economic prospects, and food and water sources of billions of people, top scientists said in a report that urges swift action to counter the effects of carbon emissions.
> 
> 
> The latest report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the effects of warming are being felt everywhere, fuelling potential food shortages, natural disasters and raising the risk of wars.
> 
> 
> "The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate," the IPCC said on Monday, after the final text of the report was agreed.
> 
> 
> More warming increased the chance of harsh, widespread impacts that could be surprising or irreversible, it added.
> 
> 
> The report projects global warming may cut world economic output by between 0.2 and 2.0 percent a year should mean temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), estimates that many countries say are too low.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/31/us-climate-ipcc-idUSBREA2U00E20140331


But I suppose if one climate skeptic paid by the oil companies denies the work of hundreds of reputable scientists he should be believed. 
:hmm:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> But I suppose if one climate skeptic paid by the oil companies denies the work of hundreds of reputable scientists he should be believed.
> :hmm:



Its not just one its hundreds.  if it was just one there wouldn't be dozens of websites like the ones you posted getthebastards.com.  if it was one or two guys nobody would know about it.  there is a large # of people out there that don't believe in msn made were all going to die nonsense.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Not my sort of guy ... really.
> :asian:


Of course not he disagrees with you


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Its not just one its hundreds.  if it was just one there wouldn't be dozens of websites like the ones you posted getthebastards.com.  if it was one or two guys nobody would know about it.  there is a large # of people out there that don't believe in msn made were all going to die nonsense.



These guys claimed they had 3200 scientists agreeing with them. That was a lie. In actual fact there are only a handful. I read somewhere that the Nigerian scam which fools less than 1% of people is far more successful at convincing people to part with their money than these skeptics are at converting real scientists to their cause.



ballen0351 said:


> Of course not he disagrees with you


Oh poleeese!


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> These guys claimed they had 3200 scientists agreeing with them. That was a lie. In actual fact there are only a handful. I read somewhere that the Nigerian scam which fools less than 1% of people is far more successful at convincing people to part with their money than these skeptics are at converting real scientists to their cause.
> 
> Oh poleeese!



Like I said if its just a handful why so much hate?  If its just a handful why name calling?  If its just a handful why is the pro-green crowed so frightened?  
if its only a handful then there is no need for all these websites devoted only to discrediting the messenger and not the message


----------



## ballen0351

> Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.








> According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age.






> It is true that the extent of sea ice at the North Pole is slightly below the 30-year average. However, an event near Antarctica reminded us that sea ice there is near an all-time high. In late December, a ship of global-warming researchers became stuck in Antarctic sea ice



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2xpRLVblq 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## billc

Keeping in mind that in the Climategate emails they specifically discussed getting papers skeptical of man made global warming kept out of peer reviewed journals and getting editors who allowed them in fired from their jobs...

If the science is so sound, and the skeptics so wrong, then there would be no need to deny information and data sets to skeptics, and no reason to destroy data or to ban skeptic papers from journals...but yet, that is what they do...


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Its not just one its hundreds.  if it was just one there wouldn't be dozens of websites like the ones you posted getthebastards.com.  if it was one or two guys nobody would know about it.  there is a large # of people out there that don't believe in msn made were all going to die nonsense.


According to this article in the NY Times, at least 3,500 people are dues paying members of the Flat Earth Society. And this was in the mid-90s, at the very earliest stages of the World Wide Web, before social media, blogs and Google.  But can't we all agree that the Earth is not flat, even though few of us have seen it from space?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/us/charles-johnson-76-proponent-of-flat-earth.html

There is literally nothing imaginable that you can't make a few thousand people in the world believe.  In the scheme of things, a few hundred is functionally nil.  It is the opposite of "large # of people."  The scope of the conversation matters.


----------



## billc

Yet there isn't the effort to destroy the flat earthers that there is for man made global warming skeptics...

Here is a source for peer reviewed papers skeptical of man made global warming...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

and here...

[url]http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
[/URL]


----------



## billc

And there is this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/




> Don&#8217;t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists  concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists  and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,  according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed _Organization Studies_.  By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that  nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future  global warming will not be a very serious problem.
> 
> 
> The survey results show geoscientists (also known as  earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.  Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...l-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/



> Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute&#8217;s annual  International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect  throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of  scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the  non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict  what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these  organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position  statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS  survey results are very powerful.
> 
> In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS  meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or  Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies  carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement  recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and  frequently cited as the &#8220;definitive&#8221; indication of scientific consensus  on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23  persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate  science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist  groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the  Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf  of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly  the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the  AMS meteorologist survey.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> According to this article in the NY Times, at least 3,500 people are dues paying members of the Flat Earth Society. And this was in the mid-90s, at the very earliest stages of the World Wide Web, before social media, blogs and Google.  But can't we all agree that the Earth is not flat, even though few of us have seen it from space?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/us/charles-johnson-76-proponent-of-flat-earth.html
> 
> There is literally nothing imaginable that you can't make a few thousand people in the world believe.  In the scheme of things, a few hundred is functionally nil.  It is the opposite of "large # of people."  The scope of the conversation matters.


Ok so are these fact true or not?


> _ The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States. _


_

or
_


> _According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age. _


_
or

_


> _It is true that the extent of sea ice at the North Pole is slightly below the 30-year average. However, an event near Antarctica reminded us that sea ice there is near an all-time high. In late December, a ship of global-warming researchers became stuck in Antarctic sea ice _


_

So if this is true then there is enough doubt for me to not want to fundamentally change the way we do things.

_


----------



## Steve

billc said:


> Yet there isn't the effort to destroy the flat earthers that there is for man made global warming skeptics...
> 
> Here is a source for peer reviewed papers skeptical of man made global warming...
> 
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


I don't have a real stake in this debate, but I would suspect that the flat earthers are considered innocuous kooks.  If you believe that climate change is influenced by us, and leading to some kind of global crisis, it stands to reason that people arguing otherwise, whom you believe to be schills or kooks (or both) would hasten the demise.

Personally, I don't understand the stakes in play.  For me, oil is just expensive.  When I hear ballen talk about driving an 8mpg truck, I think, "Great if you can afford it."  But at that point, it's like seeing a homeless person smoking.  The people who tend to drive the crappy, low mileage cars are the people least able to afford the rising costs of gasoline.  

I don't understand why it's so important for one side to discredit the other side.  As I said before, we have all already made up our minds.  If you're on the ballen/billc team, you're there because you ALREADY agree with the platform.  You're in the club.  There is nothing that anyone can say or do to change your mind, and when the other team makes a point, you just can't wait to google it, or search for that talking point on one of the 10 or so "go to," right wing, opinion sites, where they will give you plenty of ammunition to rebut, or at least cast a shadow of doubt, on the subject.  

And the same goes for everyone else.  Liberal, conservative, liberatarian, it's all a lens through which you view your topic, and few people are self aware enough to hear a point objectively and consider the merits of a position not endorsed by their respective teams.   This thread is not a conversation.  No one is listening to anyone else.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I don't have a real stake in this debate, but I would suspect that the flat earthers are considered innocuous kooks.  If you believe that climate change is influenced by us, and leading to some kind of global crisis, it stands to reason that people arguing otherwise, whom you believe to be schills or kooks (or both) would hasten the demise.
> 
> Personally, I don't understand the stakes in play.  For me, oil is just expensive.  When I hear ballen talk about driving an 8mpg truck, I think, "Great if you can afford it."  But at that point, it's like seeing a homeless person smoking.  The people who tend to drive the crappy, low mileage cars are the people least able to afford the rising costs of gasoline.
> 
> I don't understand why it's so important for one side to discredit the other side.  As I said before, we have all already made up our minds.  If you're on the ballen/billc team, you're there because you ALREADY agree with the platform.  You're in the club.  There is nothing that anyone can say or do to change your mind, and when the other team makes a point, you just can't wait to google it, or search for that talking point on one of the 10 or so "go to," right wing, opinion sites, where they will give you plenty of ammunition to rebut, or at least cast a shadow of doubt, on the subject.
> 
> And the same goes for everyone else.  Liberal, conservative, liberatarian, it's all a lens through which you view your topic, and few people are self aware enough to hear a point objectively and consider the merits of a position not endorsed by their respective teams.   This thread is not a conversation.  No one is listening to anyone else.


So your point about flat earth society fits where in this story you posted?  What "team" are you on


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So your point about flat earth society fits where in this story you posted?


It fits into the part where you are saying that "hundreds" equals "large # of people."  I was pointing out that, in the context of a world wide topic like climate change, it means the opposite.  





> What "team" are you on


I'm on the team that doesn't understand what your goals are in this debate.  What are you trying to do?  Do you hope to sway anyone's opinion?  Are you looking for someone to say, "I was wrong?"  What's your angle?  

I'm also on the team that prefers to look at the larger issue of "green" from a "money in my pocket" perspective.  Keeps it simple for me.  There are some "green" initiatives and products that are way cheaper.  Others don't make sense.  Keeps it more practical, and less dogmatic.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/



> How credible are the NIPCC reports?  Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.
> 
> We know the authors of the IPCC&#8217;s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate. The publisher, The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.)


----------



## elder999

Tgace said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/



And that's an _editorial_, from one of the founders of the aforementioned Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast:



> Bast was born on January 22, 1958 in the small paper mill town of Kimberly, Wisconsin. His father was a dairy worker and his mother was a stay-at-home mom. He attended a Catholic elementary school and joined the debate team at his high school and won the state debate championship two years in a row.[SUP][3][/SUP]* He attended the University of Chicago** for eight years but did not complete his degree*





Bring us an opposing viewpoint from a climatologist,someone, please?

Or an oceanographer?

Or a geographer?

_Anyone?_


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It fits into the part where you are saying that "hundreds" equals "large # of people."  I was pointing out that, in the context of a world wide topic like climate change, it means the opposite.


I not talking about hundrends of people in general there are hundreds of millions of people that don't believe.  I'm speaking in terms of hundreds if not 1000s of scientists in the field.  Two totally different things.


> I'm on the team that doesn't understand what your goals are in this debate.  What are you trying to do?  Do you hope to sway anyone's opinion?  Are you looking for someone to say, "I was wrong?"  What's your angle?


I dont  have an angle.  This is a discussion forum to express ideas and thoughts.  Thats kinda what we do here.  You dont need an angle to have a discussion.


> I'm also on the team that prefers to look at the larger issue of "green" from a "money in my pocket" perspective.  Keeps it simple for me.  There are some "green" initiatives and products that are way cheaper.  Others don't make sense.  Keeps it more practical, and less dogmatic.


i have no problem with that.  My problem is with the green gods telling me i need to pay more to fund carbon credits or pay per mile I drive to offset the green energy costs.  My problem people like Al Gore telling me to drive a hybrid as he flys in his private jet.  Like i said before im all for cleaning up the world for real reasons that we control.  Not for reason we dont have control over and never will.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> And that's an _editorial_, from one of the founders of the aforementioned Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bring us an opposing viewpoint from a climatologist,someone, please?
> 
> Or an oceanographer?
> 
> Or a geographer?
> 
> _Anyone?_


So again we attack the messenger not the message.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> So again we attack the messenger not the message.



No, we say to consider the source: it's sort of like saying, "_Hey, this guy's a* bricklayer*, and a damn good one, but how can he possibly know anything about neurosurgery? Bring me the opinion of a neurosurgeon."
_
I'll qualify that by saying that there are any number of autodidacts and self-made experts out there who have knowledge and ability that rivals degreed people in their chosen field of study, and sometimes even surpasses it. I see nothing, though, in Joseph Bast's biography to indicate that he is such a person.

Lastly, I have to say that what I did was state some facts-there was no "attack," and that when facts become "attacks," I'd say it's proof of some sort of  bias, and real proof of closed-mindedness.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> No, we say to consider the source: it's sort of like saying, "_Hey, this guy's a* bricklayer*, and a damn good one, but how can he possibly know anything about neurosurgery? Bring me the opinion of a neurosurgeon."
> _
> I'll qualify that by saying that there are any number of autodidacts and self-made experts out there who have knowledge and ability that rivals degreed people in their chosen field of study, and sometimes even surpasses it. I see nothing, though, in Joseph Bast's biography to indicate that he is such a person, though.
> 
> Lastly, I have to say that what I did was state some facts-there was no "attack," and that when facts become "attacks," I'd say it's proof of some sort of  bias, and real proof of closed-mindedness.


Its a figure of speech however
Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did.  Who care that he didn't get a degree.  What in the content of the article was wrong or false?  You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.


----------



## billc

like this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer




> [h=3]1962: National Weather Center and University of Miami[/h] In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first  director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather  Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[SUP][20][/SUP] He stayed there until 1964. He told _Time_  magazine in 1969 that he enjoyed moving around. "Each move gave me a  completely new perspective," he said. "If I had sat still, I'd probably  still be measuring cosmic rays, the subject of my thesis at Princeton. That's what happens to most scientists."[SUP][37][/SUP] When he stepped down as director he received a Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.[SUP][39][/SUP]
> In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and  Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami in 1964, the first school  of its kind in the country, dedicated to space-age research.[SUP][40][/SUP] In December 1965, _The New York Times_  reported on a conference Singer hosted in Miami Beach during which five  groups of scientists, working independently, presented research  identifying what they believed was the remains of a primordial flash  that occurred when the universe was born.[4


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Its a figure of speech however
> Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did.  Who care that he didn't get a degree.  What in the content of the article was wrong or false?  You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.



Oh, and I suppose that if a kindergartner produced an essay titled, "Global Warming is Poo," and you linked a post to it here,  and I said, "_Hey, waitaminnit! This guy's in kindergarten!!_"  that'd be an "attack" as well? :lfao:


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Oh, and I suppose that if a kindergartner produced an essay titled, "Global Warming is Poo," and you linked a post to it here,  and I said, "_Hey, waitaminnit! This guy's in kindergarten!!_"  that'd be an "attack" as well? :lfao:


Nope it was  figure of speech keep avoiding the topic its OK


----------



## billc

And here is a list...including climatologists...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs



> [FONT=times new roman,times]*USA**:  Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American  Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who  gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan  in July, 1979: *&#8220;Al Gore brought me back to the battle and  prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And  because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been  spreading about climate change I have decided that &#8216;real&#8217; climatologists  should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.&#8221;   [/FONT]


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> like this guy...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer



Minority opinions are important-Fred Singer's is, at least, a qualified one: he represents a small minority of scientists of the type I spoke of who offer a different opinion. Add to his qualifications that he's now 90 years old, and that he supports a number of questionable theories, like the idea that Mars' moon Phobos is a hollow artificial satellite created by an ancient Martian civilization.....which could be true.

I'd also agree with him that some of  the initial effects of global warming will be beneficial-they already have. This season, I expect I'll get two crops of corn, and two of melons, whereas just 15 years ago, the most I could hope for was one....snow today, a little, but no biggie-those crops won't go into the ground until May 12 or so, but winter starts later each year....that beneficial nature will change, however, if the projected models are correct.....and, if they are correct, it's easy enough to see people going to war over water-even without global warming, increasing human consumption will eventually lead to significant water conflict, if it hasn't already...


----------



## ballen0351

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition to the United States government urging politicians to reject any policies based on concerns over global warming, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]

According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I dont  have an angle.  This is a discussion forum to express ideas and thoughts.  Thats kinda what we do here.  You dont need an angle to have a discussion.


Here's the crux of it, I think.  I would say that a discussion would be terrific.  I don't think that's what you guys are doing.  As I said before, I don't think this thread, or many other threads, meet even the most basic criteria for a discussion.  

It COULD be a discussion, but that would require you and others to take a few moments to consider the thread from a different perspective.  

I think you've given me an idea for a thread to start.  





> i have no problem with that.  My problem is with the green gods telling me i need to pay more to fund carbon credits or pay per mile I drive to offset the green energy costs.  My problem people like Al Gore telling me to drive a hybrid as he flys in his private jet.  Like i said before im all for cleaning up the world for real reasons that we control.  Not for reason we dont have control over and never will.


I think that you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this topic.  Although, I'm more inclined to give people who have to fly a pass on their consumption of JP-8, at least until someone invents a viable, electric jet.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Here's the crux of it, I think.  I would say that a discussion would be terrific.  I don't think that's what you guys are doing.  As I said before, I don't think this thread, or many other threads, meet even the most basic criteria for a discussion.


So start discussing.  I've look at their side it just doesn't make rational sense to me.  Natural cyclical rise and fall of temps like has been going on for millions of years


> It COULD be a discussion, but that would require you and others to take a few moments to consider the thread from a different perspective.
> 
> I think you've given me an idea for a thread to start.  I think that you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this topic. Although, I'm more inclined to give people who have to fly a pass on their consumption of JP-8, at least until someone invents a viable, electric jet.



I got no prob with his jet just dont tell me to cut back if you wont.  Fly conmercial or something.


----------



## K-man

If we go back a few steps ... I posed a number of questions.



K-man said:


> I feel there are four questions.
> 
> 1. Is there global warming?
> 2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
> 3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
> 4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?
> 
> The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.
> 
> *The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information. *



Immediately two people took off in the wrong direction. There are climate change deniers who say that temperature change is not happening. Those people should all be card carrying members of the Flat Earth Society and you'll probably find them at the annual convention of 'Fairies from the bottom of the Garden'. 



ballen0351 said:


> So again we attack the messenger not the message.



The message is clear. Singer and his mates are spruiking that Global Warming is not real. The question is ... is mankind a major cause of the warming? (See question 2 above) That is what we could be discussing instead of this radical right BS of total denial. The oil companies and others don't want that research carried out as it is most likely to show that the burning of fossil fuels is the major cause of the increasing global temperature.



ballen0351 said:


> Its a figure of speech however
> Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did.  Who care that he didn't get a degree.  What in the content of the article was wrong or false?  You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.



So now we come to the interesting bit that *Elder* touched on above.  What you are saying is that any BS written by anyone is a valid 'fact' even if it is written by someone with no knowledge and no credibility.  When we point out the author has no credibility we are attacking the messenger. Perhaps if the messenger was genuine he would give his report to his peers and if they concurred with his paper it might be published to the scientific community in a reputable journal. That way it wouldn't matter if he was the drover's dog. His paper would be validated, not necessarily proof, but at least a paper worthy of consideration.

So why don't these 'scientists' do that? The answer is they are ignoring facts and producing their opinion that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.



billc said:


> like this guy...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer


Exactly. A guy who in his life was a reputable scientist publishing peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals until 1971. What happened? He sold out to the tobacco companies and started producing misleading information about the harm caused by tobacco products. If he had his colleagues review his papers, and they stood up to scrutiny, he wouldn't be the discredited scientist he is now. Of cause he went on to bigger and better things by accepting funding from the oil companies. But what of his research? It is true that since 1971 he produced two peer reviewed papers, neither of which had anything to do with global warming.



billc said:


> And here is a list...including climatologists...
> 
> http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs



Ah, beautiful! The list! 

Did you even bother checking what the list contained? Most of these scientists are credible guys with peer reviewed papers, the exceptions being guys like singer that have *never* produced a peer reviewed paper on the topic. In particular read the disclaimer. These guys are not necessarily skeptics. They have in the main produced credible documentation to use in the debate. 



> *Preface*: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].
> 
> 
> ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer*: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.


Now there is no way I am going to research all 3000 of these guys but I looked at one from New Zealand first up.



> *Chris de Freitas*, B.A. (Hons), University of Toronto, Canada; M.A. University of Toronto, Canada; Ph.D. Climatology, University of Queensland, Australia (1979); Deputy Dean of Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Head of Science and Technology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Pro Vice Chancellor University of Auckland, New Zealand; Vice President, Meteorological Society of New Zealand; Founding Member, Australia New Zealand Climate Forum; Former Editor, Climate Research Journal; Executive Board, International Society of Biometeorology (1999-2001), Science Communicator Award, New Zealand Association of Scientists (1999, 2001), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001), Associate Professor, School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand


So what is his position?



> It is true most climate scientists would agree that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. The basic physics is there to support this view.
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused warming and natural warming. This has not been done.
> 
> ...
> 
> From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.
> 
> [URL]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282




And that sums up the whole issue. There is global warming, what is causing the warming is debatable and the relevance of CO2 in the equation is not totally understood. His position is exactly the same as the position I expressed in my opening post.

Let's  look at just one more at random, for interest.



> *Paul C. Knappenberger*, B.A. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986); M.S. Environmental Sciences (Thesis: "Cyclone tracks and wintertime climate in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States"), University of Virginia (1990); Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1987-2007); Climate Researcher, Virginia State Climatology Office (1987-2007); Assistant Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2008-Present)


... and his position? Well he is Cato institute which puts him way out to the right but still ...


> Instead of laboring to try to uphold a consensus that was tenuous from the outset, and which is now outdated, the IPCC should be striving to produce a summary of the contemporary bank of scientific knowledge. Only with that type of information can responsible decisions pertaining to the development of world&#8217;s energy sources be made.


Hey! I can live with that. That provides for rational debate.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

There were actually two zip files of leaked documents in the Climategate leaks. I have both of them. As soon as I found out about this, I went out and got them both so I could see them with my own eyes and make up my own mind about it.  I have a BS in Biology, Earth Science, and Physics, so at least I have a basic understanding of the concepts therein, but that's beside the point. I have a question for the people talking about this. How many of you have downloaded these zip files and actually looked at them? Do you think that even matters?


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> There were actually two zip files of leaked documents in the Climategate leaks. I have both of them. As soon as I found out about this, I went out and got them both so I could see them with my own eyes and make up my own mind about it.  I have a BS in Biology, Earth Science, and Physics, so at least I have a basic understanding of the concepts therein, but that's beside the point. I have a question for the people talking about this. How many of you have downloaded these zip files and actually looked at them? Do you think that even matters?


I didn't because it seems that only a couple were in anyway controversial, in particular the one talking of a 'trick'. From what I read where the email was explained, I had no further issue. I think it was widely acknowledged that there was questionable logic to fill in a period where the record wasn't clear in Mann's original paper but in the end a number of subsequent papers came to the same conclusion. 

The other point is that the emails in question were from 18 years ago until 2009 and with subsequent observations you have to ask how relevant that data in now. 



> Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant. The controversy has focused on a small number of emails with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t". This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability, but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.
> 
> 
> Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high. John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures. The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion. The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



It is a bit like other conspiracy theory ... add 5% truth to 95% bull dust and you have a BS theory that a small proportion of people will accept as the whole truth.

So *Maka*, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck. 
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

There was more than just emails in the original zipfiles.  The Climategate packets contained emails, databases, and programming code.  The other thing to keep in mind is that the original place where the zipfiles were released crashed shortly after they were released.  Then, over the subsequent weeks, the packets were released on mirror sites all over the internet.  Since I had the original packets, I thought nothing of it.  Then, on a hunch, I downloaded a couple of the "copycat" packets.  Those packets were different.  They did not contain the same material.

Perhaps the Guardian wrote their story based on an altered packet?  Who knows which data set was actually analyzed to see if there was any wrong doing.  How sure are you that superfluous data wasn't injected into the system in order to intentionally muddy the water and misdirect?


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> So *Maka*, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck.
> :asian:



Or maybe people could be more careful about stating what might or might not have been leaked without having actually seen the leak.  I've read the emails.  Those are actually the easiest part to get through.  All of the data and computer code...well that's another story...and over my head.  

And over a lot of other people's heads...since the focus seems to be on the emails in most of the internet chatter.  Needless to say, there is far more to the Climategate leak than people know.


----------



## K-man

K-man said:


> So *Maka*, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck.
> :asian:





Makalakumu said:


> There was more than just emails in the original zipfiles.  The Climategate packet contained emails, databases, and programming code.  The other thing to keep in mind is that the original place where the zipfiles were released crashed shortly after they were released.  Then, over the subsequent weeks, the packets were released on mirror sites all over the internet.  Since I had the original packets, I thought nothing of it.  Then, on a hunch, I downloaded a couple of the "copycat" packets.  Those packets were different.  They did not contain the same material.
> 
> Perhaps the Guardian wrote their story based on an altered packet?  Who knows which data set was actually analyzed to see if there was any wrong doing.  How sure are you that superfluous data wasn't injected into the system in order to intentionally muddy the water and misdirect?


As I posted above, there were a thousand emails and two thousand documents etc. I have no intention of looking through those bits as I am sure that those who are intentionally muddying the waters have extracted everything available to back their arguement which has since been discredited anyway. I wouldn't have the first clue what was in the zip files or whether it was altered. Why would it have been altered anyway? I suspect that the files are sure to be original. If they were doctored  I am sure the legitimate owners of the files would have pointed it out very quickly. But the files are old and have no information relevant to this discussion anyway. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> And over a lot of other people's heads...since the focus seems to be on the emails in most of the internet chatter.  Needless to say, there is far more to the Climategate leak than people know.


Then if that is the case you have a wonderful opportunity to make a name for yourself on the World stage. Go for it.


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> Now there is no way I am going to research all 3000 of these guys but I looked at one from New Zealand first up.
> 
> So what is his position?
> 
> *Chris de Freitas*, B.A. (Hons), University of Toronto, Canada; M.A. University of Toronto, Canada; Ph.D. Climatology, University of Queensland, Australia (1979); Deputy Dean of Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Head of Science and Technology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Pro Vice Chancellor University of Auckland, New Zealand; Vice President, Meteorological Society of New Zealand; Founding Member, Australia New Zealand Climate Forum; Former Editor, Climate Research Journal; Executive Board, International Society of Biometeorology (1999-2001), Science Communicator Award, New Zealand Association of Scientists (1999, 2001), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001), Associate Professor, School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand
> 
> It is true most climate scientists would agree that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. The basic physics is there to support this view.
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused warming and natural warming. This has not been done.
> 
> ...
> 
> From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10886282
> 
> :asian:



i would be curious to know how old this person's position is.  the data and information on global climate change gets updated and the reality is found over and over to be more severe than models anticipated, that his position, if more than a couple years old, could very well have changed since then.  i would be interested to know the most current thoughts of someone like this example, who is a legitimate and active scientist with relevant knowledge and experience.

excellent post, sir.


----------



## billc

Well, at least their is room for debate...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/



> An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology  wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.





And these open minded seekers of truth...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/MPs-Seek-to-Silence-Climate-Change-Sceptics



> The BBC should give less airtime to sceptics of man-made global  warming, and any government minister who questions climate change  orthodoxy should "shut up or leave", according to a committee of MPs.
> 
> A report by the Commons Science and Technology says that too much  airtime is given to climate change sceptics, *and calls for them to be  either silenced or given "health warnings" when they appear on shows. *


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so are these fact true or not?
> 
> _The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States._



from NOAA Climate website, pretty recent info, from November 2013... http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade



> The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earths surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cyclesa series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillationcaused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The long-term trendchange over the course of a century or moreis what defines global warming, not the change from year to year or even decade to decade.* Rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution explain most of the overall warming trend over the past century, and the rate of emissions has not slowed significantly in the recent past.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents.
> 
> ...
> 
> The deep ocean may have been able to "hide" excess heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases, contributing to the warming pause in the last decade, but scientists know that heat energy doesn't just disappear. Eventually, natural ocean circulation may bring some of the extra heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface, which can happen during an El Niño event, for example.
> ...
> 
> Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate changemelting ice in Greenland, theretreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level risecontinue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming. Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade.



i invite you, of course, to read the full report and it is fairly complex, the forces that influence global climate.  the short answer is, while there has been an observed "pause" in temperature, an understanding of these influencing global forces tells us that the earth continues to warm.  this "pause" phenomenon is being used as a tool by climate deniers to sow doubt about it, but once again, the full story is not presented.  It is a half-truth deliberately used and designed to lead the reader to a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth.  as such, it is fraudulent and is a lie, plain and simple.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Well, at least their is room for debate...
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And these open minded seekers of truth...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/MPs-Seek-to-Silence-Climate-Change-Sceptics
> 
> ​



and the existence of those with strong, even extreme beliefs, disproves global climate change exactly how?


----------



## billc

> global climate change



No, man made global climate change...and the point is, if they are wrong and the science is so locked down, there is no need to demand jailing or silencing them...but of course that is easier than having to listen to dissenting points of view...

And if the science is locked down...why this...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/




> The authors, Assistant Professors  of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and  environmental groups &#8220;exaggerate&#8221; global warming and then the offer  their paper to &#8220;provide a rationale for this tendency&#8221; to exaggerate for  the good of the cause.
> 
> The paper was published on February 24, 2014.
> The author&#8217;s boldly note in the abstract of the  study that the &#8220;news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency  to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.  This article provides a rationale for this tendency.&#8221;
> &#8220;We find that  the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post  induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International  Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.&#8221;
> The paper conclusions read in part: &#8220;This article  offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate change accentuation or  exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other  pro-environmental organizations.&#8221; &#8212; &#8216;We show that the aforementioned  exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insuf&#64257;cient  IEA participation.&#8221;
> &#8220;In fact, our key result&#8212;that overpessimism alleviates the  underparticipation problem&#8212;implies that the propaganda of climate  skepticism may be detrimental to the society,&#8221; the authors conclude on  page two, footnote #5.


----------



## billc

And of course this scientist must be an idiot...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/




> Another Scientist Dissents!  Fmr. NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock &#8216;Laughs&#8217; at Global Warming &#8211; Top  Prof. Declares: &#8216;Global warming is nonsense&#8217;
> 
> Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester&#8217;s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher, dissented on man-made global warming. Woodcock  declared there was &#8220;professional misconduct by Government advisors  around the world&#8221; when it comes to man-made climate change claims. Woodcock, who received his PhD from the University of London, (Full Bio here - les.woodcock@manchester.ac.uk) is  a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of  Molecular Simulation, and a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting  Fellowship, has more than 70 published journal papers, explained:*  &#8220;The theory of &#8216;man-made climate change&#8217; is an unsubstantiated  hypothesis&#8217; &#8211;  water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is  is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the  atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04%  &#8211; &#8216;Carbon dioxide has been made  out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it&#8217;s the gas of life.  We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a  do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.&#8221;*
> *Woodcock continued: &#8220;The temperature of the earth  has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes,  it&#8217;s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it&#8217;s not  permanent and it&#8217;s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.&#8221;*
> &#8220;If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they  will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It&#8217;s an industry which  creates vast amounts of money for some people.
> &#8220;The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply  because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will  always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural  fluctuation in weather.
> &#8220;Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.



And to some of the damage caused by believers in man made global warming...



> He adds: &#8220;Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the  green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a  harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now,  in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full  of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you  smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the  Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.&#8221;



Yeah, I thought mercury in the home and in garbage dumps was a bad thing...but I guess if the green gods demand it...

And a funny story like this...

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html




> Power plants that burn wood to produce electricity emit  comparatively more pollution than modern coal-fired power plants,  according to a group that advocates tougher rules on the growing  biomass-power industry.
> 
> The issue is relevant in Kentucky because  of a proposed wood-burning power plant near Hazard, called ecoPower  Generation, the state's first.
> In a study released early  Wednesday, the Massachusetts-based Partnership for Policy Integrity said  wood-fired plants are not as clean as advocates claim, putting more  carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere than coal or  natural-gas plants when judged on the ratio of pollution to energy  produced.
> For example, biomass plants emit nearly 50 percent more  carbon dioxide &#8212; which traps heat in the atmosphere &#8212; per megawatt hour  of electricity produced than coal plants, the study concluded.
> One  reason is that wood doesn't burn as hot as coal, so the same level of  emissions produces less power. Another is that wood contains a lot of  moisture, so it is a less efficient feedstock than coal or gas.
> The  study also said loopholes in regulations governing biomass plants mean  lax controls on what goes out their smokestacks, even though they emit  many of the same pollutants as fossil-fuel plants, according to the  study by Mary S. Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy  Integrity.
> 
> Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html#storylink=cpy
> ​


----------



## Flying Crane

i guess i need to ask again.



Flying Crane said:


> and the existence of those with strong, even extreme beliefs, disproves global climate change exactly how?


----------



## billc

No, the lack of an ability to actual show man's lead role in raising global temperatures vs. the influence of nature disproves the man made global warming theory...add to that the fact that the models used can't predict climate activity in the past...and that pretty much disproves the theory of man made global warming...

So can we have our old light bulbs back?


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And of course this scientist must be an idiot...
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/



Yet another winner of a resource, brought to us by BILLC:  from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot



> *ClimateDepot.com* is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, _Climate Depot_ claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."[SUP][1
> 
> ...
> 
> ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. *Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobilFoundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, *including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].
> Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008 [2].[/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> No, the lack of an ability to actual show man's lead role in raising global temperatures vs. the influence of nature disproves the man made global warming theory...add to that the fact that the models used can't predict climate activity in the past...and that pretty much disproves the theory of man made global warming...
> 
> So can we have our old light bulbs back?



Billc's personal fantasy world.

so we can agree that the point you brought up, those with extreme positions, is a strawman argument.  thanks!


----------



## billc

As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...

As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change



> When models are used to provide information about more localised parts  of the climate &#8211; for example, over a particular country or region &#8211; the  results become more uncertain. However, the quality of regional models  is improving, increasing the confidence with which they can





> predict local features such as rainfall.



But sure, let's hand over all this power and money to these guys based on their "science."

And  more on climate models...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/




> *by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.*
> 
> I&#8217;m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in  global average warming&#8230;when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn&#8217;t  we be taking the longer view, etc.
> *These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.*
> I&#8217;ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations  for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see  that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since  1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4),  or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):





> Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not,  the conclusion is that global warming isn&#8217;t as bad as was predicted.  That should have major policy implications&#8230;assuming policy is still  informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.
> 
> And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
> I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and  policy-useless statements like &#8220;most warming since the 1950s is human  caused&#8221; or &#8220;97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to  warming&#8221;, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to  substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor  people to death for the greater good.
> Yet, that is the direction we are heading.
> *And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if  you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or  hundredths of a degree), I say &#8220;great!&#8221;. Because that extra heat is in  the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably  large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future  surface climate.*
> If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won&#8217;t really matter.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...
> 
> As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change
> 
> 
> 
> But sure, let's hand over all this power and money to these guys based on their "science."
> 
> And  more on climate models...
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/



regarding roy spencer, from Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)



> [h=3]Climate change[edit][/h]Spencer is a signatory to _An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming_,[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems &#8211; created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence &#8211; are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[SUP][27][/SUP] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[SUP][28]
> 
> ...
> 
> [h=3]Intelligent design[edit][/h]In _TCS Daily_, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[SUP][40][/SUP] In the book _The Evolution Crisis_, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[SUP][41][/SUP]
> Climatologist Patrick Michaels has defended Spencer, arguing that his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his climate change research.[SUP][42][/SUP]



not a scientist i would want working on my team.
[/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...
> 
> As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change



i gotta ask:  did you actually read the article?  'cause it really supports the use of scientific models in climate change.  

this is really funny, bill.

and nobody but you seems to think that global climate change is about predicting the local weather.  Funny stuff!


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> from NOAA Climate website, pretty recent info, from November 2013... http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
> 
> 
> 
> i invite you, of course, to read the full report and it is fairly complex, the forces that influence global climate.  the short answer is, while there has been an observed "pause" in temperature, an understanding of these influencing global forces tells us that the earth continues to warm.  this "pause" phenomenon is being used as a tool by climate deniers to sow doubt about it, but once again, the full story is not presented.  It is a half-truth deliberately used and designed to lead the reader to a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth.  as such, it is fraudulent and is a lie, plain and simple.



So basically the weather isn't following the "were all going to die" plan so anyone that uses the FACT that temps haven't been rising in the last 2 decades is "a lie plain and simple.". Got it.  So I either believe as you do or else huh lol ok


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> not a scientist i would want working on my team.
> [/SUP]



Right because he doesn't agree with you.  Only people that walk lock step with you get to be on the team


----------



## billc

Dr. Spencer on global warming...



> [h=2]About[/h]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roy  W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of  Wisconsin-Madison in 1981.   Before becoming a Principal Research  Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001,  he was a  Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA&#8217;s Marshall Space Flight  Center, where he and  Dr. John Christy received NASA&#8217;s Exceptional  Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature  monitoring  work with satellites. Dr. Spencer&#8217;s work with NASA continues as the   U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer   flying on NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional  testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
> Dr. Spencer&#8217;s research  has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies:  NASA, NOAA,  and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind  of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
> Dr. Spencer&#8217;s first popular book on global warming,  Climate Confusion (Encounter Books),  is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/



> *2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It&#8217;s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating?*   Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade)  variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or  cooled depends upon how far back you look in time.  For instance, over  the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger  toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say &#8220;warming is  accelerating&#8221;.  But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time,  say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has  cooled in the last 10-12 years.  But, as I mentioned above, neither of  these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening &#8220;now&#8221;, or  will happen in the future.*
> 
> 3) Haven&#8217;t Global Temperatures Risen Before?* Yes.   In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is  considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both  warming and cooling. Since humankind can&#8217;t be responsible for these  early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If  that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most)  of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too.  While many  geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed  to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this  tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence  climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.





>





> *5) Isn&#8217;t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?*   Warming, yes&#8230;manmade warming, no.  Arctic sea ice naturally melts back  every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007.   But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based  measurements of Arctic  (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979.  It is entirely possible that  late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a  period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm.   Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have  satellites back then.  Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing  nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.
> 
> *6) What about rising sea levels?*  I must confess, I  don&#8217;t pay much attention to the sea level  issue.  I will say that, to  the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise  to some extent.  The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the  water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the  Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers).  But this says  nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming.   Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started  well before humans can be blamed, causation is &#8212; once again &#8212; a major  source of uncertainty.





> *11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming?* While  this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the  warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of  determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.
> 
> *12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming?*  Because (as they have told me) they can&#8217;t think of anything else that  might have caused it.  Significantly, it&#8217;s not that there is evidence  nature can&#8217;t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate  measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely  important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been  misled on by the IPCC.
> *13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming?*  This is one of my areas of research.  I believe that natural changes in  the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth &#8212; due to natural  changes in cloud cover &#8212; are responsible for most of the warming.   Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority  view that the climate system can change all by itself.  Climate change  does not require an &#8220;external&#8221; source of forcing, such as a change in  the sun.


----------



## Makalakumu

I have to ask again, assuming Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, why does the community of people pushing this focus on things like carbon taxes, global governance, and completely reshaping the world society from the top down?  As I've posted before, there are some low cost and scientifically valid environmental engineering ideas that could literally stop any "global warming" in a very short amount of time.  So, why the focus on Green Police and literally murdering children who disagree?  This is the crazy level of groupthink that climate change fanatics push and I am skeptical of the entire enterprise when I see things like this.  

Oh, and have you ever read what some of the people at the top of the climate change groupthink community say?




> &#8220;Isn&#8217;t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn&#8217;t it our responsibility to bring that about?&#8221;
> &#8211; Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
> 
> &#8220;A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.&#8221;
> &#8211; Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
> 
> &#8220;The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can&#8217;t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.&#8221;
> &#8211; Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
> 
> &#8220;Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.&#8221;
> &#8211; Professor Maurice King
> 
> &#8220;We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.&#8221;
> &#8211; David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
> 
> &#8220;Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.&#8221;
> &#8211; Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
> 
> &#8220;The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.&#8221;
> &#8211; Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
> 
> &#8220;Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.&#8221;
> &#8211; Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
> 
> &#8220;Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
> of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.&#8221;
> &#8211; Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
> 
> &#8220;The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.&#8221;
> &#8211; Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
> 
> &#8220;My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it&#8217;s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.&#8221;
> -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
> 
> &#8220;Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class &#8211; involving high meat intake,
> use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing &#8211; are not sustainable.&#8221;
> &#8211; Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
> 
> &#8220;All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
> behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
> 
> &#8220;Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.&#8221;
> &#8211; Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
> 
> &#8220;Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.&#8221;
> &#8211; Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
> 
> &#8220;The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
> 
> &#8220;A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.  We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.  The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.&#8221;
> &#8211; Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
> 
> &#8220;A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.  At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.&#8221;
> &#8211; United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
> 
> &#8220;A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.&#8221;
> &#8211; Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
> 
> &#8220;&#8230; the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
> 
> &#8220;One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes.  This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.  It is a horrible thing to say, but it&#8217;s just as bad not to say it.&#8221;
> &#8211; Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
> 
> &#8220;If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.&#8221;
> &#8211; Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
> 
> &#8220;I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.&#8221;
> &#8211; John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
> 
> &#8220;The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.&#8221;
> &#8211; Christopher Manes, Earth First!
> 
> &#8220;Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.  All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.&#8221;
> &#8211; David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
> 
> &#8220;In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
> 
> &#8220;We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public&#8217;s imagination&#8230; So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts&#8230; Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.&#8221;
> &#8211; Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
> 
> &#8220;Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.&#8221;
> &#8211; Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
> 
> &#8220;It doesn&#8217;t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.&#8221;
> &#8211; Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;ve got to ride this global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.&#8221;
> &#8211; Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
> 
> &#8220;No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.&#8221;
> -Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
> 
> &#8220;The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.  It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.&#8221;
> &#8211; Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> &#8220;The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.&#8221;
> &#8211; emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
> 
> &#8220;We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we need is the right major crisis.&#8221;
> &#8211; David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
> 
> &#8220;Humanity is sitting on a time bomb.  If the vast majority of the world&#8217;s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet&#8217;s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced &#8211; a catastrophe of our own making.&#8221;
> &#8211; Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
> 
> &#8220;By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.&#8221;
> &#8211; Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia
> 
> &#8220;Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters.  That&#8217;s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.&#8221;
> &#8211; Greenpeace International
> 
> &#8220;Climate change is real.  Not only is it real, it&#8217;s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon &#8211; the man-made natural disaster.&#8221;
> &#8211; Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate
> 
> &#8220;We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.&#8221;
> &#8211; Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
> 
> &#8220;In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint.  Such a &#8216;master plan&#8217; is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system.  Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.  Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
> 
> &#8220;The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations.  It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.&#8221;
> &#8211; UN Commission on Global Governance report
> 
> &#8220;Democracy is not a panacea.  It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits.  These facts must be faced squarely.  Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.  The complexity and the technical nature of many of today&#8217;s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
> 
> &#8220;In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government.  There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.  We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.&#8221;
> &#8211; Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
> 
> &#8220;Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.&#8221;
> &#8211; Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
> 
> &#8220;A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.&#8221;
> &#8211; Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
> 
> &#8220;Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.&#8221;
> &#8211; Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
> 
> &#8220;Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced &#8211; a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.  This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.&#8221;
> &#8211; UN Agenda 21
> 
> &#8220;The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution.  Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.&#8221;
> &#8211; Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens



This is beyond science, people.  These people have a Utopian view of the future where the lumpenproletariat doesn't exist.  The bottom line is this...if you can control carbon, tax it, limit emissions, you can control all life on the planet.  THAT in my honest opinion, is what climate change pushers really want.


----------



## billc

thanks. Makalakumu...

I believe K-Man doubted me when I posted that the man made global warming crowd was against third world nations advancing technologically...the "lie" word may even have been used, it was quite a few posts ago,

your post shows quite clearly this Luddite philosophy associated with this movement...



> *The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We cant let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.*
> * Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund*







> *My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.*
> *-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!*


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> So basically the weather isn't following the "were all going to die" plan so anyone that uses the FACT that temps haven't been rising in the last 2 decades is "a lie plain and simple.". Got it.  So I either believe as you do or else huh lol ok



did you read the article?  and...did you UNDERSTAND it?


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Right because he doesn't agree with you.  Only people that walk lock step with you get to be on the team



well no, it's really the bit about, there isn't global warming because it's all part of god's master plan.  that kind of thinking disqualifies him.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> I have to ask again, assuming Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, why does the community of people pushing this focus on things like carbon taxes, global governance, and completely reshaping the world society from the top down?  As I've posted before, there are some low cost and scientifically valid environmental engineering ideas that could literally stop any "global warming" in a very short amount of time.  So, why the focus on Green Police and literally murdering children who disagree?  This is the crazy level of groupthink that climate change fanatics push and I am skeptical of the entire enterprise when I see things like this.
> 
> Oh, and have you ever read what some of the people at the top of the climate change groupthink community say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is beyond science, people.  These people have a Utopian view of the future where the lumpenproletariat doesn't exist.  The bottom line is this...if you can control carbon, tax it, limit emissions, you can control all life on the planet.  THAT in my honest opinion, is what climate change pushers really want.



i'm personally very doubtful that these quick and easy 'fixes' are actually viable.  as for your list, care to list a citation of where you found this?
i suspect there may be things taken out of context, and probably more to the real message than these quotes in isolation suggest.  there's a lot of names here, if i have time i'll research a couple to see if my suspicions are correct.

edit:  i just read thru a few of the quotes in your list there.  taken purely on their face, there's not a lot there that seems so radical.  We've treated the earth like a trash bin an that is causing huge problems.  we need to change our behavior, and our thinking around this issue.  I personally agree with that.  

and no, i do not believe that Jacques Cousteau and Ted Turner were actually calling for the murder and eradication of human beings.  Rather, they were simply pointing out the limitations of the Earth and her resources, and putting it in terms that are blunt and hit home to the reader.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Dr. Spencer on global warming...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/



yeah, he's not credible.  he believes it's all god's will.


----------



## Flying Crane

> Originally Posted by *billc*
> 
> 
> As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...
> 
> As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change





Flying Crane said:


> i gotta ask:  did you actually read the article?  'cause it really supports the use of scientific models in climate change.
> 
> this is really funny, bill.
> 
> and nobody but you seems to think that global climate change is about predicting the local weather.  Funny stuff!



bill?  any thoughts on this one?


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And to some of the damage caused by believers in man made global warming...
> 
> He adds: Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought mercury in the home and in garbage dumps was a bad thing...but I guess if the green gods demand it...
> 
> And a funny story like this...
> 
> http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html



I also find the lightbulbs problematic.  
as for the Kentucky wood-burning power plant, I haven't researched your souces, but at least at face-value, I also find severe problems with that idea.

however, as I say, how does this disprove global climate change?  These issues may be worth their own debate, but are simply a hollow distraction in this discussion (if disproving global climate change, or at least humanities guilt in the problem, is your goal).  throwing them in here just makes it look more and more like you do not understand the issue.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> i'm personally very doubtful that these quick and easy 'fixes' are actually viable.  as for your list, care to list a citation of where you found this?
> i suspect there may be things taken out of context, and probably more to the real message than these quotes in isolation suggest.  there's a lot of names here, if i have time i'll research a couple to see if my suspicions are correct.
> 
> edit:  i just read thru a few of the quotes in your list there.  taken purely on their face, there's not a lot there that seems so radical.  We've treated the earth like a trash bin an that is causing huge problems.  we need to change our behavior, and our thinking around this issue.  I personally agree with that.
> 
> and no, i do not believe that Jacques Cousteau and Ted Turner were actually calling for the murder and eradication of human beings.  Rather, they were simply pointing out the limitations of the Earth and her resources, and putting it in terms that are blunt and hit home to the reader.



Watch the ad for the 10/10 campaign (it's linked in my last post) and think about what these guys are advocating for a moment.  I don't really think you want to put yourself in their ideological camp.

Also, lets be perfectly honest with ourselves, barring some catastrophe, there will be no overarching global government that will "manage the world's carbon" and mitigate climate change.  There are just too many players and too many varied interests.  The communists had the same problem, btw.  That's why they "purged" millions of dissenters, but I digress...or do I? 

But anyway, this giant top down solution has very little chance of happening.  The low cost environmental engineering solutions are FAR more practical.  Those solutions actually have a chance of being implemented.  My suggestion is this...if you care about this issue, you need to support the solutions that actually have a chance of being implemented...rather then supporting the insane technoplutocrats and their plans for world domination and mass murder.


----------



## K-man

Sorry to to have missed all the fun but believe it or not, I have to sleep from time to time. 



billc said:


> Well, at least their is room for debate...
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u...ands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/
> And these open minded seekers of truth...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/MPs-Seek-to-Silence-Climate-Change-Sceptics​


There is always room for debate but the debate is to clarify the facts, not deny them. 

As as to open minded seekers of the truth ... crap!



Flying Crane said:


> from NOAA Climate website, pretty recent info, from November 2013... http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
> 
> i invite you, of course, to read the full report and it is fairly complex, the forces that influence global climate.  the short answer is, while there has been an observed "pause" in temperature, an understanding of these influencing global forces tells us that the earth continues to warm.  this "pause" phenomenon is being used as a tool by climate deniers to sow doubt about it, but once again, the full story is not presented.  It is a half-truth deliberately used and designed to lead the reader to a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth.  as such, it is fraudulent and is a lie, plain and simple.


An excellent article that explains why surface temperatures haven't risen as fast as it might have been expected. However, if I looked at the temperature graph and had to put my life on the line to predict where the line is going I certainly would be on the side of 'up'.

To read a graph from a high point 10 or so years ago to a point now is disingenuous to say the least.



ballen0351 said:


> So basically the weather isn't following the "were all going to die" plan so anyone that uses the FACT that temps haven't been rising in the last 2 decades is "a lie plain and simple.". Got it.  So I either believe as you do or else huh lol ok


Obviously you don't read the papers or watch the world news. Climatic disasters are occurring at an increasing rate world wide. The debate isn't that climate change and global warming is occurring. The only wriggle room it how much of it can be attributed to man-made polution and can we do anything to reverse it.



ballen0351 said:


> Right because he doesn't agree with you.  Only people that walk lock step with you get to be on the team


No. People are entitled to whatever religious views turn them on. Fifteen hundred years ago religeon provided the answer to everything. Most of us have now moved on as scientific evidence provides us with more plausible explanations. If as some claim, the Bible is the word of God, then everything in it must be true. To cherry pick and say this is true but this is just a story doesn't make sense. That is interpretation. The literal story of creation in the Bible is simply not what happened. Any scientist that that says otherwise is not credible in my opinion. So this guy is probably off my team too.




Makalakumu said:


> I have to ask again, assuming Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, why does the community of people pushing this focus on things like carbon taxes, global governance, and completely reshaping the world society from the top down?  As I've posted before, there are some low cost and scientifically valid environmental engineering ideas that could literally stop any "global warming" in a very short amount of time.  So, why the focus on Green Police and literally murdering children who disagree?  This is the crazy level of groupthink that climate change fanatics push and I am skeptical of the entire enterprise when I see things like this.
> 
> Oh, and have you ever read what some of the people at the top of the climate change groupthink community say?
> 
> This is beyond science, people.  These people have a Utopian view of the future where the lumpenproletariat doesn't exist.  The bottom line is this...if you can control carbon, tax it, limit emissions, you can control all life on the planet.  THAT in my honest opinion, is what climate change pushers really want.


Do you really want to take this discussion down this path?



billc said:


> thanks. Makalakumu...
> 
> I believe K-Man doubted me when I posted that the man made global warming crowd was against third world nations advancing technologically...the "lie" word may even have been used, it was quite a few posts ago,
> 
> your post shows quite clearly this Luddite philosophy associated with this movement...


Then if I said it then, rather than spend time looking for it, I will save people looking ... it is a lie.



Flying Crane said:


> yeah, he's not credible.  he believes it's all god's will.


OMG!
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> Watch the ad for the 10/10 campaign and think about what these guys are advocating for a moment.  I don't really think you want to put yourself in their ideological camp.



give me a link.  i don't know what this is.



> Also, lets be perfectly honest with ourselves, barring some catastrophe, there will be no overarching global government that will "manage the world's carbon" and mitigate climate change.  There are just too many players and too many varied interests.



agreed.



> The communists had the same problem, btw.  That's why they "purged" millions of dissenters, but I digress...or do I?



are you trying to equate global warming science with Soviet era an Chinese Cultural Revolution-era communism?  if so, that's a real stretch, and something i absolutelt disagree with.



> But anyway, this giant top down solution has very little chance of happening.  The low cost environmental engineering solutions are FAR more practical.  Those solutions actually have a chance of being implemented.  My suggestion is this...if you care about this issue, you need to support the solutions that actually have a chance of being implemented...rather then supporting the insane technoplutocrats and their plans for world domination and mass murder.



I disagree with your overall worldview perception of what's going on.  yes, practical solutions should get our attention.  No, I do not believe there is an overarching plot for world domination and mass murder.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> Watch the ad for the 10/10 campaign and think about what these guys are advocating for a moment.  I don't really think you want to put yourself in their ideological camp.
> 
> Also, lets be perfectly honest with ourselves, barring some catastrophe, there will be no overarching global government that will "manage the world's carbon" and mitigate climate change.  There are just too many players and too many varied interests.  The communists had the same problem, btw.  That's why they "purged" millions of dissenters, but I digress...or do I?
> 
> But anyway, this giant top down solution has very little chance of happening.  The low cost environmental engineering solutions are FAR more practical.  Those solutions actually have a chance of being implemented.  My suggestion is this...if you care about this issue, you need to support the solutions that actually have a chance of being implemented...rather then supporting the insane technoplutocrats and their plans for world domination and mass murder.


Like some others here you swing from a position that shows some logic as in trying or at least researching low cost solutions of climate change to absolutely looney rhetoric  about world domination and mass murder that derails the topic totally. We have debated the world domination and free society rubbish in the past. Let's keep this thread on track.

End of frustrated rant!


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> did you read the article?  and...did you UNDERSTAND it?



Yep and keep making personal attacks since you can't argue against the facts your question my intelligence.  YES I CAN READ THANKS


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Yep and keep making personal attacks since you can't argue against the facts your question my intelligence.  YES I CAN READ THANKS



your response to it indicates you did not understand it.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> your response to it indicates you did not understand it.


My response indicates that I think it was nonsense.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, he's not credible.  he believes it's all god's will.


Yes how dare anyone believe in God


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> Like some others here you swing from a position that shows some logic as in trying or at least researching low cost solutions of climate change to absolutely looney rhetoric  about world domination and mass murder that derails the topic totally. We have debated the world domination and free society rubbish in the past. Let's keep this thread on track.
> 
> End of frustrated rant!



I'm sorry you are frustrated, but lets be honest about what is being proposed as a "mainstream" solution to climate change.  A carbon tax on emissions is a tax on all life processes on the planet.  Controlling carbon emissions controls all sources.  All life emits carbon.  What is being proposed by the UN and satellite groups is a global bureaucracy that will collect carbon taxes and control emissions.  In my opinion, this idea is insane.  It's not going to happen, barring some catastrophe.  It's also would lead to the death of billions of people.  Carbon cannot be managed the way the global central planners want.  This is the same hubris that the Communists engaged in...and resulted in the deaths of millions.  Now, we have people who want to take this same central planning ideology and implement it on a global scale?  I'm sorry, that is insane.  I'm not loony for point this out.  The idea is loony.  

Nothing this, when you take a look at the quotes from the people who are behind pushing the management of humans contribution to the carbon cycle on the planet, Ads like this start to make more sense.  Here is the ad in case you missed it before.  




Do you see the connection to communism now?

Honestly, it's not me who is derailing this entire issue.  It's the people who would like to completely reshape global society and "manage the worlds carbon" who are derailing this issue.  The real solutions to climate change are low cost, scientifically sound, and will maintain the world we live in without creating the global bureaucracy needed to manage the world's carbon emissions.  

The real problem here is that climate change is being used to mask another agenda.  Wise up to this and accept reality my friends.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> My response indicates that I think it was nonsense.



yeah, i got that.  

interesting.  that was legitimate scientific information, from a highly qualified source.  and yet you choose to reject that and instead embrace the misleading lies and half-truths perpetuated by discredited scientist, pretenders, and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry of the ilk that billc keeps citing to.    not a single one of his sources stands up to scrutiny.  But those are the sources that you embrace.

ok, fair enough.  the record speaks for itself.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, i got that.
> 
> interesting.  that was legitimate scientific information, from a highly qualified source.  and yet you choose to reject that and instead embrace the misleading lies and half-truths perpetuated by discredited scientist, pretenders, and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry of the ilk that billc keeps citing to.    not a single one of his sources stands up to scrutiny.  But those are the sources that you embrace.
> 
> ok, fair enough.  the record speaks for itself.


Ditto There are 1000's of legitimate scientists posting data that disagrees with your "we all going to die" unless you subsidize green energy, pay for carbon credits, stop driving cars.  Yet you choose to ignore these scientist.  Funny you dont debate the message they put out (because you cant) so instead you talk about their parents, grades or degrees, where they earn a paycheck , ect you know personal attacks your record speaks for itself as well


----------



## ballen0351

The *Global Warming Petition Project*, also known as the *Oregon Petition*, is a petition to the United States government urging politicians to reject any policies based on concerns over global warming, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.[SUP][1][/SUP] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[SUP][4][/SUP]
According to Robinson, *the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,*[SUP]*[*1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] mostly in engineering.[SUP][5][/SUP] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[SUP][6][/SUP] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[SUP][7][/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> Here is the ad in case you missed it before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the connection to communism now?



that's a really funny add.  don't know where it was banned, there it is on youtube... so who made it?
ok clearly it is ridiculous, please tell me you don't take this literally?



> The real problem here is that climate change is being used to mask another agenda.  Wise up to this and accept reality my friends.



no, i do not believe that.

specifically how to best deal with the global climate change issue is a valid matter for debate.  but the discussion here is more about whether it is even happening, and whether or not human activity is to blame.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> I'm sorry you are frustrated, but lets be honest about what is being proposed as a "mainstream" solution to climate change.


I'm only frustrated when you ignore the topic and go off on this free society, global domination path which is another topic for another day.



Makalakumu said:


> A carbon tax on emissions is a tax on all life processes on the planet.  Controlling carbon emissions controls all sources.  All life emits carbon.


We are not arguing the benefits or otherwise of a carbon tax. 



Makalakumu said:


> What is being proposed by the UN and satellite groups is a global bureaucracy that will collect carbon taxes and control emissions.  In my opinion, this idea is insane.  It's not going to happen, barring some catastrophe.


That is simplistic. They are trying to achieve global consensus and that is as easy as herding cats.



Makalakumu said:


> It's also would lead to the death of billions of people.  Carbon cannot be managed the way the global central planners want.  This is the same hubris that the Communists engaged in...and resulted in the deaths of millions.


With the respect that this deserves ... garbage! Managing carbon emissions will not lead to the death of anyone. And, it has nothing to do with what the communists did or the Crusaders for that matter. 



Makalakumu said:


> Now, we have people who want to take this same central planning ideology and implement it on a global scale?  I'm sorry, that is insane.  I'm not loony for point this out.  The idea is loony.


Yes it is insane but it is only you that is proposing it. 



Makalakumu said:


> Nothing this, when you take a look at the quotes from the people who are behind pushing the management of humans contribution to the carbon cycle on the planet, Ads like this start to make more sense.  Here is the ad in case you missed it before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the connection to communism now?


No. It's a crap video.



Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, it's not me who is derailing this entire issue.  It's the people who would like to completely reshape global society and "manage the worlds carbon" who are derailing this issue.  The real solutions to climate change are low cost, scientifically sound, and will maintain the world we live in without creating the global bureaucracy needed to manage the world's carbon emissions.


Nothing to do with global warming, sorry.


Makalakumu said:


> The real problem here is that climate change is being used to mask another agenda.  Wise up to this and accept reality my friends.


well let's just stick to climate change for now.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> The *Global Warming Petition Project*, also known as the *Oregon Petition*, is a petition to the United States government urging politicians to reject any policies based on concerns over global warming, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.[SUP][1][/SUP] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[SUP][4][/SUP]
> According to Robinson, *the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,*[SUP]*[*1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] mostly in engineering.[SUP][5][/SUP] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[SUP][6][/SUP] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[SUP][7][/SUP]



you might want to read the rest of that wikipedia article, that you quoted here.  this bit is kinda interesting:


> A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_, a scientific journal,[SUP][28][/SUP] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article  is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[SUP][29][/SUP] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[SUP][29][/SUP]
> After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ or in any other peer-reviewedjournal."[SUP][30][/SUP] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[SUP][30][/SUP]
> Robinson responded in a 1998 article in _Science_, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][29][/SUP] A 2006 article the magazine _Vanity Fair_ stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming".[SUP][31]



i wouldn't put much faith in this document.  lots and lots of problems with it.  kinda surprised you don't notice these things.[/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Ditto There are 1000's of legitimate scientists posting data that disagrees with your "we all going to die" unless you subsidize green energy, pay for carbon credits, stop driving cars.  Yet you choose to ignore these scientist.  Funny you dont debate the message they put out (because you cant) so instead you talk about their parents, grades or degrees, where they earn a paycheck , ect you know personal attacks your record speaks for itself as well



when the source is not trustworthy, and has even been shown to have a vested interest in a particular outcome, then their message is automatically suspect and needs to be rejected.  holding on to that source and message actually weakens your position.

Show me a legitimate, active academic with relevant training and knowledge who doesnt' have a suspicious background, who is championing your cause.  Then we can debate.  What you and Billc are giving us here isn't even worthy of debated, because the sources are fraudulent.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> you might want to read the rest of that wikipedia article, that you quoted here.  this bit is kinda interesting:
> 
> 
> i wouldn't put much faith in this document.  lots and lots of problems with it.  kinda surprised you don't notice these things.[/SUP]



Yep I read it. Some green freak trolls tried to add fake names to discredit it.  Even if 50% of the names are real that's over 15,000 names.  Plenty of folks in the field don't agree with you so you better start looking up there parents and grandparents history to discount them


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> when the source is not trustworthy, and has even been shown to have a vested interest in a particular outcome, then their message is automatically suspect and needs to be rejected.  holding on to that source and message actually weakens your position.
> 
> Show me a legitimate, active academic with relevant training and knowledge who doesnt' have a suspicious background, who is championing your cause.  Then we can debate.  What you and Billc are giving us here isn't even worthy of debated, because the sources are fraudulent.


Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically suspect to you so whats the point. YOU CANT PROVE climate change is man made.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically suspect to you so whats the point. YOU CANT PROVE climate change is man made.




ok then.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Yep I read it. Some green freak trolls tried to add fake names to discredit it.  Even if 50% of the names are real that's over 15,000 names.  Plenty of folks in the field don't agree with you so you better start looking up there parents and grandparents history to discount them



yeah, they showed how little quality control they had to verify who was even signing the document.  Pretty lax standards, there.

There was also the part about a bunch of real scientist wondering if someone was trying to hoodwink them, with the "academic" paper that was submitted with it, designed to look as if it was a published, peer-reviewed paper, when it was not.


----------



## ballen0351

Man Humans are pretty powerful:


> Professor Stephen Schneider, back in 1976:
> *&#8220;I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in&#8211;perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age&#8211;and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.&#8221; Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, New Yorklenum, 1976 *


*

*In under 40 years we went from were all going to freeze to death to were all going to burn alive


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, they showed how little quality control they had to verify who was even signing the document.  Pretty lax standards, there.
> 
> .



Dude people hack into the best most secure computer systems in the world so its pretty easy for people that cant actually debate the data to instead to post fake names.  THey have verified many names on the list.  You think its fake prove it.  Look up some names.  


> There was also the part about a bunch of real scientist wondering if someone was trying to hoodwink them, with the "academic" paper that was submitted with it, designed to look as if it was a published, peer-reviewed paper, when it was not


Robinson responded in a 1998 article in _Science_, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][[/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Man Humans are pretty powerful:
> 
> 
> [/B]In under 40 years we went from were all going to freeze to death to were all going to burn alive



this disproves global climate change?  how?


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Dude people hack into the best most secure computer systems in the world so its pretty easy for people that cant actually debate the data to instead to post fake names.  THey have verified many names on the list.  You think its fake prove it.  Look up some names.
> 
> Robinson responded in a 1998 article in _Science_, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][[/SUP]



well of course he will deny any deliberate wrong-doing.  That's not surprising.


----------



## Makalakumu

There are a lot of avenues that this discussion could take.  One of them is about solutions.  I'm willing to bet that a lot of the people who are against this and have a lot of emotional energy into opposing this would not be so opposed if more low cost solutions were researched and taken seriously.  I could see all of the opposition in this thread saying, "well, I don't necessarily agree that this is a problem, but it's good to have some tools in the basket in case we're wrong."  

The problem with is that the scale of what is being proposed is so off the charts and it changes so much about society that it completely turns people off intellectually.  



K-man said:


> Managing carbon emissions will not lead to the death of anyone. And, it has nothing to do with what the communists did or the Crusaders for that matter.



I think you better wrap your head around what is actually being proposed.  Controlling global carbon emissions means that certain societies will not be allowed to develop and that developed societies will have to "de-industrialize".  In that list of quotes I posted, the very people who put on all of these Climate Change Summits are explaining EXACTLY what is proposed.  You are misinformed if you think that you can "manage" the carbon of the world without causing significant "alterations" in people's lives or ability to improve their life.  

People will die, K-man.  The central planning of carbon will kill people just as centrally planning other resources killed others in the past.  Do you need to see some sources for that claim?



K-man said:


> Yes it is insane but it is only you that is proposing it.



Here is what the Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 in a NYT Op-Ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=0



> Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.
> 
> 
> A successful deal must strengthen the worlds ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.
> 
> 
> A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.
> 
> 
> A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.



This is exactly what I said it was.  It is a global bureaucracy that will manage the human side of the global carbon cycle.  It will use carbon taxes to fund itself and it will draw funds other public and private sources.

Again, you need to accept the reality here and accept that this is what is being proposed as a solution.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> that's a really funny add.  don't know where it was banned, there it is on youtube... so who made it?
> ok clearly it is ridiculous, please tell me you don't take this literally?



No, it's tongue in cheek.  Obviously.  However, sometimes art captures the zeitgeist of a movement...which is what makes it really good art.  For example, if Montey Python made this piece people would immediately recognize it as a satirical piece on the hubris of central planners in the UN.  

Anyway, there is a grain of truth here.  If you look at what the plutocrats write about managing global society to manage carbon, there is something very eerie about this ad.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> There are a lot of avenues that this discussion could take.  One of them is about solutions.  I'm willing to bet that a lot of the people who are against this and have a lot of emotional energy into opposing this would not be so opposed if more low cost solutions were researched and taken seriously.  I could see all of the opposition in this thread saying, "well, I don't necessarily agree that this is a problem, but it's good to have some tools in the basket in case we're wrong."
> 
> The problem with is that the scale of what is being proposed is so off the charts and it changes so much about society that it completely turns people off intellectually.



the problem really is huge.  I suspect that a few thousand ships and planes spraying salt water into the air isn't going to solve it.  I admit I lack the scientific background to ultimately pass judgement on that one, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.



> People will die, K-man.  The central planning of carbon will kill people just as centrally planning other resources killed others in the past.  Do you need to see some sources for that claim?



Maybe, maybe not.  But far far more will die as the global mean temperature continues to rise.



> Here is what the Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 in a NYT Op-Ed
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=0



I don't see anything offensive in this.  I think you see conspiracy where none exist.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> No, it's tongue in cheek.  Obviously.  However, sometimes art captures the zeitgeist of a movement...which is what makes it really good art.  For example, if Montey Python made this piece people would immediately recognize it as a satirical piece on the hubris of central planners in the UN.
> 
> Anyway, there is a grain of truth here.  If you look at what the plutocrats write about managing global society to manage carbon, there is something very eerie about this ad.



i'm glad you recognize the satire.  I see your point but I think it doesn't reflect any true conspiracy.  that's my take on it.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> this disproves global climate change?  how?



Shows that these "scientists" have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> well of course he will deny any deliberate wrong-doing.  That's not surprising.



OR he did nothing wrong


----------



## ballen0351

[h=2]Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.


Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]


Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999&#8211;2003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]
[h=2]Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes[/h]

 


 Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]


Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.


Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]
[h=2]Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.


Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]
[h=2]Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.


Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Shows that these "scientists" have no idea what they are talking about.



ah, ok then.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> OR he did nothing wrong



ah, ok then.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> *Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
> 
> 
> Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
> Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
> Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999&#8211;2003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
> Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
> Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
> Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
> Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
> Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
> Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
> Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
> Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
> Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
> Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
> David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
> Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
> William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
> William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
> Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
> Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
> William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
> David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
> Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
> Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
> Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
> Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
> Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
> Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
> Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
> Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
> Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
> Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
> Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
> George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
> Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
> Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
> Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
> John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
> Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
> David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
> Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
> Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
> Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
> Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
> Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
> Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]



give a link for your list.  where did you find this?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> ah, ok then.



Prove he did..... You accuse him of doing something wrong prove it.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> give a link for your list.  where did you find this?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming



alright, now you are learning something.

from the same article:


> As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. I*n 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[SUP][14][/SUP]* *A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[SUP][15][/SUP]* (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).



sort of a steep hill to climb.

OK, from the link to Judith Curry's wiki site, since she is first on the list:



> *While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[SUP][12][/SUP] *she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[SUP][12][/SUP] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[SUP][12][/SUP]In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[SUP][13][/SUP] Writing in _The New York Times_, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[SUP][12][/SUP]
> In September 2010, Curry created _Climate Etc._, a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site's "About" section, the blog's purpose is stated as "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[SUP][3][/SUP]
> Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[SUP][14][/SUP] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[SUP][15



so yes, she has issues, but she does not dispute the underlying premise.

i haven't had time to examine all of these, but either way, it's a very short list.  but this is by far the best bit you or billc have put forth yet.[/SUP]


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> but this is by far the best bit you or billc have put forth yet.[/SUP]


Gee thanks dad...your pretty damn arrogant


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> the problem really is huge.  I suspect that a few thousand ships and planes spraying salt water into the air isn't going to solve it.  I admit I lack the scientific background to ultimately pass judgement on that one, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  But far far more will die as the global mean temperature continues to rise.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything offensive in this.  I think you see conspiracy where none exist.



It's not a conspiracy to say that what is being proposed is a global system of government that is meant to manage the human side of the carbon cycle.  I'm very skeptical of this idea in terms of actually addressing climate change and I think there is a history behind these efforts that really needs to be understood.  I think the most conspiratorial thing I've suggested is that the people pushing global government are using climate change as an excuse.

If climate change is really a problem that is dangerous to humans, this mixing of agendas could actually prevent a solution from occurring in time to fix it.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> *Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]



from Dyson's wiki page: 


> *Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[SUP][42][/SUP]* However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
> The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[SUP][42][/SUP]​He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[SUP][42][/SUP]
> Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, *he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it&#8217;s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."*[SUP]*[45*][/SUP]



again, he agrees with humanities actions contributing to global climate change, tho he has issues with how the discussion is carried out.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Gee thanks dad...your pretty damn arrogant



or maybe you just got lucky with this one, and you cannot actually claim any of the credit.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> *Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes*
> Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]




from his wiki site:


> Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy&#8212;almost throughout the last century&#8212;growth in its intensity."[SUP][4][/SUP] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings&#8212;observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth&#8212;can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[SUP][8][/SUP] *This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[SUP][9][/SUP]*[SUP]*[10]
> *



so, kinda weird theory, not widely accepted by the scientific community.[/SUP]


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> or maybe you just got lucky with this one, and you cannot actually claim any of the credit.



LOL says the guy using Wiki to disprove a Wiki link  get over yourself


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> *Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections*
> 
> 
> *Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes*
> 
> 
> 
> Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]



from her wiki page:


> n 1992, Baliunas was third author on a _Nature_ paper[SUP][10][/SUP] that used observed variations in sun-like stars as an analogue of possible past variations in the Sun. The paper says that
> "the sun is in an unusually steady phase compared to similar stars, which means that reconstructing the past historical brightness record may be more risky than has been generally thought".By 1995, she had entered the global warming controversy. In January of that year the Marshall Institute published a review she had written for them, "Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming?" disputing the IPCC Second Assessment Report and arguing that "predictions of an anthropogenic global warming have been greatly exaggerated, and that the human contribution to global warming over the course of the 21st century will be less than one degree Celsius and probably only a few tenths of a degree." She concluded with the view that "even if fears of anthropogenic global warming were realized - a concern which finds no support in the scientific data - there is no significant penalty for waiting at least two decades before taking corrective action to reduce global CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions."[SUP][11][/SUP] The work of Willie Soon and Baliunas, suggesting that solar variability is more strongly correlated with variations in air temperature than any other factor, even carbon dioxide levels, has been widely publicized by lobby groups including the Marshall Institute[SUP][12][/SUP] and Tech Central Station,[SUP][13][/SUP] and mentioned in the popular press.[SUP][14][/SUP]
> Baliunas is a strong skeptic in regard to there being a connection between CO[SUB]2[/SUB] rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon:
> But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case... measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons _show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years_. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.[SUP][15][/SUP]*The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.*[SUP]*[16*][/SUP]
> Baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[SUP][17][/SUP] [SUP][18][/SUP]
> *Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper[edit]*
> 
> _Main article: Soon and Baliunas controversy_
> In 2003, Baliunas and fellow astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology in _Climate Research_, which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variability and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[SUP][19][/SUP]
> *The circumstances of the paper's publication were controversial, prompting concerns about the publishers' peer review process. An editorial revolt followed, with half of the journal's 10 editors eventually resigning, and the publisher subsequently stated that critics said that the conclusions of the paper "cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided" and that the journal "should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication."*[SUP][20]


[/SUP]

so, some problems.  but she's got her position.


----------



## ballen0351

Yes we have already established these folks don't agree with the status Quo.  That's why they were posted as the OPPOSITION


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> LOL says the guy using Wiki to disprove a Wiki link  get over yourself



it's actually reasonably reliable, tho i would not quote wiki in a scientific paper that i was trying to get published.

the funny thing is, i often use the SAME wiki article to disprove what you are proposing.


----------



## ballen0351

Hmmmm



> baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "if scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[sup][17][/sup] [sup][18]


[/sup]


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Yes we have already established these folks don't agree with the status Quo.  That's why they were posted as the OPPOSITION



sure, but looking at their background and history helps us see the big picture.  and then make intelligent and reasonable conclusions.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> [/sup]



sure, that's part of her position.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> it's actually reasonably reliable, tho i would not quote wiki in a scientific paper that i was trying to get published.
> 
> the funny thing is, i often use the SAME wiki article to disprove what you are proposing.



Except you have not disproved anything.  Your just showing things YOU don't agree with.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> sure, that's part of her position.


Yep as well as mine


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Except you have not disproved anything.  Your just showing things YOU don't agree with.



i'm showing you that the wide scientific community doesn't agree.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Yep as well as mine



understood


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> i'm showing you that the wide scientific community doesn't agree.



yep again this is the opposition


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> yep again this is the opposition



yes, it is.

so let me ask you this:  is it simply the fact that there IS an opposition, and that their position is the position that you wish to embrace, that encourages you to side with them? 

Or do you actually research their position, ponder whether it makes sense to you, consider their standing and reputation within the larger scientific community, before you make a decision?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> yes, it is.
> 
> so let me ask you this:  is it simply the fact that there IS an opposition, and that their position is the position that you wish to embrace, that encourages you to side with them?
> 
> Or do you actually research their position, ponder whether it makes sense to you, consider their standing and reputation within the larger scientific community, before you make a decision?


Ive already explained how I reached my position a few pages back. You are the one that asked for "professional" opposition so I posted it for you


----------



## Makalakumu

:rofl:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow



> Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of political passion on peoples ability to think clearly.  His conclusion, in Mooneys words: partisanship can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills. [People] who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.



I'm going to make a thread for this article, but it seems to fit here.  LOL!  We're so ****ed.


----------



## billc

> Obviously you don't read the papers or watch the world news. Climatic disasters are occurring at an increasing rate world wide. The debate isn't that climate change and global warming is occurring. The only wriggle room it how much of it can be attributed to man-made polution and can we do anything to reverse it.



Actually, they aren't getting worse...you need to broaden your information base....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10...ad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/



> There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you&#8217;re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
> To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
> (Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)





> Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned, there have been only two hurricanes so far this season in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms. Also, the first forming hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940&#8217;s when hurricane hunters began to fly. Overall, the tropical season in the Atlantic Basin has been generally characterized by short-lived and weak systems.
> In addition, this suppressed tropical activity has not been confined to just the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern Pacific Ocean has had no major hurricanes this season meaning there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific which only occurred one other year in recorded history &#8211; 1968. This is actually quite extraordinary since the two basins are generally out of phase with each other i.e. when one is inactive the other is active.


----------



## billc

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-numbers-20131025



> The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season ended with something that hasn't happened in 45 years.
> 
> 
> No hurricanes were rated Category 2 or greater in the Atlantic, Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico, the first year without a Category 2 or stronger hurricane in the Atlantic basin since 1968.
> 
> 
> The season's lone two hurricanes, Humberto and Ingrid, only reached Category 1 strength.



http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-2013-numbers-20131025?pageno=2


----------



## billc

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...eme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/



> Droughts, Wildfires, Etc.
> 
> 
> Pretty much all other extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe, also. Soil moisture is in long-term improvement at nearly all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. Droughts are less frequent and less severe than in prior, colder centuries. The number of wildfires is in long-term decline despite a recent change in wildfire policy that no longer actively suppresses wildfires. Just about any way you measure it, extreme weather events are becoming quite rare.





> PAGE 2 OF 2
> 
> 
> *Despite all this good news, a growing number of people believe global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events. This is no accident. Fully aware of the objective facts, global warming activists are doing everything they can to distract people from the truth. Although extreme weather events are becoming less frequent, the Earth is a big place with a dynamic climate*. There will always be some extreme weather events, even as they become less frequent and less severe. Global warming activists can always highlight some extreme weather event occurring somewhere on the planet and paint a false narrative that global warming must be to blame, even though extreme weather events are becoming rarer as the planet gradually warms and returns to pre-Little Ice Age norms.
> 
> *Major hurricanes struck the U.S. Northeast on a fairly regular basis during the first half of the 20th century when temperatures were cooler. Now, as our planet warms, hurricanes of any sort almost never strike the U.S. Northeast. As a result, when even a minor hurricane like Sandy strikes the Northeast, it is a seemingly unheard of weather event. We can thank global warming for the fact that even a small hurricane like Sandy is a rare event in the U.S. Northeast.* The same applies for tornadoes, droughts, etc.



http://www.cpr.org/news/story/experts-explore-whether-climate-change-causing-extreme-weather



> Pielke recently testified to the U.S. House Science Committee on Environment and argued that little evidence exists in the most recent IPCC report linking climate change to extreme weather events.





> Pielke disagreed, arguing current data from the IPCC shows no increase in flooding and there is also no certainty that flooding will increase in the future.


- See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/exper...-causing-extreme-weather#sthash.CjClAlBr.dpuf


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Actually, they aren't getting worse...you need to broaden your information base....
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10...ad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/


With thousands of real scientists to quote you keep going back to a handful of charlatans and a denier website like Climate Depot. 



> Marc Morano, the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, is one of climate denial's most prolific media-heads. In 2012, Morano was named the Climate Change Misinformer of the Year by conservative watchdog group Media Matters for America.
> 
> 
> ClimateDepot, who's sole purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank which has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and foundations which challenge climate science.
> 
> 
> Morano is considered a central player in orchestrating the Climategate scandal. Weeks before the 2009 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a hacker stole a large amount of files, including private data and emails, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data was then shared with climate skeptics, including Morano. These skeptics went on to cherry-pick information and sound bites from the emails in an effort to indict climate scientists for deliberately manipulating data and misleading the public.
> http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano



So what is actually happening ...



> More people worldwide are now displaced by natural disasters than by conflict. In the 1990s, natural catastrophes like hurricanes, floods, and fires affected more than two billion people and caused in excess of $608 billion in economic losses worldwide-a loss greater than during the previous four decades combined. But more and more of the devastation wrought by such natural disasters is "unnatural" in origin, caused by ecologically destructive practices and an increasing number of people living in harm's way, finds a new study by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington D.C.-based environmental research organization.
> http://www.worldwatch.org/human-actions-worsen-natural-disasters


----------



## billc

citing Media Matters to discredit Climatedepot is pretty funny...you do realize that media matters is funded by Bond villian George Soros...and is staffed by the rogues gallery of crooks and nuts from the democrat party...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America



> MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]
> In 2004 MMfA received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of wealthy and politically active donors. The Alliance itself does not fund any of its endorsees, but many wealthy Alliance members acted on the endorsement and donated directly to MMfA.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP] Media Matters as a matter of course has a policy of not comprehensively listing donors. Six years after the Alliance endorsed MMfA, financier George Soros&#8212;a founding and continuing member of the Alliance&#8212;announced in 2010 that he was donating $1 million to MMfA. Soros said: "Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters." Soros said concern over "recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence" had moved him to donate to MMfA, which thanked Soros for announcing his donation "quickly and transparently".[SUP][22][/SUP]
> Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at theCenter for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002.[SUP][23][/SUP] Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP]
> Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] In 2004 article on Media Matters the _National Review_ referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[SUP][18][/SUP]



Why do these lefties always go back to the world having too many people...



> an increasing number of people living in harm's way,



There was a recent article that there aren't more natural disasters, just more people affected by the usual number of disasters...thanks for bringing up that point...

Ah yes...John Podesta...good friend to bill "the serial sexual predator" clinton and his wife hillary "protector of the serial sexual predator" clinton...yeah, media matters...that's pretty funny...


----------



## billc

World watch...an environmental extremist group...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...rmer-greenpeace-academic-slams-radical-greens



> Debunking deforestation
> Lomborg also takes environmental activists to task for spreading false propaganda about global deforestation.
> In its 1998 "State of the World" report, for example, the Worldwatch Institute claims "The world's forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." Lomborg documents, however, that U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization figures show global forest cover has actually increased from 30.04 percent in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994.
> Lomborg further notes Worldwatch claimed "Canada is losing some 200,000 hectares of forest a year" due to soaring demand for paper. In fact, Lomborg shows, "Canada grew 174,600 more hectares of forest each year."
> The Worldwatch Institute's inaccurate claims do not end with deforestation, notes Lomborg. In its 2000 report, Worldwatch reports "record rates of population growth, soaring oil prices, debilitating levels of international debt and extensive damage to forests from . . . acid rain."
> Lomborg cites figures from the Census Bureau, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and European Environment Agency to show that world population growth has sharply slowed since 1964; international debt has declined since 1984; the inflation-adjusted price of oil is half what it was 20 years ago; and sulfur emissions and resulting acid rain are down substantially since 1984.
> In short, The Skeptical Environmentalist affirms and adds weight to the scientific refutation of contemporary environmental activist claims. In the past, such activists could at least plausibly refute the evidence by attacking the messengers as having a right-wing axe to grind. Such can not be said about The Skeptical Environmentalist.
> "I'm a left-wing guy," says Lomborg, "and a vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals--you can't play the 'He's right-wing so he's wrong' argument" with me.


----------



## billc

Besides, climate depot just links to news articles from other sources...it is a collection site...

Here is a look at hurricanes and the U.S....from NOAA

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> With thousands of real scientists to quote you keep going back to a handful of charlatans and a denier website like Climate Depot. ..


Is what they are saying on climate depot wrong?  Not their opinion but the data they post


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> *Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
> 
> 
> Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
> Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
> Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (19992003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
> Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
> Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
> Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
> Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
> Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
> Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
> Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
> Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
> Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
> Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
> David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
> Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
> William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
> William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
> Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
> Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
> William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
> David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
> Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
> Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
> Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
> Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
> Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
> Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
> Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
> Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
> Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
> Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
> Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
> George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
> Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
> Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
> Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
> John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
> Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
> David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
> Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
> Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
> Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
> Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]
> *Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences*
> 
> Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
> 
> 
> Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
> Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
> Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]


So how many Wiki pages come with this warning?


> The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2014)


So we might be wise to take the content with a little caution. 




> *Listing criteria*: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.


To be in the list they need to have posted a peer reviewed article. So by publishing an article on the DNA of meal worms it qualifies them to provide expert commentary on climatology. 
:hmm:



> As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


You are kidding me. Here are all these dissenting statements, mostly disagreeing with one statement in a huge report and less than 10 of these statements are peer reviewed. So less than 10 ... how many exactly is "less than 10"? Perhaps one or two?



> In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[14] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[15] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).



Now if my maths are right we have 3868 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW. That leaves 116 articles over 20 years that disagreed to some extent. That is six articles per year saying that man is not the major cause of global warming. One hundred and eighty peer reviewed articles disagree.



> Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.


Hang about. All these guys are doing is saying that the models aren't good enough to predict exactly what will happen in the next hundred years. I would suggest that there wouldn't be one reputable scientist in the world who would predict a figure with 100% accuracy 100 years out.



> Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.


Mmm! Nothing ground breaking here. It is in my opinion an area that is not 100% black or white. The important thing is that they agree that there is observed warming. I doubt any scientist in the world is saying that all the warming is caused by human activity.



> Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.



I do have trouble aligning with this group but perhaps they have no direct knowledge of climatology. That wasn't a prerequisite to being included on the list. I reckon I could walk down the street and ask 100 people what is causing global warming and get that same response. I would expect better from a scientist with an interest in climatology.



> Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.



And these guys are the real worry. They are happy that the climate is changing and confident that all is well despite what is happening around the world.

Who are these guys?
*Craig Idso
*


> Idso is a lead author of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project sponsored by the Heartland Institute. An unauthorized release of documents indicate *Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.*


OK, that explains his position.

*Sherwood Idso*


> Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. He is an ISI highly cited researcher.


At last. Someone who seems to be the real deal. Cool. The only point I would question is that his paper on the effects of CO2 on global warming was published 15 years ago in 1998 and his links to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which has been supported by Exxon Mobil.

*Patrick Michaels
*


> Patrick J. ("Pat") Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.


OK, another with credentials but, hang about ...



> On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.
> 
> 
> Patrick Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[39] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[40]
> 
> 
> A 2005 article in the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.



Yep, another compromised position.

To be honest, it is hard to find any scientist with a decent reputation saying that global warming and climate change is a myth.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> World watch...an environmental extremist group...
> 
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...rmer-greenpeace-academic-slams-radical-greens



still quoting heartland?  funny stuff!!


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> So how many Wiki pages come with this warning?
> 
> So we might be wise to take the content with a little caution.
> 
> 
> To be in the list they need to have posted a peer reviewed article. So by publishing an article on the DNA of meal worms it qualifies them to provide expert commentary on climatology.
> :hmm:
> 
> 
> You are kidding me. Here are all these dissenting statements, mostly disagreeing with one statement in a huge report and less than 10 of these statements are peer reviewed. So less than 10 ... how many exactly is "less than 10"? Perhaps one or two?
> 
> 
> 
> Now if my maths are right we have 3868 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW. That leaves 116 articles over 20 years that disagreed to some extent. That is six articles per year saying that man is not the major cause of global warming. One hundred and eighty peer reviewed articles disagree.
> 
> 
> Hang about. All these guys are doing is saying that the models aren't good enough to predict exactly what will happen in the next hundred years. I would suggest that there wouldn't be one reputable scientist in the world who would predict a figure with 100% accuracy 100 years out.
> 
> Mmm! Nothing ground breaking here. It is in my opinion an area that is not 100% black or white. The important thing is that they agree that there is observed warming. I doubt any scientist in the world is saying that all the warming is caused by human activity.
> 
> 
> 
> I do have trouble aligning with this group but perhaps they have no direct knowledge of climatology. That wasn't a prerequisite to being included on the list. I reckon I could walk down the street and ask 100 people what is causing global warming and get that same response. I would expect better from a scientist with an interest in climatology.
> 
> 
> 
> And these guys are the real worry. They are happy that the climate is changing and confident that all is well despite what is happening around the world.
> 
> Who are these guys?
> *Craig Idso
> *OK, that explains his position.
> 
> *Sherwood Idso*
> At last. Someone who seems to be the real deal. Cool. The only point I would question is that his paper on the effects of CO2 on global warming was published 15 years ago in 1998 and his links to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which has been supported by Exxon Mobil.
> 
> *Patrick Michaels
> *OK, another with credentials but, hang about ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, another compromised position.
> 
> To be honest, it is hard to find any scientist with a decent reputation saying that global warming and climate change is a myth.
> :asian:



So you can't PROVE then wrong so you hunt down their source of income.  Lol.  How many of the green weenies are funded by green energy companies.   Lol. You guys are pathetic


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> So you can't PROVE then wrong so you hunt down their source of income.  Lol.  How many of the green weenies are funded by green energy companies.   Lol. You guys are pathetic



"Green energy companies?"

As someone who works at solar power plant, and who has spent half of his career in the utility industry, I can tell you that the largest of your so-called "green energy companies," are, in fact, mostly the selfsame utilities that burn coal, oil and nuclear, among them companies like Xcel Energy, which probably owns the most wind-farms and wind generation assets in the country, in addition to its coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear holdings, as well as some PV solar.When it comes to the financial motices for that (and they are numerous, like the wind blows for free and sunlight just falls out of the sky :lfao: ) you have to look a little deeper than "green energy companies."


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> "Green energy companies?"
> 
> As someone who works at solar power plant, and who has spent half of his career in the utility industry, I can tell you that the largest of your so-called "green energy companies," are, in fact, mostly the selfsame utilities that burn coal, oil and nuclear, among them companies like Xcel Energy, which probably owns the most wind-farms and wind generation assets in the country, in addition to its coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear holdings, as well as some PV solar.When it comes to the financial motices for that (and they are numerous, like the wind blows for free and sunlight just falls out of the sky :lfao: ) you have to look a little deeper than "green energy companies."


Funny people like Al Gore had no problen making millions on green energy. However the point was debate the facts not who signs the paycheck.  If you think the people on that list were wrong show me why.  I don't care where they earn their money if the data the use is true.  If the data is wrong prove it.  People are more worried about the messenger then the message


----------



## billc

17 years 8months...no warming...of course this info. Is posted at climate depot...so if you doubt it you need to go to their sources for the data...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-8-months/



> Global warming? What global warming? According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for March 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.





> Dataset of datasets. The mean of the GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero over the 18 full years from March 1996 to February 2014. The 0.14 Cº trend over the 18-year period is within the ±0.15 Cº combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties in the datasets. There may have been no global warming at all during the entire lifetimes of all students now in high school. Not that their teachers will have told them that.



For where the info came from...



> Technical note
> Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 212 months August 1996 to March 2014 &#8211; just over half the 423-months satellite record.
> Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available &#8211; platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth&#8217;s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
> The graph is accurate*. The data are lifted monthly straight from the websites maintained by the keepers of the datasets. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.*



Wow, one of the climategate wizards also uses these info streams...



> . Interestingly, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Funny people like Al Gore had no problen making millions on green energy.


 
That isn't exactly true any longer, if it ever was, about Al Gore:



> Gore's company files a quarterly report with the SEC that tells a different story about the 30stocks in its portfolio. His company's public investments in wind, solar, biomass and other alternative energy to combat climate change are practically non-existent.




As I said, the "people" making millions off green-energy aren't "green energy companies." They are, quite simply, energy companies.




ballen0351 said:


> However the point was debate the facts not who signs the paycheck.


 

You made your point very poorly, I think. More to the point, we have a decades long legacy of cigarette companies paying "experts" to obfuscate the truth about their products-a truth they knew all along, and feared would someday cut into their profits-to demonstrate exactly  how badly so-called "scientific opinion" with biased corporate sponsorship can muddy the issue with spurious claims. 



ballen0351 said:


> If you think the people on that list were wrong show me why.  I don't care where they earn their money if the data the use is true.  If the data is wrong prove it.  People are more worried about the messenger then the message




I don't "think the people on that list were wrong." I think their opinions and findings, such as they are, are completely suspect given the provenance of their funding and questionable associations.


----------



## Makalakumu

Does anyone ever wonder where the money for pro-climate change/pro-world government studies is coming from? Look back at that list of people I quoted above and take a look at some of those organizations. What is The Club of Rome? What is the World Wildlife Fund? What do they support? Who are they?


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> That isn't exactly true any longer, if it ever was, about Al Gore:
> 
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR]
> As I said, the "people" making millions off green-energy aren't "green energy companies." They are, quite simply, energy companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made your point very poorly, I think. More to the point, we have a decades long legacy of cigarette companies paying "experts" to obfuscate the truth about their products-a truth they knew all along, and feared would someday cut into their profits-to demonstrate exactly  how badly so-called "scientific opinion" with biased corporate sponsorship can muddy the issue with spurious claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "think the people on that list were wrong." I think their opinions and findings, such as they are, are completely suspect given the provenance of their funding and questionable associations.



So prove it.  Prove the findings were slanted.  Its funny the only time where the money comes from is an issue is when it the ones that say climate change isn't man made.  You even have an expert in the field that says man made climate change is more profitable then natural cycle.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> So you can't PROVE then wrong so you hunt down their source of income. Lol. How many of the green weenies are funded by green energy companies. Lol. You guys are pathetic


Perhaps if you left the personal abuse out we could continue the discussion. 

There is consensus that global temperatures are increasing. All your references acknowledge that. The discussion now is what is causing the warming and can we do anything about it. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the acceleration in temperature increase. 

There is no 'proof' so nobody is proving anybody wrong. Climate scientists are producing models that fit the known facts. They are analysing ice cores and tree rings to try to find what levels of carbon were in the atmosphere years past. The results they are producing are incomplete so we are relying on consensus. There is room for dissenting voices but not for people with closed minds.

Some people are looking at tea leaves in a sense. People with no training in climatology have an opinion. I have an opinion and you have an opinion. We formed our opinions from what we have read, what we have heard and what we have observed for ourselves. We rely on independent analysis to reach a valid conclusion. A professor of law from Harvard has as much credibility commenting on climate change as the local plumber yet because the first guy is an expert on law and has published peer reviewed papers on law he is accepted by some as an expert on climate change when he doubts that the change is caused by increasing CO2. That is just nonsense. 

People can be bought. Politicians have their price as we are observing first hand at present in our parliaments. Police officers have their price as we have seen first hand in our recent gangland war. Most people, including reputable scientists have their price. Once a previously reputable scientist takes money from the likes of a tobacco company to push the line that tobacco smoke is harmless, most people would be doubtful as to the validity of the information. Now their is a huge difference between such a person and another scientist employed by a tobacco company to research the health effects of smoking. The first is paid to use his reputation to push a preconceived position where the second is employed to provide credible peer reviewed research. Of course there would not be many in the second category because that horse has bolted.

When the scientist who pushed the 'smoking is harmless' barrow against all the contrary evidence then starts taking money from big oil companies to produce opinion, that is not peer reviewed, saying that burning fossil fuels is not damaging to the environment and may in fact be beneficial, then alarm bells should be ringing. That is not to say what he is saying is right or wrong. But it is opinion, not evidence. 

There are many credible scientists not convinced that CO2 is the culprit in global warming and that is fine. They are not saying CO2 isn't the culprit, they are saying there is not yet enough evidence to convince them that that is the case. Once again what they are expressing is opinion, not evidence. 

Worldwide, hundreds of scientists have independently come to a consensus that greenhouse gasses are a major factor in global warming and that if nothing is done to reduce the pollution we will have severe consequences in the future. If you believe they are wrong based on your knowledge fine, go for it. But if you are relying on people intentionally trying to peddle misinformation to sure up your entrenched position, you are in a bad place.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> There is no 'proof' so nobody is proving anybody wrong.



You can stop there thanks.  That's all that's needed.


----------



## billc

> scientists have independently come to a consensus



Actually, no.  Scientists have read the findings of a specific group of scientists...scientists who receive a lot of money, power and fame in their community,  to advance the theory of man made global warming.  The scientists who have created the U.N. report on global climate change have been shown to be corrupt...and it is their report that these other scientists sign off on...and consensus is not science...

Again...if their "science" was sound, they wouldn't try to keep the skeptics out of the peer review journals, they wouldn't destroy their data...

From an earlier post...



> In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. *For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the &#8220;definitive&#8221; indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. *Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.



And from another earlier post...


http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/



> The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups &#8220;exaggerate&#8221; global warming and then the offer their paper to &#8220;provide a rationale for this tendency&#8221; to exaggerate for the good of the cause.
> 
> The paper was published on February 24, 2014.
> The author&#8217;s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the &#8220;news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.&#8221;
> &#8220;We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.&#8221;
> The paper conclusions read in part: &#8220;This article offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate change accentuation or exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other pro-environmental organizations.&#8221; &#8212; &#8216;We show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insuf&#64257;cient IEA participation.&#8221;
> &#8220;In fact, our key result&#8212;that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem&#8212;implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society,&#8221; the authors conclude on page two, footnote #5.



And here is money from the other side...



> *Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. *In particular, evidence reveals a statistical &#8220;trick&#8230;to hide the decline&#8221; in reliability of proxy data in Mann&#8217;s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he&#8217;s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he &#8220;shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.&#8221;
> As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: &#8220;I would like to have him answer the following: (1) Name (all) the other IPCC authors he shared the prize with; (2.) How much of the money coming with the prize did he declare in his tax return for that year?&#8221;



From an earlier post...


> For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
> This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not _just _scientific fraud.
> 
> It is also a _criminal _act. *Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money*-*Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers.
> *
> It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.



This also doesn't touch on the money NASA gets, now that they can't go to the moon, for supporting man made global warming...they need a reason to keep their funding, and scare mongering man made global warming fits that bill pretty well...


----------



## billc

And the scientists continue to disagree...

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/exposing-the-global-warming-fraud/



> Last month, in a disclosure that drew wide publicity and ominous warnings, it was announced that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements had reached 400 parts per million and that this was the highest in 3 million years. But as we pointed out in a previousposting (which includes important graphs), there is abundant evidence that this is not true. Between the years 1812 and 1961, there were 90,000(!) measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide published in 175 technical papers.
> These show five-year averages of 440 ppm CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in 1820 and 1940. Professor Jaworowski says these measurements were ignored &#8220;not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using techniques that are standard textbook procedures&#8230;.The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.&#8221;
> Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., was a mountaineer as well as a scientist, studied climate for 50 years and dug into glaciers on 17 research expeditions&#8212;11 organized by him&#8212;in the Arctic, Antarctic, Alps, Norway, Himalayas, Peruvian Andes, and other mountainous regions. He published many scientific papers, mostly on ice cores. Ice core measurements show carbon dioxide content of over 400 ppm in 1700 A.D. and 200 A.D. as well as 10,000 years ago. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated: &#8220;The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the _*natural range*_ over the last 650,000 years _*(180 to 300 ppm)*_[!] as determined from ice cores [emphasis added].&#8221;
> *Jaworowski stated that the IPCC AR4 Summary Report was &#8220;plagued with improper manipulation of data,&#8221; and that this corruption to try to justify the global warming hypothesis extends far beyond the IPCC. Here is an example:*


----------



## billc

What you didn't hear about climategate on the British side...

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges



> So it isn&#8217;t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?​And don&#8217;t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites&#8212;you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit &#8230; data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I&#8217;ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.​Bingo! Proof of intention (_mens rea_) to commit a criminal destruction of evidence&#8211;all we need now is proof of the destruction/loss of data the (_actus reus_) to have the two requisite components of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actual commission of the crime).Jones then discusses (conspires) to find other way to unlawfully subvert the FOIA law:​We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.​Again, &#8220;hide behind&#8221; reveals intent to conceal the original fraud of falsification of climate data.​Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it&#8212;he thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that&#8230;.Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at the University of East Anglia who&#8217;ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act!​Again, proof Jones will &#8220;argue&#8221; against compliance betraying his guilty frame of mind, in seeking to pervert the law &#8212; further deepening his admissions to commit a crime.On February 21, 2005 in email 1109021312 exchange Phil Jones writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm Hughes, regarding news reports that Mann will be forced to release his data:​The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! &#8230;Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! &#8230;.PS I&#8217;m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit &#8230; temperature data. Don&#8217;t any of you three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom of Information Act!​


----------



## Makalakumu

That is the other side of the story, Bill, that made me really question the dogma that I was taught in government school. You can go back to 2003 and look at my old posts and I completely supported the climate change ideology hook line and sinker. After Climategate, after actually downloading the original documents as soon as they were released, I could not deny that there was some serious problems with the theory that I had accepted.  Climate change may or may not be legitimate, but the truth is now obfuscated by the agenda to form a world government and control all human activity.


----------



## billc

A timely look at our current situation...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...Cs-alarmism-take-everyone-in-for-so-long.html



> When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.





> Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports &#8211; another emerged last week &#8211; and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster &#8211; hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief &#8220;Summary for Policymakers&#8221;, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Is what they are saying on climate depot wrong?  Not their opinion but the data they post



as i pointed out earlier, climate depot is a compromised source because, for starters, it has accepted a lot of funding from big oil who has a vested interest in denying global climate change.  if there is any accuracy to the data they post, it has been cherry-picked and taken out of context to hide the true picture and lead an unsophisticated reader to the wrong conclusion.  

it's interesting that you and billc keep holding on to debunked sources.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> 17 years 8months...no warming...of course this info. Is posted at climate depot...so if you doubt it you need to go to their sources for the data...
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-8-months/



This is an issue used to mislead and cloud the truth.  the real truth behind this issue has already been revealed in an earlier post.  Just because you say it again, does not suddenly make it true.  screaming the same lie over and over only convinces the uneducated and the unsophisticated.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> as i pointed out earlier, climate depot is a compromised source because, for starters, it has accepted a lot of funding from big oil who has a vested interest in denying global climate change.  if there is any accuracy to the data they post, it has been cherry-picked and taken out of context to hide the true picture and lead an unsophisticated reader to the wrong conclusion.
> 
> it's interesting that you and billc keep holding on to debunked sources.



Again is the facts they are using wrong?  You claim they take them out of context  prove it.  I don't care where the money comes from.  Where do you think the pro man made warming funding comes from?  Everyone is bias they each need to justify their existence and keep the checks coming in.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> This is an issue used to mislead and cloud the truth.  the real truth behind this issue has already been revealed in an earlier post.  Just because you say it again, does not suddenly make it true.  screaming the same lie over and over only convinces the uneducated and the unsophisticated.



Is it a lie?  Has temps not risen in 17 years?


----------



## Flying Crane

Originally Posted by *K-man* 


There is no 'proof' so nobody is proving anybody wrong.




ballen0351 said:


> You can stop there thanks.  That's all that's needed.



well, not exactly.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Is that the same as 110% proof?  no, but for the scientific community (real scientists, not hacks and pretenders), this overwhelming evidence paints a very clear picture, one that is highly reliable.  This is science, after all.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Is it a lie?  Has temps not risen in 17 years?



it's worse than a lie, it's a half truth meant to mislead.  did you even read what i posted earlier about this?  or are you just clamping down on the belief you want to hold?  sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALALA


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Again is the facts they are using wrong?  You claim they take them out of context  prove it.  I don't care where the money comes from.  Where do you think the pro man made warming funding comes from?  Everyone is bias they each need to justify their existence and keep the checks coming in.



wrong, on every point.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> wrong, on every point.



Yes you are.  If the facts are the facts and they are true the source doesn't matter.  If I say 2+2=4 it doesn't matter who signs my check.  Or what my degree is in, or who my parents are, or my girlfriends dogs name.  If its true then its true regardless


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> it's worse than a lie, it's a half truth meant to mislead.  did you even read what i posted earlier about this?  or are you just clamping down on the belief you want to hold?  sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALALA


So did temps rise or not.  Your the one going LA Lalala because you know it's true and you can't say it because it goes against your religion


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> 
> 
> There is no 'proof' so nobody is proving anybody wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, not exactly.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Is that the same as 110% proof?  no, but for the scientific community (real scientists, not hacks and pretenders), this overwhelming evidence paints a very clear picture, one that is highly reliable.  This is science, after all.



Yep and science has never been wrong ever right?  Lol. Let's fundamentally change our entire way of living because some "real" scientist have a theory. Lol. Again when you give up fossil fuels you can lecture until then your a hypocrite


----------



## Steve

If the question is as concrete as 2+2=x, then you can be confident that you have the entire context of the question when you answer, "x=4."

But what if the statement, "2+2=4" is in response to the questions, "When does 2 plus 2 equal 5?"  Then the context changes, and suddenly the "fact" of the statement becomes only part of the answer.  This guy asserts (rightly or wrongly) that 2+2 equals 5.  here's another neat math paradox where 2+2=5.  And what if you are talking about a completely different scale than traditional math?  For example, if you have a two day training classes that start on the 2nd of the month, training would be done on the 3rd.  In this context, 2+2=3.

Or what if the conversation was really about simple math?  The converse is also often done.  It doesn't take much to muddy the waters with specious "facts."

The point is, in more complex, nuanced discussions, facts are very important, but can also be intentionally misleading.  Context matters, and what IS said can very well be less important than what is intentionally omitted.  In writing, this is called 'exclusionary detailing.'   Really, it's lying by omission, and is a common tactic in media and in politics.

From the outside looking in, ballen and Flying Crane together make the right answer (in my opinion).  Yes facts matter.  And yes, context also matters, as do the facts that are NOT reported.  Facts can be true, but facts do not equal truth.  

Also, bias matters, and sites that are faux grassroots organizations funded and supported by interest groups should be considered suspect sources for reliable disclosure of "truth."


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If the question is as concrete as 2+2=x, then you can be confident that you have the entire context of the question when you answer, "x=4."
> 
> But what if the statement, "2+2=4" is in response to the questions, "When does 2 plus 2 equal 5?"  Then the context changes, and suddenly the "fact" of the statement becomes only part of the answer.  This guy asserts (rightly or wrongly) that 2+2 equals 5.  here's another neat math paradox where 2+2=5.  And what if you are talking about a completely different scale than traditional math?  For example, if you have a two day training classes that start on the 2nd of the month, training would be done on the 3rd.  In this context, 2+2=3.
> 
> Or what if the conversation was really about simple math?  The converse is also often done.  It doesn't take much to muddy the waters with specious "facts."
> 
> The point is, in more complex, nuanced discussions, facts are very important, but can also be intentionally misleading.  Context matters, and what IS said can very well be less important than what is intentionally omitted.  In writing, this is called 'exclusionary detailing.'   Really, it's lying by omission, and is a common tactic in media and in politics.
> 
> From the outside looking in, ballen and Flying Crane together make the right answer (in my opinion).  Yes facts matter.  And yes, context also matters, as do the facts that are NOT reported.  Facts can be true, but facts do not equal truth.
> 
> Also, bias matters, and sites that are faux grassroots organizations funded and supported by interest groups should be considered suspect sources for reliable disclosure of "truth."



except a fact is a fact.  2+2 always =4  its a fact.  Temps didn't go up over the last 17 years can be proven true as a fact.  it doesn't matter who says it if its true.


----------



## ballen0351

Its a FACT that we don't know whats causing temps to change or not.  Could be people, could be cow farts, could be the natural rise and fall that's happened over the last million years, could be space invaders.  So don't make up dooms day crap as a reason to clean things up, don't invent things to create new taxes, don't say countries A through Z must cut back pollution but we will exempt F,L,N,P,Qand V well because they are still growing and B because they wont do it any way.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Its a FACT that we don't know whats causing temps to change or not.


wrong.



> Could be people, could be cow farts, could be the natural rise and fall that's happened over the last million years,



it's all of these, to some degree.  



> could be space invaders.



I'll wait for billc to actually introduce this notion before I consider whether i want to waste time debating it.



> So don't make up dooms day crap as a reason to clean things up,


'cause damn, the last thing we wanna do is clean things up, for any reason.



> don't invent things to create new taxes, don't say countries A through Z must cut back pollution but we will exempt F,L,N,P,Qand V well because they are still growing and B because they wont do it any way.



the solution does need to be universal.  but that's a different debate from the cause.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> wrong.


OK prove it..........


> it's all of these, to some degree.


proof......not a theory but actual proof


> I'll wait for billc to actually introduce this notion before I consider whether i want to waste time debating it.


as provable as any other


> 'cause damn, the last thing we wanna do is clean things up, for any reason.


plenty of REAL reasons to clean up we don't need to invent fake ones that we have no control over



> the solution does need to be universal.  but that's a different debate from the cause.


funny the only solutions I hear are ones that are going to cost me a lot more $$$$ and loss of freedoms and are not universal


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> except a fact is a fact.  2+2 always =4  its a fact.  Temps didn't go up over the last 17 years can be proven true as a fact.  it doesn't matter who says it if its true.



in an earlier post i have acknowledged that there has been a "pause" in the rate of surface temp increase.  to you and billc and your "sources", this is proof that global climate change is a hoax.  hoever, there are many other measurements that, taken as a complete picture, tell us something entirely different.  things like, how the oceans can absorb huge amounts of heat so that surface temp appears unaffected but deep ocean temp does go up.  then, rising oceans due to water's natural expansion as it warms, and the melting glaciers that contribute to rising seas as well, support this phenomenon.  so you see, a pause in the rise of surface temps is not contradictory of global warming.

others have pointed to increased snowfall in antarctica as proof of global climate change as a hoax.  well, antarctica is actually a desert and gets very little snowfall overall.  snow becomes more likely as temps in that region rise, (it's called "climate change" because typical weather patterns such as antarctic temps, are altered and become much more erratic and a-typical, even if temps everywhere do not simply rise in a straight line) so greater snowfall in antarctica supports global climate change completely.

but hey, this is real science, which is what you seem to want to reject.  oh well, people here have tried over and over to educate you, but you've repeatedly chosen deliberate ignorance.  that's your choice.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> OK prove it..........
> 
> proof......not a theory but actual proof
> 
> as provable as any other



this thread is chock full of overwhelming evidence.  all you gotta do is read and open your mind.



> funny the only solutions I hear are ones that are going to cost me a lot more $$$$ and loss of freedoms and are not universal



again, that's a different topic.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK prove it..........
> 
> proof......not a theory but actual proof
> 
> as provable as any other
> [/quote}
> 
> this thread is chock full of overwhelming evidence.  all you gotta do is read and open your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG its full of theory and not even all scientists agree on the theory.  That's not proof.  That's a guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, that's a different topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep one you don't want to touch because you know there is nothing that can be done
Click to expand...


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> in an earlier post i have acknowledged that there has been a "pause" in the rate of surface temp increase.  to you and billc and your "sources", this is proof that global climate change is a hoax.  hoever, there are many other measurements that, taken as a complete picture, tell us something entirely different.  things like, how the oceans can absorb huge amounts of heat so that surface temp appears unaffected but deep ocean temp does go up.  then, rising oceans due to water's natural expansion as it warms, and the melting glaciers that contribute to rising seas as well, support this phenomenon.  so you see, a pause in the rise of surface temps is not contradictory of global warming.


OH so up until 17 years ago none of that absorption happened huh?  LOL whatever your warming god tells you huh 



> others have pointed to increased snowfall in antarctica as proof of global climate change as a hoax.  well, antarctica is actually a desert and gets very little snowfall overall.  snow becomes more likely as temps in that region rise, (it's called "climate change" because typical weather patterns such as antarctic temps, are altered and become much more erratic and a-typical, even if temps everywhere do not simply rise in a straight line) so greater snowfall in antarctica supports global climate change completely.


except 30 years ago this was proof we were going back into an ice age.  Well that was the accepted theory by "scientists" anyway lol


> but hey, this is real science, which is what you seem to want to reject.  oh well, people here have tried over and over to educate you, but you've repeatedly chosen deliberate ignorance.  that's your choice.


Im not rejecting REAL science.  REAL science shows temps rise and fall naturally over time we are coming OUT of the last Ice Age.  See Science tells me to exit an ICE age temps must WARM up some you know to melt the ice that once covered most of the US Canada and Europe.  So looking at REAL science I don't need your global warming religion indoctrination


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> WRONG its full of theory and not even all scientists agree on the theory.  That's not proof.  That's a guess



no, scientific consensus is how it works in the scientific community.  and no, that doesn't mean every scientist agrees.  however, there is vast evidence in support, and the huge majority does agree, and most of those who do not, have suspicious affiliations and suspicious motives.  but we've discussed this already and there's not much point in doing it all over again.  as i said, you've chosen what you want to believe in, and you've chosen to reject real science.  oh well.




> Yep one you don't want to touch because you know there is nothing that can be done



no, it's a different debate. however, i'll say that it's my opinion that we've already crossed a critical threshold so that even if we globally ended 100% of all pollution today, it's too late.  the pollution already in the atmosphere has built up a lot of climate change momentum and we are gonna be in for some rough times for humanity and most other species on the planet.  we may make the planet uninhabitable, or at least very uncomfortable, for humanity tho it may not play out completely for a few more generations.  given that global pollution continues to increase, well i'm doubtful that there is much hope in the end.  

but i don't use that as an excuse to throw up my hands and say I don't give a ****, let's just keep on this suicidal path that we've chosen.


----------



## Steve

2+2 equals 4 except for when it doesn't.  

Facts matter, but so does context.  And exclusionary detailing is a tactic widely used to good effect, particularly in complex discussions.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

I can't believe you guys are so sure you're right.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> 2+2 equals 4 except for when it doesn't.


which is never


> Facts matter, but so does context.  And exclusionary detailing is a tactic widely used to good effect, particularly in complex discussions.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


facts are facts


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I can't believe you guys are so sure you're right.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



Im not that's the point we don't know and never will.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Im not that's the point we don't know and never will.



only if you ignore the vast quantity of real science in this.  which is what you are doing.


----------



## K-man

Flying Crane said:


> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> 
> 
> There is no 'proof' so nobody is proving anybody wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, not exactly.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Is that the same as 110% proof?  no, but for the scientific community (real scientists, not hacks and pretenders), this overwhelming evidence paints a very clear picture, one that is highly reliable.  This is science, after all.


Many people don't understand the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. You might think anyone who has anything to do with the legal system might know that.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> facts are facts



that's incredibly naive.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> no, scientific consensus is how it works in the scientific community.  and no, that doesn't mean every scientist agrees.  however, there is vast evidence in support, and the huge majority does agree, and most of those who do not, have suspicious affiliations and suspicious motives.  but we've discussed this already and there's not much point in doing it all over again.  as i said, you've chosen what you want to believe in, and you've chosen to reject real science.  oh well.


Naa I just choose common sense




> no, it's a different debate. however, i'll say that it's my opinion that we've already crossed a critical threshold so that even if we globally ended 100% of all pollution today, it's too late.  the pollution already in the atmosphere has built up a lot of climate change momentum and we are gonna be in for some rough times for humanity and most other species on the planet.  we may make the planet uninhabitable, or at least very uncomfortable, for humanity tho it may not play out completely for a few more generations.  given that global pollution continues to increase, well i'm doubtful that there is much hope in the end.
> 
> but i don't use that as an excuse to throw up my hands and say I don't give a ****, let's just keep on this suicidal path that we've chosen.


Ohh your one of the chicken little we are all going to die guys LOL It all comes together now.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> that's incredibly naive.



Wait so facts are not facts in your world.  Well no wonder you believe this nonsense


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Many people don't understand the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. You might think anyone who has anything to do with the legal system might know that.
> :asian:


Yep guilty beyond reasonable doubt is pretty clear.  The way I see it there is lots of reasonable doubt on this topic


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> only if you ignore the vast quantity of real science in this.  which is what you are doing.


Says you and you are?


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Yes you are.  If the facts are the facts and they are true the source doesn't matter.  If I say 2+2=4 it doesn't matter who signs my check.  Or what my degree is in, or who my parents are, or my girlfriends dogs name.  If its true then its true regardless



If the 'facts' are indeed true then you are right, the source doesn't matter. Unfortunately 'facts' are not always black or white and some people choose the facts that fit their position and ignore the others which don't. Where it gets particularly messy is when people are paid to ignore the facts that adversely affect the position of the benefactor.



ballen0351 said:


> So did temps rise or not.  Your the one going LA Lalala because you know it's true and you can't say it because it goes against your religion



Overall temperatures rose. It just depends on what part of the planet absorbed that heat. But to look at the graph which has been steadily rising for decades and say that global temperatures are not rising is nonsense. As I said before, if you take a peak 17 years ago and say temperatures haven't risen since then it is ingenuous to say the least. Perhaps you could take a look at 10 year averages to get rid of the noise on annual ups and downs.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/



ballen0351 said:


> except a fact is a fact.  2+2 always =4  its a fact.  Temps didn't go up over the last 17 years can be proven true as a fact.  it doesn't matter who says it if its true.


Just that it is not as clear cut as that.

Let's have a hypothetical. You, as a cop, are at the scene of a stabbing murder by a river. There is a suspect there who you proceed to question? The victim was obviously killed with a knife, fact, but the suspect does not have a knife in his possession. That is also a fact. Divers subsequently find a knife with the suspects finger prints in the river nearby, fact. They go to court and the case is dismissed because it was a fact that the suspect did not have a knife on him when he was questioned ... I don't think so.

Being selective with the facts doesn't work, sorry.



ballen0351 said:


> WRONG its full of theory and not even all scientists agree on the theory.  That's not proof.  That's a guess
> 
> Yep one you don't want to touch because you know there is nothing that can be done



As I said before, there is no 'proof'. But the 'evidence' is there if we are prepared to look. I am prepared to say "there is no global warming and we are heading for an ice age" if you can show me facts to support that position. You are not prepared to say "there is global warming that is likely to have a serious effect on our existence", despite overwhelming evidence.

As to whether anything can be done or not, that is a different argument. Does a smoker with the beginnings of heart disease continue to smoke? Sadly the answer is often yes.



ballen0351 said:


> facts are facts


True ... and facts provide evidence that may or may not by themselves produce proof.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

We can go round and round if you want.  However the fact remains you can't prove 100% that warming is man made.  So all the praying to the warming gods won't change that.  It is what it is.  Perhaps we did cause it but perhaps we didn't.   You believe what you want it means nothing to me.  But don't tell me we need fundamental changes to society on a theory.  There are real and factual reasons to clean things up.  Focus on them and leave chicken little to the fairy tales


----------



## Flying Crane

and the Earth is flat, too!


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> and the Earth is flat, too!



Yep all the "scientists" believed that at one time as well. Lol.  Like I said you keep praying to you warming gods chicken little


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Yep all the "scientists" believed that at one time as well. Lol.  Like I said you keep praying to you warming gods chicken little


So what you are saying is at one time scientists believed there was no global warming. As with flat Earth, theories change as more evidence comes available. Lol. 
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> So what you are saying is at one time scientists believed there was no global warming. As with flat Earth, theories change as more evidence comes available. Lol.
> :asian:


Yes I'm saying science isn't always right so we shouldnt create massive changes to world wide energy policy on a theory that's not proven.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Besides, climate depot just links to news articles from other sources...it is a collection site...
> 
> Here is a look at hurricanes and the U.S....from NOAA
> 
> http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml



so you are willing to trust noaa, since you've linked to data on their site?

here's something of interest from noaa, from December 30, 2013, so it's recent:  http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes



> *A. Summary Statement*
> 
> Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
> 
> 
> Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity?
> What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?
> In this review, we address these questions in the context of published research findings.  We will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:
> 
> 
> *It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).*
> *Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
> *
> *There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins&#8212;an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.*
> *Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.*



and from the body of the report:



> A review of existing studies, including the ones cited above, lead us to conclude that *it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes*.
> 
> ...
> 
> In other words, *there is little evidence from current dynamical models that 21st century climate warming will lead to large (~300%) increases in tropical storm numbers, hurricane numbers, or PDI in the Atlantic*. As noted above, there is some indication from high resolution models of substantial *increases in the numbers of the most intense hurricanes even if the overall number of tropical storms or hurricanes decreases.  *In the Bender et al. 2010 study, we estimate that *the effect of increasing category 4-5 storms outweighs the reduction in overall hurricane numbers such that we project (very roughly) a 30% increase in potential damage in the Atlantic basin by 2100*. This estimate does not include the influence of future sea level rise or other important factors such as coastal development or changes in building practices.



once again, the facts alone are not truth.  the facts are only accurate when presented in the context of the full picture.  

and once again, billc's arguments fall apart because he relies on cherry-picking and taking facts out of context, with the intention of misleading the reader.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> except 30 years ago this was proof we were going back into an ice age.  Well that was the accepted theory by "scientists" anyway lol
> 
> Im not rejecting REAL science.  REAL science shows temps rise and fall naturally over time we are coming OUT of the last Ice Age.  See Science tells me to exit an ICE age temps must WARM up some you know to melt the ice that once covered most of the US Canada and Europe.  So looking at REAL science I don't need your global warming religion indoctrination



well, here's something of interest:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

from the article



> In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, its become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
> At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming  warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
> 
> By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. *Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.*
> *
> *



so much for the new ice-age theory of the 1970s...


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> well, here's something of interest:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
> 
> from the article
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the new ice-age theory of the 1970s...


So science got it wrong SHOCKER


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> So science got it wrong SHOCKER


No. Most of them got it right. As now, there were a minority talking of an ice age then and there is a minority denying the effects of global warming now.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> No. Most of them got it right. As now, there were a minority talking of an ice age then and there is a minority denying the effects of global warming now.
> :asian:



and more to the point, even back in the 1970s when a few scientists were suggesting the possibility of a new ice age a majority of scientists were already predicting a warming trend.  This was spotted decades ago, and the evidence in support grows and grows.  the new ice age idea was little more than a sideshow distraction, even when it was first suggested.


----------



## billc

"Sientists". Can't even get it right when it comes to the human body, something they can actually examine, in great detail, over years and years...and they still get things wrong...

Rush covered this article on his show today...

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf...bon_dioxide_the_new_cholesterol_mulshine.html



> And imagine the Washington Post wrote an editorial stating, "Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis of just this kind of incomplete but suggestive evidence, and there is a consensus on what to do."
> That sounds like the current debate over climate change, doesn&#8217;t it? Nope. That editorial is from 1980. The issue was not levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but levels of cholesterol in the diet.
> In that case, the consensus was that the amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet are related to the levels of cholesterol in the blood and "that reducing the one will lower the other," the Post wrote.
> That seemed to be the case at the time. But there were dissenters who claimed carbohydrates, particularly refined ones, were the more likely triggers for obesity and heart disease. That led the mainstream authorities to hold a "Consensus Conference" in 1984. The result was a national policy emphasizing low-fat diets as a means of combating obesity and heart disease.
> Soon the market was inundated with low-fat foods. But they weren&#8217;t having the desired effect. By 2002, the cracks in the consensus were so evident that the New York Times Magazine ran a lengthy and well-researched article by noted science writer Gary Taubes headlined "What if it&#8217;s all been a big fat lie?"





> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]*"It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association," Taubes wrote. "Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along."*[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]*Last month, the prior consensus was turned on its head by a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meta-analysis of 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart-disease risk.*[/FONT]


----------



## Flying Crane

quoting rush.  there's a desperate, stupid move.

this article is a clear example of grasping at straws


----------



## billc

I liked your post Flying Crane...especially the most accurate part...



> *It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.*


----------



## billc

uh no, he read from an article by a liberal columnist...


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> But don't tell me we need fundamental changes to society on a theory



Supporters of global warming are always very cognizant of where the money is coming from when it comes to their opposition. I think they are correct in pointing out the potential for bias when it comes from scientists who are receiving money from stakeholders who have a direct conflict of interest with the political ramifications of the climate change debate.

I wish that supporters would turn a little of that skepticism on the political side of the people who are funding pro-climate change studies. These people are not independent. Organizations that support the theory of human caused climate change have an authoritarian political agenda that completely reshapes a society. This is not something that simply appeared absent any history. Supporters of a global political unit complete with global taxes and bureaucracy have been dreaming up schemes to get this done since before WWI. They have proven that they will say and/or do whatever it takes to get this going.

If the dollars from oil companies can compromise research, then dollars coming from the NGOs and other international organizations to push their agenda can compromise research.  If human caused climate change is a real problem, there are many solutions that could handle it. This overwhelming push toward carbon taxes and global bureaucracy is the worst solution and reeks of agenda driven science.


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...Freeman Dyson, a genius...who doubts greenhouse gases ate bad...



> Climate science is infinitely more complicated than human physiology. Once all of the data are in, we may find that atmospheric carbon dioxide&#130; actually has the effect predicted by physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton. The 90-year-old Dyson, whom many consider to be the smartest guy on Earth, argues that far from harming the planet, atmospheric C)-2&#130; may have a positive effect by increasing plant growth.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you disagree. Fine, but youre disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was 5 years old and whos been at the institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> I liked your post Flying Crane...especially the most accurate part...




that you focus on this and ignore the rest of the report is a clear example of your tactic of cherry-picking and presenting information out of context.  

you have not raised a credible point yet.


----------



## billc

> Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson when I called him the other day.
> 
> 
> "Science of course is always correcting mistakes," he said. "That&#8217;s what it&#8217;s all about."


....


----------



## billc

Cherry picking?  It is your post and the first sentence...


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> uh no, he read from an article by a liberal columnist...



um, no.  Paul Mulshine is a conservative columnist.  sorry, you are wrong yet again.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Cherry picking?  It is your post and the first sentence...



yup, but i included enough info, plus the link to the full report, to give clear context.  unlike you, i am not afraid of the complete picture.

if you cannot understand that issue, well...


----------



## billc

> And then there's the question of the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation as positied by Henrik Svensmark:
> 
> 
> "In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder."



Well, Rush said the guy didn't like him so it seemed like the guy had to be a liberal...


----------



## billc

you know, for something that explains your side of the issue, and which you used to defend your side...they use that word..." LIKELY" an awful lot...for people who claim they are absolutely right in what they believe...


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> you know, for something that explains your side of the issue, and which you used to defend your side...they use that word..." LIKELY" an awful lot...for people who claim they are absolutely right in what they believe...



yup.  it's called "science" and it includes gathering evidence and drawing conclusions from analysis of that evidence.  

this has been discussed here already.  look back a bit in the thread, you'll find it.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Hmmmm...Freeman Dyson, a genius...who doubts greenhouse gases ate bad...



no, he doesn't, actually.  He agrees with human-caused global climate change, tho he believes the models have too much room for error and he believes the discussion between people like you and I should be more cordial.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Well, Rush said the guy didn't like him so it seemed like the guy had to be a liberal...



yup, the guy has at least pointed out Rush's stupidity, tho I don't know if that means he doesn't like him in the overall.

But yup, he's conservative.


----------



## billc

From wikipedia



> Global warming[edit]
> Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[42] *However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:*
> 
> 
> The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.* They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[42]*
> 
> *He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[43][44] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[42]*
> 
> 
> Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it&#8217;s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[45]


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> From wikipedia



yup, I read that too.  The first sentence:  



> Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[42]



is where Dyson agrees with man-made climate change.  The rest qualifies and clarifies his position.  He feels the models are not accurate enough, and he feels people should be nicer in the debate.

that's what I said already.


----------



## billc

Not accurate enough...I believe he actually said...



> the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:





> They do not begin to describe the real world we live in



And yet...we must all change our lives on "too much error to reliably predict future trends"...:lfao:


----------



## billc

And here is hoping for global warming...global cooling will be a lot less fun...a lot fewer women in bikinis...more peopsicles...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/



> As _The Economist_ magazine reported in March, &#8220;The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.&#8221; Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
> 
> 
> At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA&#8217;s _Science News_ report for January 8, 2013 states,
> _&#8220;Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.&#8221;_
> That is even more significant because NASA&#8217;s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
> But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The _Voice of Russia_ reported on April 22, 2013,
> _&#8220;Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.&#8221;_
> That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, &#8220;Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn&#8217;t bring about considerable climate change &#8211; only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater &#8211; up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.&#8221; In other words, another Little Ice Age.
> 
> The German _Herald_ reported on March 31, 2013,
> _&#8220;German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years &#8211; and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a &#8220;Mini Ice Age.&#8221; Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an &#8216;unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.&#8217;&#8221;_
> 
> 
> Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> If the dollars from oil companies can compromise research, then dollars coming from the NGOs and other international organizations to push their agenda can compromise research.  If human caused climate change is a real problem, there are many solutions that could handle it. This overwhelming push toward carbon taxes and global bureaucracy is the worst solution and reeks of agenda driven science.


Let's see if I've got this right. The research by scientists paid for by the oil companies and not peer reviewed is valid but the research undertaken by scientists who are actually independent and would be happy to publish peer reviewed papers whatever the result, is flawed because governments fund universities and require the university to produce flawed papers to support the governments position to ensure future funding. 
:hmm:

As to your second point ... you are in a position to make billions of dollars with your simple solutions if you can make them work.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> Let's see if I've got this right. The research by scientists paid for by the oil companies and not peer reviewed is valid but the research undertaken by scientists who are actually independent and would be happy to publish peer reviewed papers whatever the result, is flawed because governments fund universities and require the university to produce flawed papers to support the governments position to ensure future funding.
> :hmm:
> 
> As to your second point ... you are in a position to make billions of dollars with your simple solutions if you can make them work.
> :asian:



As to your first point, you don't know who owns the journals that are peer reviewing the research. You don't know how people get on those boards. You don't know where the money comes from to support the studies that go to these journals. You don't know anything about the gatekeepers that could approve or disapprove a study from actually being done. 

You do know that information regarding the opposition research. I'm thinking you've got a blind spot here my friend.

As to the second point, research the first point I made and get back to me. If you aren't producing justifications for controlling global emissions, you aren't getting much funding...or attention.

That decision is not scientific, it's political.

Here is some food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/



> Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money &#8211; including far more untraceable special interest &#8220;dark money&#8221; &#8211; than global warming skeptics.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> As to your first point, you don't know who owns the journals that are peer reviewing the research. You don't know how people get on those boards. You don't know where the money comes from to support the studies that go to these journals. You don't know anything about the gatekeepers that could approve or disapprove a study from actually being done.
> 
> You do know that information regarding the opposition research. I'm thinking you've got a blind spot here my friend.
> 
> As to the second point, research the first point I made and get back to me. If you aren't producing justifications for controlling global emissions, you aren't getting much funding...or attention.
> 
> That decision is not scientific, it's political.
> 
> Here is some food for thought.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/


Conspiracy theory gets me every time.  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's have a hypothetical. What if the climate scientists were right and the global warming was caused by carbon emissions. What if the result was going to cost the world economy trillions of dollars in damage and lost production. In this scenario what would be a reasonable amount of funding from Government?
:hmm:


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> Conspiracy theory gets me every time.  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
> 
> Let's have a hypothetical. What if the climate scientists were right and the global warming was caused by carbon emissions. What if the result was going to cost the world economy trillions of dollars in damage and lost production. In this scenario what would be a reasonable amount of funding from Government?
> :hmm:



Two words. Weather modification. There are a lot of ways that people could alter the Earth's albedo in non permanent ways that would counteract any increased warming. You could spray water, you could inject dust, you could even, heaven forbid CHEMTRAIL!!!!!

Now that is a conspiracy theory! The fact that global central planners are using climate change as an excuse to create a global tax and bureaucracy isn't a very good conspiracy.  They just tell you that up front.

In fact....planting tongue firmly in cheek....

It's ironic that you accusing "deniers" of being part of some larger "conspiracy" and are claiming that people opposing you are "conspiracy theorists". Lol.

Here is something you might not know about that term.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-assassination-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic/5346419

.... "In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term conspiracy theorists for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term assassination theories when it came to alternative views of the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon conspiracy theories became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better." ...

Lol. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is just part of another conspiracy.  ROFL!


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> And here is hoping for global warming...global cooling will be a lot less fun...a lot fewer women in bikinis...more peopsicles...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/



more people grasping at straws.  the author peter ferrara is with the heartland institute, that discredited source that takes funding from big oil.  anything connected to them is automatically disqualified.

instead of posting links to articles by columnists with an agenda who don't know what they are talking about and who are trying to make hay out of thin air, try finding some reports or something by real scientist that support your position.  oh yeah, you can't.  they don't exist.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Not accurate enough...I believe he actually said...



wow, you just hang on to any shred of hope you can find.  because there is so little of it, for your position.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> Here is some food for thought.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/



you realize of course, that the author, james taylor, is with heartland which takes funding from big oil.  kinda funny and ironic, that he writes this piece.  i'd say someone is trying hard to make a smokescreen.  

he say something that i find really funny, in this article:


> Brulles paper and the media narrative may score some temporary points with members of the general public who do not closely follow the global warming debate, but ultimately Brulles paper and the media narrative will backfire on global warming activists. The narrative will backfire because the general public is not stupid. Slick lies may win some converts who will not check the facts, but the greater number of people will check the facts and hold the liars accountable.


i find this really funny, because what he says here really applies to the global climate change deniers, like himself.  they are the ones spreading lies.  that may work on the uneducated and those with an agenda (billc) but the general public is not stupid and does see thru the lies.

i gotta ask, does everyone who writes for forbes have connections to the heartland institute?  seems in every link to a forbes article this shows up.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> you realize of course, that the author, james taylor, is with heartland which takes funding from big oil.  kinda funny and ironic, that he writes this piece.  i'd say someone is trying hard to make a smokescreen.
> 
> he say something that i find really funny, in this article:
> 
> i find this really funny, because what he says here really applies to the global climate change deniers, like himself.  they are the ones spreading lies.  that may work on the uneducated and those with an agenda (billc) but the general public is not stupid and does see thru the lies.
> 
> i gotta ask, does everyone who writes for forbes have connections to the heartland institute?  seems in every link to a forbes article this shows up.



Lol you can't beat his argument so you AGAIN cry about the money.  Prove him wrong...........oh wait we established you can't.     Never mind carry on chicken little


----------



## billc

As a climatologist Flying Crane, or at least a meteorologist...you must know that what the "cliamatologists" are telling you is 100 percent true( since you and others claim only climatologists can be trusted with knowing the absolute truth...right )...right...that they aren't influenced by money from government grants...the one guy in Britain in "climategate" received 13.7 million pounds in grants to study manmade global warming...I wonder what happens to the grant money if he doesn't find any?  That they don't have their own agenda behind their research...anti-capitalism, anti-industrialisation, anti-population growth...yeah, none of those things could influence their views...they are as pure as the wind driven snow...


----------



## pgsmith

The only thing that I can say about both sides of the debate is that anyone that uses the words "only", "100 percent", "absolute", "truth", "never", "nothing", "can't", are speaking of their own agenda and not of science, because science very rarely, if ever, uses any of those words.

Just because climate change is real doesn't mean that either the government or big business is right in their approach to dealing with it. My personal opinion is that they are both in it for the money and/or power to make money, and neither really cares about the future of the planet.

I feel that the only real solution is to push for more money for space exploration. Our only chance of long-term survival as a species is the same one that has gotten us to this point ... colonization. Throughout mankind's history, as our population numbers have exceeded the ability of the area to sustain them, other areas have been colonized. We are now out of area to colonize so either the population numbers will drastically decrease, or we figure out how to continue colonizing. Anything else is simply a stop-gap measure.

Feeding arguments about temporary measures is the most common form of misdirection practiced by those in power today. It keeps people focused on trivialities so they don't look for what is going on in the background, mainly making money for the powerful.

That's my view on it. Sorry to interrupt your distraction.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> you realize of course, that the author, james taylor, is with heartland which takes funding from big oil.  kinda funny and ironic, that he writes this piece.  i'd say someone is trying hard to make a smokescreen.
> 
> he say something that i find really funny, in this article:
> 
> i find this really funny, because what he says here really applies to the global climate change deniers, like himself.  they are the ones spreading lies.  that may work on the uneducated and those with an agenda (billc) but the general public is not stupid and does see thru the lies.
> 
> i gotta ask, does everyone who writes for forbes have connections to the heartland institute?  seems in every link to a forbes article this shows up.



This debate isn't about the science of Climate Change. It's about who is paying for the debaters and their political agenda. I really hope that the supporters can see that and look at the side that and apply this same level of skepticism to the people they support. There is an even more powerful agenda behind the pro-climate change movement. This is why companies like Shell support Carbon Taxes and Global Bureaucracy. 

Follow the money applies to both sides here.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> As a climatologist Flying Crane, or at least a meteorologist...you must know that what the "cliamatologists" are telling you is 100 percent true( since you and others claim only climatologists can be trusted with knowing the absolute truth...right )...right...that they aren't influenced by money from government grants...the one guy in Britain in "climategate" received 13.7 million pounds in grants to study manmade global warming...I wonder what happens to the grant money if he doesn't find any?  That they don't have their own agenda behind their research...anti-capitalism, anti-industrialisation, anti-population growth...yeah, none of those things could influence their views...they are as pure as the wind driven snow...


Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story. 

The £13.7M was funding for his department over twenty years. When he was accused of wrong doing he stepped aside then was reinstated after an inquiry found he had done nothing wrong.



> He temporarily stepped aside from Director of the CRU in November 2009 following a controversy over e-mails which were taken and published by person(s) unknown. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry concluded that there was no case against Jones for him to answer, and said he should be reinstated in his post. He was reinstated in July 2010 with the newly created role of Director of Research, after a further review led by Sir Muir Russell found no fault with the "rigour and honesty as scientists" of Jones and his colleagues, although finding that the CRU scientists had not embraced the "spirit of openness" of the UK Freedom of Information Act. The university said that the new position was not a demotion and would enable Jones to concentrate on research and "reduce his responsibilities for administration."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)


As a major contributor to the IPCC report it makes sense that the other side of the arguement, with no credible facts of their own, would seek to discredit his research by smearing . Just that it didn't work!
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> This debate isn't about the science of Climate Change. It's about who is paying for the debaters and their political agenda. I really hope that the supporters can see that and look at the side that and apply this same level of skepticism to the people they support. There is an even more powerful agenda behind the pro-climate change movement. This is why companies like Shell support Carbon Taxes and Global Bureaucracy.
> 
> Follow the money applies to both sides here.


Universities world wide are funded to provide education and research. Certainly in Australia, and I would assume it to be the same in all Western democracies, money is not provided for research to achieve a predetermined outcome. Trying to discredit independent researchers because their research takes place within a University partly funded by Government is ridiculous. Suggesting that scientists employed by oil companies to discredit the findings of the IPCC are more credible simply defies belief.

Remember, I have no fixed position on this. I would like to know what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future. There is a lot of reliable evidence available to say what is happening now and some models available to say what will happen in the future. More work is required to provides better models but they will always be models. No one can be 100% sure of what will happen as Paul said above. But to simply deny everything and put on the rose coloured glasses is promoting ignorance. I am not arguing for a position that is put by the IPCC or anyone else? I am arguing against climate change denial that relies on unsubstantiated research, or worse, trying to discredit reputable scientists who have produced peer reviewed papers substantiating evidence of global warming and climate change. 
:asian:


----------



## billc

Both sides of the climategate investigation, Britain and the U.S., were fake.  The U.s. Side was done by the guy who cleared the child rapist at Penn State, and the British investigation was headed by a global warming supporter.  Yeah, and money given to universities never has strings attached...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140



> Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.
> 
> 
> Enlarge Image
> 
> 
> Muir Russell Associated Press
> Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."
> 
> 
> No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)&#8212;the source of the Climategate emails&#8212;was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."
> 
> 
> This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others&#8212;one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Both sides of the climategate investigation, Britain and the U.S., were fake.  The U.s. Side was done by the guy who cleared the child rapist at Penn State, and the British investigation was headed by a global warming supporter. [/QUOTE
> ... and they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and money given to universities never has strings attached...
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not here, but I can't speak for American universities.
> :asian:
Click to expand...


----------



## billc

> The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"
> 
> 
> Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."


....


----------



## billc

K-man, Australian universities are made up of people...and people do bad things...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/scandal-schools-20131011-2vchv.html



> Last month, the Crime and Misconduct Commission tabled a report stating that the daughter of the then Queensland University vice-chancellor Paul Greenfield had secured a medical place ahead of 343 better-qualified students.




So please, there is vast amounts of money to be made with man made global warming, money and prestige for the scientists, and billions to 3rd world countries trying to extort money through man made global warming from the western nations...and so bribery will be rampant...


----------



## billc

Blocking the work of other scientists, especially skeptics, was what climategate was all about...



> Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.
> But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
> Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."


----------



## billc

> *Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one.* *Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.*
> Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.



Yeah, peer review only works...if you review the work...when you keep it out of the journals because it disagrees with the "consensus" it is easier to say that everyone agrees...


----------



## billc

And then there is this about Australian univerities...



> She highlights a plagiarism cover-up involving 15 Malaysian MBA students at the University of Newcastle. The story hit headlines in Singapore and Malaysia, *which risked damaging Australia's multibillion-dollar international student market.*
> Importantly, the report tries to establish why corruption occurs in universities.
> *"Competition for resources, fame and notoriety place extraordinary pressures on higher education institutions," the report says. "The weaker ones, those with an absence of control or managerial strength, are most prone to corruption."*




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/scandal-schools-20131011-2vchv.html#ixzz2yQsL8Lkh


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> And then there is this about Australian univerities...
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/scandal-schools-20131011-2vchv.html#ixzz2yQsL8Lkh[/FONT]


And so you post an out of context quote that has nothing to do with academics producing questionable papers.



> Guess how many times lecturers have told Third Degree about alleged dodgy academic hiring processes? Too many to remember. Third Degree is also constantly told universities are rife with plagiarised works from students and staff alike.
> Some have even confided that they believe overseas students give international recruitment officers extra money to guarantee them places at universities.
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/scandal-schools-20131011-2vchv.html#ixzz2yRONpcRd


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> So please, there is vast amounts of money to be made with man made global warming, money and prestige for the scientists, and billions to 3rd world countries trying to extort money through man made global warming from the western nations...and so bribery will be rampant...[/FONT]


I can see that there could be a potential problem but if you have the evidence to back up your claim, let's see it. I have seen no evidence of any reputable scientist falsifying claims to support global warming let alone accepting payment for it. On the other hand I have seen a discredited scientist being paid money to support a position dictated by fossil fuel companies. 
:asian:


----------



## billc

Hmmm...how much is spent on global warming research...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-cover-nearly-half-cost-un-s-global-warming-panel



> According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the United States has made the worlds largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research with a total of nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years.


Yeah, no problem with corruption with that much money involved...after all, they are men of science...and,politicians and business men...

And the "men of science" who champion this cause get awards, speaking fees, research grants, power over other scientists, book deals and comfy tenure at universities...and on and on...


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Blocking the work of other scientists, especially skeptics, was what climategate was all about...


Once again, not true. Mann published findings using figures that were questionable to fill in a gap in the measurable figures. When he was challenged he accepted the criticism and looked for another model. Subsequent research verified the original findings. That to me would be what science is about, not focusing on the fact that some figures were based on assumption rather than fact to produce a theory, but actually that if something is questioned that it is revisited and reworked. You are questioning the fact that he was found to have *not* published misleading information as are some other global warming skeptics but in fact the world has moved on from there and subsequent research has supported Mann's position.



billc said:


> Yeah, peer review only works...if you review the work...when you keep it out of the journals because it disagrees with the "consensus" it is easier to say that everyone agrees...


Not really. You can't publish suspect information in a peer reviewed journal. As Roy Spencer said, "it's becoming nearly impossible to publish ... ", not "it's impossible to publish ... ". All that means is that if the editorial panel doesn't see merit in the paper then it won't be published. That is no different to any other journal.
:asian:


----------



## billc

hmmm..follow the money?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490



> Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
> 
> 
> Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California&#8212;apparently not feeling bankrupt enough&#8212;devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
> 
> 
> And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"&#8212;largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes&#8212;of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.



Add up a few billion here, a few billion there and pretty soon you not only have " real " money...you have billions of reasons to lie...


> None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. *Absent that proof, everything they represent&#8212;including the thousands of jobs they provide&#8212;vanishes.* This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.
> 
> 
> Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Blocking the work of other scientists, especially skeptics, was what climategate was all about...





billc said:


> Hmmm...how much is spent on global warming research...
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-cover-nearly-half-cost-un-s-global-warming-panel
> 
> 
> Yeah, no problem with corruption with that much money involved...after all, they are men of science...and,politicians and business men...
> 
> And the "men of science" who champion this cause get awards, speaking fees, research grants, power over other scientists, book deals and comfy tenure at universities...and on and on...


And all the other "men of science" in the fields of medicine, veterinary science, marine biology, or "men of commerce" in law, economics, business etc aren't touched by corruption because they aren't discussing climate change. Yeah, right!

Why don't we just close all the Universities and get rid of the hotbed of corruption? It would save billions of dollars and civilisation could go back to the dark ages where it was fashionable to believe jumbo jumbo.
:asian:


----------



## billc

hmmmm...who also gets the global warming billions...



> Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on*. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.*


----------



## billc

K-man, I am simply countering the tired excuse that people skeptical of man made global warming are all shills for the oil industry...you can see by the vast sums of money spent on promoting man made global warming that they are just as open to corruption as the other side...and I bet that the oil industry isn't spending as much as these governments do...


----------



## billc

and more on the funding of global warming alarmism...I think you will see the seeds of corruption if you don't already...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/27/funding-global-warming-hysteria



> CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. *Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS' services -- half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.*
> Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.
> Virtually every one of CCS's greenhouse gas-reducing options, which stakeholders find almost impossible to eliminate or alter (as if they wanted to) because the voting procedures are stacked against it, will curtail individual freedom or further burden taxpayers and consumers. Rather than surveying stakeholders in an up-or-down vote, options are instead considered already approved unless enough members (who are political appointees, with almost no scientists or economists) are bold and knowledgeable enough to object to them.







> *Of course, CCS is doing nothing wrong here, and the reader should not infer such. Instead, as this global warming debate continues, and media regularly question the funding of virtually every individual and organization refuting the supposed consensus regarding the science involved, shouldn't the same scrutiny be applied to those advancing the hysteria?*


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> K-man, I am simply countering the tired excuse that people skeptical of man made global warming are all shills for the oil industry...you can see by the vast sums of money spent on promoting man made global warming that they are just as open to corruption as the other side...and I bet that the oil industry isn't spending as much as these governments do...


I don't have a problem accepting independent evidence that is a contrary to those who are saying there is global warming. That is what science is about. There are many reputable scientists that are of a position contrary to the IPCC but skeptics ignore them because they aren't what they want. They would rather have a scientist that is prepared to back their position against any evidence to the contrary. I would love to read credible evidence that says there won't be problems in the future but it just isn't there. There are many scientists that think that the human factor in the warming is not as great as is being promoted. Fine, that is a credible opinion, but the same scientists agree that warming is occurring and that it will be damaging. That doesn't suit the skeptics position.

As to the amount of money being spent. That was one of my earlier questions that was ignored. If the science is right and there are going to be big problems down the track unless we do something drastic, what is a fair amount for the governments world wide to earmark for that research? Is it responsible for governments to just say "we don't believe the science so we will just wait and see"?
:asian:


----------



## billc

It is not the spending "if the science is right" it is the spending that helps keep the science going when the science is wrong that is the problem.  If scientists, like Mann and jones are lying about their data and getting paid for the false data...what do we do about that.

Another avenue for corruption is the U.N. itself...there are countries who are making money and who stand to make money off of man made global warming and they use their people at the U.N. to get that job done...do you want to send money to 3rd world dictators based on man made global warming guilt trips by elitists at the U.N.?


----------



## billc

Some more on that consensus...

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/climate-scientists-continue-bury-facts-disprove-theory-manmade-climate-change




> Maybe this shouldn't be a surprise. After all, this is the same group of _respected _members  of the scientific community that makes claims that 97% of the community  agrees with the theory of climate change - the only problem being that  they seem to have sort of made the whole thing up. James M. Taylor  reports at the Heartland Institute:
> Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper  with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed   nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed   climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that   97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused   global warming &#8220;endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing   global warming.&#8221;
> As is the case with other &#8216;surveys&#8217; alleging an  overwhelming  scientific consensus on global warming, the question  surveyed had  absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contentious  between global  warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The  question Cook and his  alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether  humans have caused some  global warming. The question is meaningless  regarding the global  warming debate because most skeptics as well as  most alarmists believe  humans have caused some global warming. The  issue of contention dividing  alarmists and skeptics is whether humans  are causing global warming of  such negative severity as to constitute a  crisis demanding concerted  action.
> ​




[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ [/URL]


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.
> 
> The £13.7M was funding for his department over twenty years. When he was accused of wrong doing he stepped aside then was reinstated after an inquiry found he had done nothing wrong.
> 
> 
> As a major contributor to the IPCC report it makes sense that the other side of the arguement, with no credible facts of their own, would seek to discredit his research by smearing . Just that it didn't work!
> :asian:



there's also a huge difference between money received to conduct actual research, and money going into his pocket. 

this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic.  when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it.  it's a tactic of desperation.  unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides of the climategate investigation, Britain and the U.S., were fake.  The U.s. Side was done by the guy who cleared the child rapist at Penn State, and the British investigation was headed by a global warming supporter. [/QUOTE
> ... and they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not here, but I can't speak for American universities.
> :asian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not in the ways that billc wants you to believe.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> Why don't we just close all the Universities and get rid of the hotbed of corruption? It would save billions of dollars and civilisation could go back to the dark ages where it was fashionable to believe jumbo jumbo.
> :asian:



ah, you begin to see what billc'c real motives are.  for a man who is afraid of education and afraid of science, other options look better.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic.  when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it.  it's a tactic of desperation.  unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.



I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC.  The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth".  Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.

You can look up the sources if you want.  Plenty have been posted in thread already, but you've got to actually be curious about it.  So, here's a question that might stimulate some thought.  Who do you think a global bureaucracy is going to serve?  

It's not going to be you and I.  It's going to be the multinational corporations and the big banks who will hoover up all of the "carbon taxes" and "redistribute" them to all of their friends.  FC, this scheme is perhaps the biggest potential expansion of corporate power in the world's history.  I wish climate change supporters could take the blinders off and see it.


----------



## crushing

Makalakumu said:


> I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC.  The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth".  Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.



The two perspectives presented aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  As you point out, there are considerable corporate interests that see a great potential windfall in monetizing and trading the _right_ to pollute, which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers through a trickle-up payment system.  These interests see opportunity in the crisis.   At the same time, a competing corporate interest operating in the global capitalist state do not have or see a path to rake in those profits and would rather their pollution remain tax free (how taxing it may be to the environment and our health is something else).


----------



## Flying Crane

crushing said:


> The two perspectives presented aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  As you point out, there are considerable corporate interests that see a great potential windfall in monetizing and trading the _right_ to pollute, which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers through a trickle-up payment system.  These interests see opportunity in the crisis.   At the same time, a competing corporate interest operating in the global capitalist state do not have or see a path to rake in those profits and would rather their pollution remain tax free (how taxing it may be to the environment and our health is something else).




on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change.  Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit.  Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?

at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.

the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> there's also a huge difference between money received to conduct actual research, and money going into his pocket.
> 
> this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic.  when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it.  it's a tactic of desperation.  unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.



Its pretty funny you believe only one side can be greedy bastards mmotivated by oil money and the other side well they are just good stewards of earth and only care about our best interests.  They could NEVER be motivated by money themselves.   Must be swell to live in your world


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change.  Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit.  Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?


Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.



> at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.
> 
> the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.



:rofl:


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> :rofl:



How enlightened of you best post you have made so far


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> It is not the spending "if the science is right" it is the spending that helps keep the science going when the science is wrong that is the problem.  If scientists, like Mann and jones are lying about their data and getting paid for the false data...what do we do about that.
> 
> Another avenue for corruption is the U.N. itself...there are countries who are making money and who stand to make money off of man made global warming and they use their people at the U.N. to get that job done...do you want to send money to 3rd world dictators based on man made global warming guilt trips by elitists at the U.N.?


No. It is you and the skeptics alone that are saying the science is wrong. Even the stuff you are posting is saying the science is right. Now that is irony. 



billc said:


> Some more on that consensus...
> 
> http://www.freedomworks.org/content/climate-scientists-continue-bury-facts-disprove-theory-manmade-climate-change
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case with other surveys alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contentious between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate *because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.* The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Click to expand...

At last we are getting somewhere. 




Makalakumu said:


> I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC.  The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth".  Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.
> 
> You can look up the sources if you want.  Plenty have been posted in thread already, but you've got to actually be curious about it.  So, here's a question that might stimulate some thought.  Who do you think a global bureaucracy is going to serve?
> 
> It's not going to be you and I.  It's going to be the multinational corporations and the big banks who will hoover up all of the "carbon taxes" and "redistribute" them to all of their friends.  FC, this scheme is perhaps the biggest potential expansion of corporate power in the world's history.  I wish climate change supporters could take the blinders off and see it.



This is all conspiracy theory. There is no and there will be no Global Bureaucracy. With the egos involved how are you ever going to link the US, Russia and China into one unit. Then you add in Iran and Nth Korea. Come on *Maka*, even you must see that is not going to happen.

As for carbon taxes. As I have always said. Taxing carbon will not make the problem go away. It will just increases costs to the man on the street. I don't believe it is the way to go and down the track I don't believe it will be the way it goes. So forget about greedy corporations redistributing their ill gotten gains to their mates. It ain't gunna happen.



Flying Crane said:


> on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change.  Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit.  Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?


 
Only if the renewable energy companies are supporting the extreme right Republicans. Anyone left of there has to be a gun grabbing, grovelling Greenie groupie not worthy of consideration.



Flying Crane said:


> at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.
> 
> the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.



Conspiracy theory and "The New World Order"! :lfao:



ballen0351 said:


> Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.


 If green energy is the way to go and you, as a government want to implement renewable energy, isn't subsidising it the least expensive way to go and therefore the best use of taxpayers money?
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> If green energy is the way to go and you, as a government want to implement renewable energy, isn't subsidising it the least expensive way to go and therefore the best use of taxpayers money?
> :asian:


Which has nothing to do with the free market which was his point


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> This is all conspiracy theory. There is no and there will be no Global Bureaucracy. With the egos involved how are you ever going to link the US, Russia and China into one unit. Then you add in Iran and Nth Korea. Come on *Maka*, even you must see that is not going to happen.
> 
> As for carbon taxes. As I have always said. Taxing carbon will not make the problem go away. It will just increases costs to the man on the street. I don't believe it is the way to go and down the track I don't believe it will be the way it goes. So forget about greedy corporations redistributing their ill gotten gains to their mates. It ain't gunna happen.



If you remember, a few pages back, we actually agreed on this.  Creating a global bureaucracy to manage the carbon taxes and control carbon dioxide emissions was a very far fetched solution that has little chance of actually affecting emissions.  That said, I think there is more of a chance of this happening then you realize.  When the head of the UN is calling for world government to manage emissions and "redistribute" tax proceeds to the "winners and losers" that's not a conspiracy theory.  That's right out in the open.  Also, I don't think you really understand how much money the international financial class stands to make off of bankrolling this scheme.  All of that money is going to fund every single scientific study to a point where all you have to do to get some dollars is put climate change in your proposal.  

And it could all be true.  Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda.  BTW, have you seen this global warming study?


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> If you remember, a few pages back, we actually agreed on this.  Creating a global bureaucracy to manage the carbon taxes and control carbon dioxide emissions was a very far fetched solution that has little chance of actually affecting emissions.  That said, I think there is more of a chance of this happening then you realize.


OK, silly me. You're talking about the IPCC. Now just where does it say that it will manage carbon taxes and control CO2 emissions?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.    

*The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. *

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.    

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. 

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. *The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.*



Makalakumu said:


> When the head of the UN is calling for world government to manage emissions and "redistribute" tax proceeds to the "winners and losers" that's not a conspiracy theory.  That's right out in the open.  Also, I don't think you really understand how much money the international financial class stands to make off of bankrolling this scheme.  All of that money is going to fund every single scientific study to a point where all you have to do to get some dollars is put climate change in your proposal.


 I must of missed that speech so I went looking. I found heaps of blogs making the same claim but I couldn't find the original source or any official reference to that speech anywhere. So perhaps, just to humour me, you might post a link to your source, official of course. 



Makalakumu said:


> And it could all be true.  Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda.  BTW, have you seen this global warming study?


Yes, I like your study but it doesn't seem to leave much scope for the future.


----------



## K-man

I think it is time to move on. As Bill's post acknowledged, scientists, including skeptics, acknowledge that global warming is here and human involvement is at least partly responsible. So where to from here?



> *This debate is no longer about whether global warming is real (it is) or whether humans are the most likely cause* (you are), but rather, some very interesting and different questions that might be more professionally relevant to business: How is this going to affect business? What are the investing consequences? Who will be the financial winners and losers of climate change?



Were the people being promoted by *Maka*, *Ballen* and *Billc* as the likely beneficiaries really the ones who will benefit? Perhaps not.



> But the bigger issue is the financial consequences. Investors are going to see companies increasingly affected by climate change. *For those of you who still are fighting the science -- sorry to tell you, the debate has moved on.* This is rapidly becoming a fight over market share, with big shifts in cost structure, revenue and profits.
> Too many people have had their heads in the sand. It is time to start making some decisions based on possible investing outcomes, not pseudo-science. To those who figure this out, a green fortune awaits -- in both senses of the word.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...hat-it-means-for-business-20140128-31jf0.html


Mmm! _Too many people have had their heads in the sand. _
Really? Who could they possibly be referring to? 
:hmm:


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.





ballen0351 said:


> How enlightened of you best post you have made so far



so you are concerned that the fossil fuel industry is going to somehow be at an unfair competitive advantage?  is that something you want me to get all weepy about?

they've already made more money than god, and they've done so at the expense of the environment and on the backs of the citizens, making record profits while everyone struggled thru a bad economy.  personally, i wouldn't mind if we moved on to new and cleaner technology, and the fossil fuel industry went extinct.  however, in truth, they are probably the ones with the financial resources to switch over and become the leaders (and profiteers) in any new technology.  

so no, i do not share your concerns.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> And it could all be true.  Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda.



the agenda is, we gotta be doing things in a cleaner way because we are turning our earth into a garbage dump and we cannot live in that environment.  we gotta clean up our act, plain and simple, or we will not survive it.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Which has nothing to do with the free market which was his point



what kinds of subsidies and tax breaks do the oil industry get?  from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies



> *Energy subsidies* are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.
> Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[SUP][1][/SUP] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[SUP][2][/SUP] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, we will not reach our climate targets.[SUP][3]



The fossil fuel industry gets plenty of subsidies.  There's no free market there either.[/SUP]


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> so you are concerned that the fossil fuel industry is going to somehow be at an unfair competitive advantage?  is that something you want me to get all weepy about?



of course i meant "unfair competitive *dis*advantage"


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> OK, silly me. You're talking about the IPCC. Now just where does it say that it will manage carbon taxes and control CO2 emissions?
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.
> 
> *The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. *
> 
> Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
> 
> The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.
> 
> Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. *The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.*
> 
> I must of missed that speech so I went looking. I found heaps of blogs making the same claim but I couldn't find the original source or any official reference to that speech anywhere. So perhaps, just to humour me, you might post a link to your source, official of course.
> 
> Yes, I like your study but it doesn't seem to leave much scope for the future.



I posted a NYT editorial by Ban Ki Moon where he outlines the the plan to regulate global carbon emissions in this thread. You can find all kinds of world leaders calling for the same thing.

In 2010 world leaders met in Copenhagen to try and hammer out the details of this global bureaucracy to control emissions. Here are the minutes.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12459e.html

Have a read. It wasn't that successful.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> the agenda is, we gotta be doing things in a cleaner way because we are turning our earth into a garbage dump and we cannot live in that environment.  we gotta clean up our act, plain and simple, or we will not survive it.



I share this concern, but I think you are incorrectly assuming that the plutocrats in charge also care about this.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> I posted a NYT editorial by Ban Ki Moon where he outlines the the plan to regulate global carbon emissions in this thread. You can find all kinds of world leaders calling for the same thing.
> 
> In 2010 world leaders met in Copenhagen to try and hammer out the details of this global bureaucracy to control emissions. Here are the minutes.
> 
> SUMMARY OF THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE - 7-19 DECEMBER 2009 - Copenhagen - Denmark
> 
> Have a read. It wasn't that successful.


I don't think you got that quite right. 



> Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for success:
> 
> 
> Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.
> 
> 
> A successful deal must strengthen the world&#8217;s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.
> 
> 
> A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.
> 
> 
> *A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.*
> 
> 
> Can we seal a comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal in Copenhagen that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature rise to a scientifically safe level? Can we catalyze clean energy growth? Can we help to protect the most vulnerable nations from the effects of climate change? Can we expect the United States to play a leading role?
> 
> 
> The best answer to all these questions was given last week by Senators Kerry and Graham: &#8220;Yes, we can.&#8221;
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html


I presume this is Ban Ki-moon's plan for Global Bureaucracy? Some plan ... and this was five years back!

So. What happened at Copenhagen? 



> Many recognized the historical significance of the Copenhagen Conference, highlighting its unprecedented success in bringing together the majority of the world&#8217;s leaders to consider climate change and listing mitigation actions pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as provisions on finance and technology. Most delegates, however, left Copenhagen disappointed at what they saw as a &#8220;weak agreement,&#8221; and questioning its practical implications given that the Copenhagen Accord had not been formally adopted as the outcome of the negotiations.
> SUMMARY OF THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE - 7-19 DECEMBER 2009 - Copenhagen - Denmark



Mmm, nothing. No sign of global bureaucracy here ... and I think that pulling out articles from five years ago hardly reflects today's position. As I said in my previous post, the verdict is in, climate change is here. The question now is what are we going to do about it? Even more than that, is there anything that can be done to reverse the trend?
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> what kinds of subsidies and tax breaks do the oil industry get?  from here:  Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil fuel industry gets plenty of subsidies.  There's no free market there either.[/SUP]



I never said there was.............


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> No sign of global bureaucracy here ...



:lfao:

Here is what was discussed at the Warsaw climate change conference in November 2013

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7756.php

Here is the UN plan for a global bureaucracy to manage global emissions.

https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7879.php

Here is a little more history that shows how the UN is moving toward creating this structure.

Durban Platform | Climate change

There are a lot of ways you could spin this, but at the very least, can you admit that a global structure for managing carbon emissions is emerging?


----------



## Makalakumu

What does compliance and enforcement on a global scale sound like?



> Compliance mechanism
> 
> The Kyoto Protocol compliance mechanism is designed to strengthen the Kyoto Protocol's environmental integrity, support the credibility of the carbon market and ensure the transparency of Parties' accounting. Its objective is to facilitate, promote and enforce compliance with the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It is among the most comprehensive and rigorous systems of compliance for a multilateral environmental agreement.
> 
> 
> The Compliance Committee implements the procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol, designed to facilitate, promote and *enforce *compliance with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
> 
> 
> The Compliance Committee was established by decision 27/CMP.1. It has two branches (the *enforcement *and facilitative branches) and a plenary. Each branch is composed of 10 members and has a chairperson and vice-chairperson.
> 
> 
> The plenary of the Compliance Committee meets at least twice a year and the branches meet as often as required. The Compliance Committee reports annually to the CMP. Each branch reports to the plenary on its work. The CMP can consider an appeal against a decision of the enforcement branch relating to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol if the Party concerned believes it has been denied due process.
> 
> 
> In terms of linkages, the JISC is encouraged to collaborate with the Compliance Committee, in particular with regard to the list of Parties that meet the eligibility requirements for participation in market-based mechanisms and those that have been suspended by the *enforcement *branch.



Government is a group of people who have the right to initiate force against individuals in a given geographic area.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> :lfao:
> 
> Here is what was discussed at the Warsaw climate change conference in November 2013
> 
> https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7756.php
> 
> Here is the UN plan for a global bureaucracy to manage global emissions.
> 
> https://unfccc.int/focus/overview/items/7879.php
> 
> Here is a little more history that shows how the UN is moving toward creating this structure.
> 
> Durban Platform | Climate change
> 
> There are a lot of ways you could spin this, but at the very least, can you admit that a global structure for managing carbon emissions is emerging?





Makalakumu said:


> What does compliance and enforcement on a global scale sound like?
> 
> Government is a group of people who have the right to initiate force against individuals in a given geographic area.


Sorry *Maka* but I cannot accept a voluntary commitment to trying to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions as Global Bureaucracy. There is no enforcement and what your are railing against is in actual fact just a committee.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> Sorry *Maka* but I cannot accept a voluntary commitment to trying to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions as Global Bureaucracy. There is no enforcement and what your are railing against is in actual fact just a committee.
> :asian:



I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.

And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.
> 
> And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...


Perhaps you could point out to us what laws have been adopted by the United Nations that are binding on all the world. What laws have been adopted by the UN that apply in Iran for example? There is no enforcement by the UN anywhere. There can be an agreement to apply sanctions but that is hardly law enforcement. Russia invades Crimea and the UN does what? North Korea fires missiles over Japanese territory and the UN does what? 

Australia is in the midst of abolishing the Carbon Tax that the previous government introduced. Was that a UN law? What will happen to us now? Will the UN fine the Australian Government or will they choose to invade us instead so they can have their dastardly way with us? 
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

Treaties. How do those affect your country? In the US they can supercede our Constitution. Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> I think that assessment is woefully understated, K-man. The whole structure including enforcement is openly described. It's just not fully implemented.
> 
> And since when did any of these "agreements" become voluntary? I don't agree...



well, the US voluntarily did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol...


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> Treaties. How do those affect your country? *In the US they can supercede our Constitution.* Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.




care to, um, give us an example?


----------



## K-man

Flying Crane said:


> care to, um, give us an example?


You beat me to it! 



Makalakumu said:


> Treaties. How do those affect your country? In the US they can supercede our Constitution. Rule by treaty at this point. That's changing though. The UN is developing an enforcement arm.



Just one example would be fine.

Oh! ... and I'd love to see the evidence you have of this 'enforcement arm'. It's certainly news to me.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

All the relevant information is posted here in thread. The head the UN and other world leaders have called for it and claimed that 2009 was the first year of this agreement. I've shown it's structure, function, financing, and budding enforcement arm. You can read original documents from official summits, see their successes and failures, and you can look at the progression toward an end goal on a series of action steps that are laid out by the UN itself.

It's a globalized bureaucracy to manage emissions. In their own words, they call it a global government. You guys need to step back from the energy of this discussion and just let it all digest for a while.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> care to, um, give us an example?



Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> All the relevant information is posted here in thread. The head the UN and other world leaders have called for it and claimed that 2009 was the first year of this agreement. I've shown it's structure, function, financing, and budding enforcement arm. You can read original documents from official summits, see their successes and failures, and you can look at the progression toward an end goal on a series of action steps that are laid out by the UN itself.
> 
> 
> It's a globalized bureaucracy to manage emissions. In their own words, they call it a global government. You guys need to step back from the energy of this discussion and just let it all digest for a while.


They may have called for it but it is never going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. I'm trying to digest it but a lot of what you have posted is just indigestible. 



Makalakumu said:


> Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?


That was in 1945. So where is this global governance that you are talking about. Nearly 70 years gone and very little consensus over that time.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> They may have called for it but it is never going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. I'm trying to digest it but a lot of what you have posted is just indigestible.
> 
> 
> That was in 1945. So where is this global governance that you are talking about. Nearly 70 years gone and very little consensus over that time.
> :asian:



I think we'll see a more unified global government in my life time. Climate change may bring it about or it may be some other excuse the global oligarchy uses, but it's eventually going to happen.

That said, people in the UN we're claiming that the first year of global government was 2009. This may or may not have been premature, but what can't be denied is that climate change is the zeitgeist excuse this time.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> I think we'll see a more unified global government in my life time. Climate change may bring it about or it may be some other excuse the global oligarchy uses, but it's eventually going to happen.
> 
> That said, people in the UN we're claiming that the first year of global government was 2009. This may or may not have been premature, but what can't be denied is that climate change is the zeitgeist excuse this time.





> In accepting his appointment as the first president of the European Union, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy announced that &#8220;global governance&#8221; is the only way to address the crises that beset the planet.
> 
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;re living through exceptionally difficult times &#8211; the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence,&#8221; he said in his maiden press conference. &#8220;Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.&#8221;
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2009/11/116823/#8YZ4GEz8rXXrx1Kw.99


So one man says it so it must be true.
:hmm:


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> So one man says it so it must be true.
> :hmm:



The President of the EU shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It's not like he's a gas station attendant. That person represents millions and is in a position of power that few will ever attain. If he's saying that global government is beginning, he is a position actually know that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Makalakumu said:


> Did the US become a member of the UN? Did this country sign that treaty?



show me a treaty that takes precedence over the US Constitution for US citizens living in the US.  How has the US government signed away constitutional rights for US citizens in an international treaty?


----------



## Makalakumu

Flying Crane said:


> show me a treaty that takes precedence over the US Constitution for US citizens living in the US.  How has the US government signed away constitutional rights for US citizens in an international treaty?


http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.

The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110328-what-happened-american-declaration-war


----------



## Makalakumu

Makalakumu said:


> Treaties as Law of the Land - United States Constitution
> 
> Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.
> 
> The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.
> 
> What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | Stratfor



Here is a little more info...

Declaration of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[SUP][32][/SUP] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by members of the UN, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
> All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[SUP][33][/SUP]​This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-GeneralInternational Commission of Jurists.[SUP][34][/SUP]
> Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against a country or its allies, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, has to be supported by a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> Treaties as Law of the Land - United States Constitution
> 
> Treaties are considered federal law. Ever since the US signed the UN treaty, it has not declared war on an enemy despite instruction in the Constitution to do so. This is why the US has participated in so many "police actions" since 1945.
> 
> The UN treaty forbids countries from declaring war against another.
> 
> What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | Stratfor


I think that's a bit simplistic.



> The meaning of treaties, as of statutes, is determined by the courts. &#8220;If treaties are to be given effect as federal law under our legal system, determining their meaning as a matter of federal law &#8216;is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department,&#8217; headed by the &#8216;one supreme Court&#8217; established by the Constitution.&#8221; Yet, &#8220;[w]hile courts interpret treaties for themselves, the meaning given them by the departments of government particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement is given great weight.&#8221; Decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interpreting treaties, however, have &#8220;no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.&#8221; ICJ decisions &#8220;are therefore entitled only to the &#8216;respectful consideration&#8217; due an interpretation of an international agreement by an international court.&#8221;
> 
> 
> Even when an ICJ decision has binding force as between the governments of two nations, it is not necessarily enforceable by the individuals affected. If, for example, the ICJ finds that the United States violated a particular defendant&#8217;s rights under international law, and such a decision &#8220;constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States,&#8221; it does not necessarily &#8220;constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts&#8230; [W]hile treaties may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be self-executing and is ratified on these terms.&#8221; A memorandum from the President of the United States directing that the United States would &#8220;discharge its international obligations&#8221; under an ICJ decision interpreting a non-self-executing treaty, &#8220;by having State courts give effect to the decision,&#8221; is not sufficient to make the decision binding on state courts, unless the President&#8217;s action is authorized by Congress.


... and I would question the definition of the UN Charter as a treaty in the true meaning of 'treaty'.

In relation to the declaration of war or not, I would suggest that is a matter of expediency a much as anything else. It is a neat trick to engage in a war without having a war. Your article points out the perils of doing that.



> It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.


It's not that they could not declare war. It is that they *chose* not to declare war.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

According to the UN Treaty, the US must consult the UN before committing troops. This puts UN Security Council approval ahead of the Congress' power to Declare War and commit US soldiers. This has the same limitations nuclear war because the process of going to the UN takes more time than actual nuclear combat would take to wreck the world.

Anyway, I think it can be safely stated that this treaty has removed from the US a vital Constitutional function and changed the way the country goes to war. That stated, if the US enters into any of the climate change treaties, it would be subject to them in the same way described above. Whether this happens to the US and to other countries depends on how much people actually pay attention to these things and how much they care about their national sovereignty. 

The global government issue is real and it has the potential to change the way a country is organized on a fundamental level. This is also the main way that world leaders seem to want to address climate change. The political bias for this agenda is real, powerful, and well funded. It has the potential to drive research just as much as money from the Brown Economy.

Climate change alarmists need to pay attention to this, IMO. They can easily become tools of an agenda that not only has little chance of actually solving the climate change problems, but also may have very little to do with climate change. The impetus to create a world government existed long before humans were conscious of climate change. It has used many world issues to advance. Climate change is just the next veil behind which the agenda moves forward.


----------



## Makalakumu

Makalakumu said:


> According to the UN Treaty, the US must consult the UN before committing troops. This puts UN Security Council approval ahead of the Congress' power to Declare War and commit US soldiers. This has the same limitations nuclear war because the process of going to the UN takes more time than actual nuclear combat would take to wreck the world.
> 
> Anyway, I think it can be safely stated that this treaty has removed from the US a vital Constitutional function and changed the way the country goes to war. That stated, if the US enters into any of the climate change treaties, it would be subject to them in the same way described above. Whether this happens to the US and to other countries depends on how much people actually pay attention to these things and how much they care about their national sovereignty.
> 
> The global government issue is real and it has the potential to change the way a country is organized on a fundamental level. This is also the main way that world leaders seem to want to address climate change. The political bias for this agenda is real, powerful, and well funded. It has the potential to drive research just as much as money from the Brown Economy.
> 
> Climate change alarmists need to pay attention to this, IMO. They can easily become tools of an agenda that not only has little chance of actually solving the climate change problems, but also may have very little to do with climate change. The impetus to create a world government existed long before humans were conscious of climate change. It has used many world issues to advance. Climate change is just the next veil behind which the agenda moves forward.



According to these scientists, it's okay to "exaggerate" global warming claims in order to "encourage" countries to accept international agreements.  

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



> It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. *We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it **ex post** induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.* From the _ex ante_perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.


----------



## K-man

Makalakumu said:


> According to these scientists, it's okay to "exaggerate" global warming claims in order to "encourage" countries to accept international agreements.
> 
> Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements


I can't read this report without paying. Perhaps you could PM me a copy. What else did it say or are you just quoting the abstract?
:asian:


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...

Top climate expert's sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report | Mail Online



> A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.
> Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
> He said the officials, representing &#8216;all the main countries and regions of the world&#8217; insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
> Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
> Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious &#8216;conflict of interest&#8217; between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.





> Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special &#8216;contact group&#8217;. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by &#8216;45 or 50&#8217; government officials.
> He said almost all of them made clear that &#8216;any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.&#8217;
> Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.
> Prof Stavins said: &#8216;This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.&#8217;



Yes, but it is all about the science...


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...a defector...a shill for big oil, or a guy who doesn't know his science...or someone who realizes man made global warming hasn't been proven...

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'



> One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
> Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.
> 
> For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.
> 
> But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.
> 
> Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.
> 
> "He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."
> 
> In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:
> 
> "I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened.* So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."
> 
> *​Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."
> 
> I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. *Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.
> 
> *​He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.



And here is another guy...



> *Fritz Vahrenholt - *German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.
> Vahrenholt's climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title "eco-reactionary" from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. *Vahrenholt argued that the sun - not CO2 - was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.*



Well this post should make for a nice, big check...


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Hmmmm...a defector...a shill for big oil, or a guy who doesn't know his science...or someone who realizes man made global warming hasn't been proven...
> 
> Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'
> 
> And here is another guy...
> 
> Well this post should make for a nice, big check...


Yet another Breitbart article misrepresenting the facts. 

If you read the article and follow the links it is not a scientist defecting at all. It is a scientist saying that the findings need to be questioned and that evidence needs to be properly evaluated. I would suggest that that is exactly the position of mist reputable scientists. 

If Breitbart are paying you to push this crap they are being short changed.


----------



## billc

Who said it was Breitbart paying me...:EG:



> If you read the article and follow the links it is not a scientist defecting at all. It is a scientist saying that the findings need to be questioned and that evidence needs to be properly evaluated. I would suggest that that is exactly the position of mist reputable scientists.



Actually, this is not the position of promoters of the theory of man made global warming which is why this scientist stands out.  for the MMGW people the discussion is over, man is causing warming and now we have to take draconian measures to save the planet.  anyone who denies that man is causing the warming either is getting paid to lie or is an idiot...

The skeptics are the ones calling for looking at the real data and evaluating that...and they are the ones who are attacked.   Because this guy is saying that the findings need to be questioned and the evidence needs to be evaluated he is now a man made global warming denier and he will be attacked and called a liar, or a shill for big oil...

Hmmmm...now how do I submit the bill for this post...I'll have to check my contract...


----------



## billc

Apparently, glaciers in the Himalayas are okay too...

Study: Himalayan Glaciers not Disappearing After All




> Himalayan glaciers - for years one of the poster children of the  "man-made global warming is real and we're all doomed" movement - are in  no imminent danger whatsoever, a new study has found. (h/t GWPF and Watts Up With That?)
> 
> 
> Of the 2018 glaciers mapped and monitored for the survey, nearly 87  per cent were found to be stable while only 12 per cent were found to be  in retreat. These real-world observations are in marked contrast to the  predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in  its 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear "by 2035."
> The IPCC was subsequently forced to disown  the claim after it  emerged that it came not from a peer-reviewed study but from an  interview given by an Indian glaciologist to an obscure Indian  environmental magazine called _Down To Earth. _In a game of Chinese whispers, this erroneous claim was then repeated in _New Scientist, _quoted in a report by environmental campaigning group WWF, and then cited as fact by the IPCC.
> What made the story even murkier was that the glaciologist, Syed  Hasnain. was subsequently employed by a company run by the head of the  IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, a man who arguably has a strong vested interest  in ramping up the global warming scaremongers' narrative.
> As Christopher Booker reported in 2010:
> Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior  employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based  company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general.* Furthermore, the claim  &#8211; now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC &#8211; has helped TERI  to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's  leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research  study funded by the EU.*



Yeah, they aren't doing it for the money....they are men of science...:rofl:


----------



## granfire

billc said:


> Apparently, glaciers in the Himalayas are okay too...
> 
> Study: Himalayan Glaciers not Disappearing After All
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they aren't doing it for the money....they are men of science...:rofl:



Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

NOAA: 2012 was one of the 10 warmest years on record globally






yeah, why do I try....


----------



## K-man

Not to mention New Zealand.



> *Our frozen assets slowly melting away*
> 
> Scientists revealed this past week New Zealand's famous Franz Josef Glacier is dramatically retreating. Deidre Mussen investigates what the future holds for our nation's glaciers.
> 
> Over the past three decades, some New Zealand glaciers have quietly vanished.
> 
> ...
> 
> A 2008 report on global glacier changes by the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the United Nations Environmental Programme states the annual melting rate of glaciers doubled after the turn of the millennium.
> 
> 
> It predicts worldwide glacier shrinkage will accelerate and warns they may disappear from many mountain ranges by the end of the 21st century.
> Our frozen assets slowly melting away | Stuff.co.nz



and Antarctica



> *Glacial Region's Melt Past 'Point of No Return,' NASA Says
> *
> A glacial region of western Antarctica that&#8217;s already melting rapidly has passed &#8220;the point of no return,&#8221; according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
> Glacial Region's Melt Past 'Point of No Return,' NASA Says - Bloomberg



Yeah! Great news Bill. The world is safe.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes
> 
> NOAA: 2012 was one of the 10 warmest years on record globally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, why do I try....



I wonder what the great Lakes glaciers looked like before they melted.  That kinda stuff happens when we exit ice ages


----------



## billc

Hmmm...

Surprise: glaciers in Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930?s and 1940?s than today | Watts Up With That?



> The &#8220;Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP)&#8221; and shows &#8220;maximum reconstructed retreat rates [in] 1930&#8243; of about 125 meters per year, compared to near zero in ~1975 and about 20 meters/year at the end of the record in ~2005.  The authors report, *&#8220;Results indicate that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation 6,500 years before the present&#8221; and &#8220;Retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.&#8221;*



When did the industrial revolution happen...

and you you would think they would melt faster today, not in the 30s and 40s...



> A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews finds that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930&#8242;s and 1940&#8242;s than over the past 40 years.



After all, ther were less green house gases in hoe air then...

See the problem with your photo is it is from 2005...

This is from 2008...






> Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire area was covered by thick sheets of ice.
> High snowfall and cold weather to blame.
> 
> 
> A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.
> 
> 
> "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".
> 
> 
> "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."
> 
> 
> Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.
> 
> 
> Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.
> 
> 
> Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers.  Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.
> 
> *One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.*
> 
> 
> Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that&#8217;s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.
> http:/


/www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm


*1741 to 1900...*


> *From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.*



Well it seems 1900 would have a lot less green house gases than we have today...and yet...the ice retreated 50 miles...

Makes you go HMMMMMMM....


and what did they say led to this shrinkage..





> .From the 1600s to the 1900s, that&#8217;s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.



I think you guys don't have to worry about glaciers melting because of man made global warming...


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> I think you guys don't have to worry about glaciers melting because of man made global warming...


I don't care what is causing the warming, just that it is happening. 

As to Montana and its glaciers ... better get to see them now.



> Of the estimated 150 glaciers which existed in the park in the mid-19th century, only 25 active glaciers remained by 2010. Scientists studying the glaciers in the park have estimated that all the glaciers may disappear by 2020 if the current climate patterns persist.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Here is an interesting one:

This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like | Mother Jones


----------



## ballen0351

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is an interesting one:
> 
> This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like | Mother Jones



from the article


> If you truly understand global warming, then you know it's all about the ice. That's what matters. Planet Earth has not always had great ice sheets at the poles, of the sort that currently exist atop Greenland and Antarctica. In other periods, much of that water has instead been in liquid form, in the oceans&#8212;and the oceans have been much higher.
> How much? According to the National Academy of Sciences, the globe's great ice sheets contain enough frozen water to raise sea levels worldwide by more than 60 meters. That's about 200 feet.



So if its been that way long before cars and factories why do you think it wouldn't naturally cycle back to that state on its own. Then a few million years after that it would all freeze again.  You know naturally like its been doing since the dawn of time.


----------



## James Kovacich

I've been thinking the same thing. But our planet was pure and unpolluted, now it is damaged by man. My reasoning is the natural occurring cycles will be worse, not better, because of mans negligence.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

James Kovacich said:


> I've been thinking the same thing. But our planet was pure and unpolluted, now it is damaged by man. My reasoning is the natural occurring cycles will be worse, not better, because of mans negligence.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



But they will happen none the less always have always will.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> But they will happen none the less always have always will.


Just that in the past the changes have been gradual. I won't be around to see the worst of this but my grandchildren will. It is them that this generation has let down.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Just that in the past the changes have been gradual. I won't be around to see the worst of this but my grandchildren will. It is them that this generation has let down.
> :asian:



Its still gradual even the most aggressive disaster models are still using 100s and 1000s of years in its predictions.


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Its still gradual even the most aggressive disaster models are still using 100s and 1000s of years in its predictions.


Mmm! No. Most of the predictions are for the next 85 years, i.e. end of century.


----------



## billc

> Mmm! No. Most of the predictions are for the next 85 years, i.e. end of century.



Do you know what this shows us...that global warming alarmists are getting smarter in making their false predictions...al gore made the mistake of predicting the dread outcomes well within our lifetime...so when the warming paused, or stopped, their was no real explanation for it so they had to change the term from global warming to "climate change" to keep the money train rolling.  

With your prediction of 85-100 years, it is far enough away that we will be dead before they are proven wrong, and close enough that it allows them to scare everyone into doing what they want...massive taxes, "family planning" in the third world, reduction in technological advancement....

They are just learning from their mistake...the same way when that erlich guy predicted massive overpopulation in 1984 that would lead to massive social disruption, starvation and destruction...he made the mistake, like gore, of predicting the outcome in the lifespan of the people who were living...and they were able to see how bad his predictions were...

You really have to stop buying the snake oil...it isn't a cure...


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Mmm! No. Most of the predictions are for the next 85 years, i.e. end of century.



I have not seen any that claim world destruction in 85 years.


----------



## ballen0351

This is from your own article you cited

Antarctica&#8217;s ice sheets hold enough water to raise sea levels by 58.3 meters (191 feet), though that&#8217;s not likely for thousands of years, according to the latest estimate from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record Levels




> According to Australia's National Snow and Ice Data Centre  (NSIDC), Antarctic sea ice grew by a record amount this April,  increasing by a rate of more than 110,000 sq km (42,471 sq miles) per  day to a total of nine million sq km (3.5 million sq miles).
> 
> 
> The NSIDC said that rapid expansion also continued into this month,  and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record amount "by a  significant margin".
> 
> 
> 
> *The previous record was set in April 2008, but this year has surpassed that by 320,000 sq km (123,552 sq miles).
> *
> 
> 
> The biggest growth in sea ice occurred in the Weddel Sea area, with  temperatures one or two degrees below average for this time of year.
> *The increasing ice cover in the Antarctic has surprised many scientists.* Last December, a ship carrying climate scientists got stuck  in an ice pack about 1,500 miles south of Tasmania. Getting stuck in  record ice cover was especially ironic, given they intended to document  how ice had decreased thanks to global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> The record ice levels will make awkward reading for the NASA scientists who today said that the Antarctic ice shelf is in the process of collapsing and that the Antarctic ice melt appears "unstoppable".
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Rignot, lead author of the report, said: "Today we present  observational evidence that the [ice sheet] has gone into irreversible  retreat. It has reached the point of no return."
> 
> 
> *He blamed global warming for the phenomena, but also admits that the  entire west Antarctic ice sheet could have melted some 500,000 to  600,000 years ago &#8211; without the help of man-made global warming.*



Soooo...I don't remember anyone taking a day off of pumping green house gases into the air...and yet...we're breaking ice records in the Antarctic...


----------



## James Kovacich

ballen0351 said:


> But they will happen none the less always have always will.



True but we are possibly making it worse. If not, thhen why not just throw out all environmental laws? We don't need them.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

James Kovacich said:


> True but we are possibly making it worse. If not, thhen why not just throw out all environmental laws? We don't need them.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Why make sweeping whole sale changes that could destroy the economy because we are possibly making things worse?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Why make sweeping whole sale changes that could destroy the economy because we are possibly making things worse?



You can't eat money.

BTW, that is typical, the assumption that the economy would be destroyed by 'going green' and being more mindful of the environment instead of doing things as they have always been. 
That was the battle cry in the 80s, when California lead the charge to put catalytic converters in cars and go unleaded...I can still hear the cries from the automakers, the hardship it would cause....
Now, thirty years later...we are still driving cars, the smog is less in LA, and the troubles the automobile industry had were not caused by catalytic converters.

How can it possibly harm the economy when you develop new industries? 
When you recycle more and use less? Come up with NEW ideas, instead of having cars overheat in the summer sun, park them under a roof of solar cells that power the establishment....


Since the mid 19th century we have gone hot and heavy on the fosil fuels, We are still burning oil like it's a never ending resource, those are carbon compounds that had been locked away for millions and billions of years, we are decimating old growth forests (AKA rainforests) at an alarming rate (I don't see it as a plus when Brazil expanded sugar cane production manifold. Their only way to do that is to burn down rain forest.) Again, those trees have been storing carbon for many many decades, when burned this is all released back into the atmosphere.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> You can't eat money.


You can't eat anything without it.  


> BTW, that is typical, the assumption that the economy would be destroyed by 'going green' and being more mindful of the environment instead of doing things as they have always been.
> That was the battle cry in the 80s, when California lead the charge to put catalytic converters in cars and go unleaded...I can still hear the cries from the automakers, the hardship it would cause....
> Now, thirty years later...we are still driving cars, the smog is less in LA, and the troubles the automobile industry had were not caused by catalytic converters.
> 
> How can it possibly harm the economy when you develop new industries?
> When you recycle more and use less? Come up with NEW ideas, instead of having cars overheat in the summer sun, park them under a roof of solar cells that power the establishment....
> 
> 
> Since the mid 19th century we have gone hot and heavy on the fosil fuels, We are still burning oil like it's a never ending resource, those are carbon compounds that had been locked away for millions and billions of years, we are decimating old growth forests (AKA rainforests) at an alarming rate (I don't see it as a plus when Brazil expanded sugar cane production manifold. Their only way to do that is to burn down rain forest.) Again, those trees have been storing carbon for many many decades, when burned this is all released back into the atmosphere.


So when the US starts taxing carbon emissions and places like Mexico don't where do you think what's left of the factories in the US will go?  When we purposely raise gas prices making in almost impossible for people to drive to work what are people going to do?  When we tax electric companies who pass on the bill to people that can barley pay the heat bill now then what?  

I'm all for any energy that is cheap.  Green red blue black I don't care what color the energy is as long as it's cheaper then it is now.  If green energy was cost effective companies would flock to it but it's not.  At least not yet.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> That was the battle cry in the 80s, when California lead the charge to put catalytic converters in cars and go unleaded...I can still hear the cries from the automakers, the hardship it would cause....
> Now, thirty years later...we are still driving cars, the smog is less in LA, and the troubles the automobile industry had were not caused by catalytic converters.
> .


Also my other hobby is restoring and wheeling Jeeps.  You know how many older cars cant be registered in Cali now because of these stupid rules?  Guys spend tens of thousands of dollars restoring vehicles only to fail smog inspections and cant get registered.  All it turned into was another form of taxes.  
My states requires emission testing as well (excpet in a few counties Im exempt where I live).  I could stop 50 cars a day and issues tickets for expired emission tests making millions for the state.  its about $ not the environment


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Also my other hobby is restoring and wheeling Jeeps.  You know how many older cars cant be registered in Cali now because of these stupid rules?  Guys spend tens of thousands of dollars restoring vehicles only to fail smog inspections and cant get registered.  All it turned into was another form of taxes.
> My states requires emission testing as well (excpet in a few counties Im exempt where I live).  I could stop 50 cars a day and issues tickets for expired emission tests making millions for the state.  its about $ not the environment



OMG, my hobby gets restricted....

You sound like billie, eff the Gulf states, as long as the oil is flowing. 
And I think we have established that Cali is nuts. Although you do have to admit - however begrudgingly - that the car industry didn't collapse because of the introduction of the catalytic converter...THAT, my friend, was the point. Not the red tape that gets strung everywhere.
And seriously, it takes fines (or taxes) to make people vere off the beaten path, because, well, you can't tell an American that they are doing it wrong....

But don't listen to Eurotrash like me.... 

BTW, there is a lot more wrong with Cali than just the old jeeps not being allowed....I mean...most of the state is nearly a desert...why do they have GREEN lawns and golf courses....water is precious and getting more so in the South East as we speak....

Yep, a lot of man made problems, because there is no long term foresight. Folks like Billie resisting science at every turn, kicking and screaming....

Here, I'll make it easy for you: Blame farmers. That always works. Chesapeak Bay Pollution, CO2 and methane emissions, antibiotics and resistant germs, animal abuse, ground water pollution....
</sarcasm>


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> OMG, my hobby gets restricted....
> 
> You sound like billie, eff the Gulf states, as long as the oil is flowing.
> And I think we have established that Cali is nuts. Although you do have to admit - however begrudgingly - that the car industry didn't collapse because of the introduction of the catalytic converter...THAT, my friend, was the point. Not the red tape that gets strung everywhere.
> And seriously, it takes fines (or taxes) to make people vere off the beaten path, because, well, you can't tell an American that they are doing it wrong....
> 
> But don't listen to Eurotrash like me....
> 
> BTW, there is a lot more wrong with Cali than just the old jeeps not being allowed....I mean...most of the state is nearly a desert...why do they have GREEN lawns and golf courses....water is precious and getting more so in the South East as we speak....
> 
> Yep, a lot of man made problems, because there is no long term foresight. Folks like Billie resisting science at every turn, kicking and screaming....
> 
> Here, I'll make it easy for you: Blame farmers. That always works. Chesapeak Bay Pollution, CO2 and methane emissions, antibiotics and resistant germs, animal abuse, ground water pollution....
> </sarcasm>



That was one example of many to show the regulations are not about the environment and more about money the state gets to collect.  And the car industry did collapse if it wasnt for the Govt bail out they would be alot less of them today.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> That was one example of many to show the regulations are not about the environment and more about money the state gets to collect.  And the car industry did collapse if it wasnt for the Govt bail out they would be alot less of them today.



So you bring your inconvenience into play when it has zilch to do with the topic....

Yes, OMG the bail out...20 years after the CAT...sheesh...I am sure it was Obama's fault that they made that mandatory nearly all over the world...minus China, which is now repeating every single ecologic mistake the West had made 30 and 40 years prior....

The point is, the economy will adapt. 
It always has. Sometimes it took some growing pains, but hey...It's called 'the cost of doing business' strange concept. I know. 

Ok, what can I say: Environment friendly solutions are a growing industry. Which is another term for 'economy'

Of course, some changes have to occure, first and foremost in the minds of people. 
Oh, nothing big, but simple things:
Like not throwing everything away, but recycle whatever is possible. Why, you ask? Simple: It's called resources. The plastic we bury in the landfill each year could safe us from spending millions and billions on new oil made materials. Cardboard and paper are easily recycled, it's been that way for decades. Glas can be used for so much more than road constructions (yeah, retarded laws make that the only option now in more than one state....oh, here is an idea, ship the crap to China instead...the containers are largely empty as it is...)

You get the drift...
Eh....NVM....


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> So you bring your inconvenience into play when it has zilch to do with the topic....


Wasn't mine I don't live there.  It was an example of using bogus green laws to make more money for the state.  Which it what most solutions to the doom and gloom I hear.  They usually involve me paying more for stuff for no reason.


> Yes, OMG the bail out...20 years after the CAT...sheesh...I am sure it was Obama's fault that they made that mandatory nearly all over the world...minus China, which is now repeating every single ecologic mistake the West had made 30 and 40 years prior....


I didnt blame Obama for anything so tone it down some 


> The point is, the economy will adapt.
> It always has. Sometimes it took some growing pains, but hey...It's called 'the cost of doing business' strange concept. I know.


The growing pains you so casually toss aside are real families loosing jobs and homes.   But I guess it's the cost of doing business.  We better make big changes for a problem we can't even say for sure we caused and have no idea if these cuts will even work.  


> Ok, what can I say: Environment friendly solutions are a growing industry. Which is another term for 'economy'


Like I said make it work and make it cheap and I'm on board.  Also stop making products like gas with corn in it that kill engines and cost me more money to replace them and rise my food prices


> Of course, some changes have to occure, first and foremost in the minds of people.
> Oh, nothing big, but simple things:
> Like not throwing everything away, but recycle whatever is possible. Why, you ask? Simple: It's called resources. The plastic we bury in the landfill each year could safe us from spending millions and billions on new oil made materials. Cardboard and paper are easily recycled, it's been that way for decades. Glas can be used for so much more than road constructions (yeah, retarded laws make that the only option now in more than one state....oh, here is an idea, ship the crap to China instead...the containers are largely empty as it is...)


Great go for it.  I choose to burn my trash but to each his own.  


> You get the drift...
> Eh....NVM....


Yeah never mind why bother


----------



## billc

Do you know what it is Ballen...back before we all had to "adapt" because they started taxing everything and forcing things on us for our own good, a family could live well on one adult working...and do well.   Now...the economy has adapted, and both parents have to work, sometimes more than one job each, and the kids are raised by everyone but the parents...because they both work...but we adapt...


----------



## billc

Yeah, skeptics are not allowed...

From K-Man:



> It is a scientist saying that the findings need to be questioned and  that evidence needs to be properly evaluated. I would suggest that that  is exactly the position of mist reputable scientists.




Yeah, not so much...


Breaking: The Climate Mafia Strikes | Power Line




> Well, the climate Mafia wasn&#8217;t going to let Bengtsson, and, to mix  metaphors, the Climate Inquisition went into overdrive.  Today,  Bengtsson transmitted his resignation  from the GWPF, *describing the intense pressure the intolerant climate  establishment exerted on him to recant over the last 48 hours:*
> Dear Professor Henderson,
> 
> *I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days  from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If  this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and  will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no  other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting  such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I  have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their  support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.*
> 
> I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that  reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting  anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology.  Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
> Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to  the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for  me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible  time.
> With my best regards
> Lennart Bengtsson
> ​



What was all that stuff about just looking at the facts...


----------



## granfire

billc said:


> Yeah, skeptics are not allowed...
> 
> From K-Man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much...
> 
> 
> Breaking: The Climate Mafia Strikes | Power Line
> 
> 
> 
> What was all that stuff about just looking at the facts...



:lfao:

Funny from your science free zone, mate.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> :lfao:
> 
> Funny from your science free zone, mate.



Except when people post actual facts like the earth as a whole hasn't gotten warmer in at least 17 years now people refuse to debate the "science" and attack the author.


----------



## James Kovacich

billc said:


> Do you know what it is Ballen...back before we all had to "adapt" because they started taxing everything and forcing things on us for our own good, a family could live well on one adult working...and do well.   Now...the economy has adapted, and both parents have to work, sometimes more than one job each, and the kids are raised by everyone but the parents...because they both work...but we adapt...



True, and that's because if we don't accept the low wages American offer us, they ship the jobs over seas to people who will accept them. I've experienced this 1st hand. Been outsourced 3 times. The 1st was way back in 1984. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

James Kovacich said:


> True, and that's because if we don't accept the low wages American offer us, they ship the jobs over seas to people who will accept them. I've experienced this 1st hand. Been outsourced twice!
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Right  what we think we should earn and what the free market will pay for the same job don't always jive.  I'm totally overpaid at my job and now we are going to be paying for it with possible lay offs.  I'm the only one that's been running around here saying this was going to happen for years.  Every year the union (which Im not a member of) demands the city give us raises.  Every year I tell them they are stupid we already make more then any other PD in the area and this will eventually catch up to us.  Well its time to pay the piper and we may lay off about 10% of our department.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Except when people post actual facts like the earth as a whole hasn't gotten warmer in at least 17 years now people refuse to debate the "science" and attack the author.



Even the Salmon adjust their migration patterns....nope, warming isn't happening....
I know, it is hard to comprehend, when over 90% of scientists agree....that comes pretty close t being fact. 

Of course, if Breitbart says it's not so, who are those scientists to insist, right! 

Once you get past the shoulder shrugging notion that rising sea levels is the sole problem resulting from melting polar ice caps, the situation becomes a wee bit more dramatic:

The polar caps, in conjunction with tropic waters have a huge impact on global weather:
The gulf stream takes warm water north, where it cools and flows back to the tropics, to repeat the cycle. 

Now, for a moment stop and think of all the possible implications should this perpetual motion seize to exist.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Even the Salmon adjust their migration patterns....nope, warming isn't happening....
> I know, it is hard to comprehend, when over 90% of scientists agree....that comes pretty close t being fact.
> 
> Of course, if Breitbart says it's not so, who are those scientists to insist, right!
> 
> Once you get past the shoulder shrugging notion that rising sea levels is the sole problem resulting from melting polar ice caps, the situation becomes a wee bit more dramatic:
> 
> The polar caps, in conjunction with tropic waters have a huge impact on global weather:
> The gulf stream takes warm water north, where it cools and flows back to the tropics, to repeat the cycle.
> 
> Now, for a moment stop and think of all the possible implications should this perpetual motion seize to exist.


And just stop for a moment and think that its all happened before and will again.  The earth goes in and out of warming and cooling periods always has always will.  Ice ages come and go.  Water freezes and thaws.  Always has Always will.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> And just stop for a moment and think that its all happened before and will again.  The earth goes in and out of warming and cooling periods always has always will.  Ice ages come and go.  Water freezes and thaws.  Always has Always will.



That's like saying 'because everybody else does it, it's ok for me to do it'


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> That's like saying 'because everybody else does it, it's ok for me to do it'



Does what?  I've said from the start we need to be good stewards of the earth.  I'm also all for cheap energy I don't care what color it is green blue red wind solar sugar cane as long as it's effective and cheap.  What I'm against is phony taxes that do nothing to clean up anything.   I'm against taxing carbon emissions.   I'm against saying we need to do sometime but it's ok for developing nations to pollute because they are poor.  I'm against AL Gore flying in a private jet then saying oh its cool I planted a tree so I got carbon offsets.  I'm against raising gas taxes to punish people that drive.  You wanna clean up great let's clean up but don't invent doomsday as a reason


----------



## billc

The fastest way to get a country to clean up it's environment...economic development...rich people like living in clean environments...by keeping poor countries undeveloped you are keeping them dirty, and unhealthy.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

ballen0351 said:


> Right  what we think we should earn and what the free market will pay for the same job don't always jive.  I'm totally overpaid at my job and now we are going to be paying for it with possible lay offs.  I'm the only one that's been running around here saying this was going to happen for years.  Every year the union (which Im not a member of) demands the city give us raises.  Every year I tell them they are stupid we already make more then any other PD in the area and this will eventually catch up to us.  Well its time to pay the piper and we may lay off about 10% of our department.



Are you worried that not being a part of the union makes you very vulnerable?  Or do you feel it helps your position?


----------



## ballen0351

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Are you worried that not being a part of the union makes you very vulnerable?  Or do you feel it helps your position?



I've been here long enough they can't really do anything to me.  The city code say layoffs are done as last hired first fired.  They would need to lay off way more then 10% to get to me.  I don't actually think they will lay anyone off I believe they will cut about 10 unfilled positions and then we have a bunch of people retiring in the next few months that their positions won't be filled either.   The funny thing is in December they gave us all a 10% raise and then now they say we are broke and need to lay people off.  It's all politics.   Basically we got a new Mayor that's a Republican.   First republican in like 40 years.  The entire city council is Democrat so they but heads one everything.


----------



## granfire

Climate change? Not happening...
Amazon rainforest showing signs of degradation due to climate change ? Nasa | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## billc

Hmmm...NASA trying to keep it's budget from getting shrunk even more...since they aren't going into space the only way to keep the money rolling in...monitoring "global warming"...otherwise...fewer scientists on the NASA payroll...

Again, why is it that we keep pumping green house gases into the air...and yet the temperature doesn't head upward in a continuous line...but has "paused," or "stopped" the alleged warming...

http://americanthinker.com/2014/05/climate_alarmists_in_denial.html



> As  if this winter weren&#8217;t enough, there&#8217;s new evidence that the climate is  cooling.  For those alarmists who still don&#8217;t get it, even the  International Panel on Climate Change, hardly a group of climate change  skeptics,





> now admits  that the last decade and a half has been a period of little change in  the Earth&#8217;s climate.  When a committee of climate activists expresses  reservations about global warming, you know it&#8217;s getting colder.





> In  the longer view, during the past one million years, the Earth&#8217;s climate  has shifted 12 times to periods of extreme glaciation.  In fact, the  Earth has been in the midst of an extended reprieve from the extreme  cold that has dominated the Holocene era.  There is every reason to  suspect that the climate may shift back to the extreme conditions that  existed during the Little Ice Age of 1350 to 1850, and climate history  has shown that shifts of this kind may take place over a period of just a  few decades.



Global warming would be a lot better than global cooling...it is hard to grow wheat, tomatoes and other things we eat with an inch of snow on the ground...or miles of glaciers covering Americas bread basket...


----------



## granfire

billc said:


> Hmmm...NASA trying to keep it's budget from getting shrunk even more...since they aren't going into space the only way to keep the money rolling in...monitoring "global warming"...otherwise...fewer scientists on the NASA payroll...
> 
> Again, why is it that we keep pumping green house gases into the air...and yet the temperature doesn't head upward in a continuous line...but has "paused," or "stopped" the alleged warming...
> 
> http://americanthinker.com/2014/05/climate_alarmists_in_denial.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Global warming would be a lot better than global cooling...it is hard to grow wheat, tomatoes and other things we eat with an inch of snow on the ground...or miles of glaciers covering Americas bread basket...




try it without water, honey...

FYI: the majority of the US produce come from the South West/California. You can expect drastic increase in cost at the grocery store near you, and very son, too. 

n the matter of denial, or rather skepticism:
[URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf"]http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Water:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Drought/


----------



## K-man

granfire said:


> try it without water, honey...
> 
> FYI: the majority of the US produce come from the South West/California. You can expect drastic increase in cost at the grocery store near you, and very son, too.
> 
> n the matter of denial, or rather skepticism:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
> 
> Water:
> Climate Prediction Center - United States Drought Information


You will be pleased to know I've fixed the problem. I closed my eyes and it went away.


----------



## granfire

K-man said:


> You will be pleased to know I've fixed the problem. I closed my eyes and it went away.



How's that sand in your nose coming along!


----------



## K-man

granfire said:


> How's that sand in your nose coming along!


Ah! That's easy. I just stick my head in a big tin. That way I can't see the BS, and with the rain, hail or sand beating on the tin I can't hear the BS. Because it is sealed, I am enclosed in my own little perfect world and no sand can get up my nose.

The only drawback is I can't see where I am going and I keep tripping over things.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...and about that peer review process...the latest scandal in global warming?

http://americanthinker.com/blog/201..._how_climate_advocates_suppress_skeptics.html



> What's  significant is that Bengsston's paper does not deny global warming is  happening, but rather the IPCC is wrong about how fast the climate is  changing and the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases.* And  yet, because the paper is "less than helpful," it was rejected.*
> 
> Climate  change hysterics are looking more and more like members of a cult or  religion. Apostasy must be punished at all costs - even at the expense  of sacred scientific principles of open inquiry and following the  evidence wherever it leads.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Hmmm...and about that peer review process...the latest scandal in global warming?
> 
> Blog: Damning email shows how climate advocates suppress skeptics


Why is it a scandal?



> What's significant is that Bengsston's paper does not deny global warming is happening, but rather the IPCC is wrong about how fast the climate is changing and the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases. And yet, because the paper is "less than helpful," it was rejected.


It is just plain wrong that the paper was rejected if this is exactly what happened. However it doesn't diminish the fact that he believes that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gasses are at least partially responsible.
:asian:


----------



## billc

Well...if a paper that actually supports the theory of man made global warming but is concerned about how the info. is handled is rejected, not on the merits but because it might hurt the cause...imagine actual skeptical papers and how they are treated...


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> Well...if a paper that actually supports the theory of man made global warming but is concerned about how the info. is handled is rejected, not on the merits but because it might hurt the cause...imagine actual skeptical papers and how they are treated...


Have you read the paper that was rejected? If so could you please post a link as I would love to read it. If you haven't then you really have no idea of the reason it was not accepted.
:asian:


----------



## billc

Well, this is what was reported as to what the scientist reviewing the paper for submission said...



> A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was &#8220;less than helpful&#8221;.
> The unnamed scientist concluded: &#8220;Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of &#8216;errors&#8217; and worse from the climate skeptics media side.&#8221;


----------



## billc

Just found this...

The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse « Roy Spencer, PhD



> Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.
> 
> 
> I predict history will not treat them kindly, and the reputation of all climate scientists will be tarnished in the process. As it is, the public who pays our salaries are already laughing at us.
> 
> 
> Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons.
> 
> 
> Sometimes for entirely made-up reasons.
> 
> 
> What makes the Bengtsson case somewhat unusual is his high profile. A Director at ECMWF. Then Max Planck Institute. He was at ECMWF when that organization became the top weather forecasting center in the world. He knows the importance of models providing good forecasts, with demonstrable skill &#8212; exactly what the climate models do not yet provide.
> 
> 
> *That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.*
> 
> 
> Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.
> 
> 
> But once he became more outspoken about his skepticism, well&#8230;that&#8217;s just unacceptable for someone of his stature. That his treatment should lead him to worry about his health and his safety tells us a lot about just how politicized global warming research has become.
> 
> 
> This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It&#8217;s been going on for at least 20 years.
> 
> *I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those &#8220;denier&#8221; types.*





> As I have always said, if you fund scientists to find evidence of something, they will be happy to find it for you. For over 20 years we have been funding them to find evidence of the human influence on climate. And they dutifully found it everywhere, hiding under every rock, glacier, ocean, and in every cloud, hurricane, tornado, raindrop, and snowflake.
> 
> 
> So, just tell scientists 20% of their funds will be targeted for studying natural sources of climate change. They will find those, too.
> 
> 
> *It&#8217;s not like they will have to look very hard. The 17 year hiatus in warming, which no one predicted, and which the climate models can&#8217;t even explain, tells us that Mother Nature is also involved in climate change.
> *
> 
> If nature can cause enough global cooling to cancel out anthropogenic warming, it can also cause global warming. It must, because natural changes are cyclical.
> 
> 
> I think we might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science. They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline.



And specifically to this thread...which should make all those fearful souls happier...



> The latest example is the highly speculative theory that, after only 40 years of watching an Antarctic glacier, we have a few scientists extrapolating out to 200 to 1,000 years a &#8220;collapse&#8221; of a portion of the ice sheet. The media presents it as something that sounds imminent and unavoidable. Governor Brown then says it will inundate LAX airport, even though at 125 ft elevation, the greater threat to LAX is probably sliding into the ocean from a mega-earthquake, or an invasion by extraterrestrials.
> 
> 
> *Unfortunately, now every tornado and El Nino in the coming months will be pointed to as proof positive they were &#8220;right&#8221; all along&#8230;.as if those events didn&#8217;t happen before we started driving SUVs. *The news media, filled with frustrated creative writers who are trying to change the world, will be only too happy to hype a screenplay-worthy storyline around the latest science claim by some obscure activist scientist.


----------



## pgsmith

billc said:


> Do you know what it is Ballen...back before we all had to "adapt" because they started taxing everything and forcing things on us for our own good, a family could live well on one adult working...and do well. Now...the economy has adapted, and both parents have to work, sometimes more than one job each, and the kids are raised by everyone but the parents...because they both work...but we adapt...



  While I generally hate debating with billc, this is something that definitely gets me riled up. So many people lament that it's impossible to live on a single paycheck today. To all of those people I call BS. This is whining pure and simple, and has nothing to do with reality. I have frineds that survive on a single paycheck. I did the math myself not too very long ago. The reason that both parents have to work is because those parents, and their kids, want all the things that weren't necessary back in the "good old days". Things like cable TV, smart phones, microwaves, designer shoes, jeans, and handbags, large screen TVs, new cars, air conditioning. I had none of these things when I was young and we lived on my Father's income. Both parents working is due purely to the influence of our consumer society. Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.


----------



## billc

Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money then they wouldn't have to work two jobs to get the things that they want out of life...who cares if they want all those things...that would be "THEIR" choice, not yours...and is it right for the government to take so much of their money that they have to work two jobs to get those things...simply because the government takes that much money out of their pocket...money they earned, through their hard work...?  

Who are you exactly to tell those people what they need or should want?  Why is it greed to want a smart phone, or microwaves or jeans or designer shoes...life is to be lived and experienced and their choices on how to live it and experience it are nobody's business but theirs.

Why should the government take so much from people that they have to make that choice...just to line the pockets of politicians who enter office poor and leave rich...off of the money and influence they get from the very people you are criticizing...why is it better for a truly greedy politician to spend that money rather than the people who actually earned it...?

Remember...all those things you condemn...cable t.v., designer shoes, jeans, microwaves...are created by other people...who earn money to make those things for other people...and then use that money to support their families...if you don't want those things...good for you...I just enjoy to no end when people tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy...

Here is an idea...why don't you list all of your belongings...that way I and the other posters here on Martialtalk can decide which of those things you need, or should have...that should be a fun exercise...don't you think?

The reason two people have to work today is the government takes too much money from us...that is the truth...why should people have to live as primitively as cavemen simply to feel pure of heart because you think "consumer society" is a bad thing.  It was that society that also created all the good things,in life, from wonder medicines to ice cream and putting on a holier than thou  attitude in defense of corrupt politicians is silly...

I'm more than willing to continue this on another thread to prevent thread drift...


----------



## Makalakumu

pgsmith said:


> While I generally hate debating with billc, this is something that definitely gets me riled up. So many people lament that it's impossible to live on a single paycheck today. To all of those people I call BS. This is whining pure and simple, and has nothing to do with reality. I have frineds that survive on a single paycheck. I did the math myself not too very long ago. The reason that both parents have to work is because those parents, and their kids, want all the things that weren't necessary back in the "good old days". Things like cable TV, smart phones, microwaves, designer shoes, jeans, and handbags, large screen TVs, new cars, air conditioning. I had none of these things when I was young and we lived on my Father's income. Both parents working is due purely to the influence of our consumer society. Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.


----------



## pgsmith

billc said:


> Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money then they wouldn't have to work two jobs to get the things that they want out of life...who cares if they want all those things...that would be "THEIR" choice, not yours...and is it right for the government to take so much of their money that they have to work two jobs to get those things...simply because the government takes that much money out of their pocket...money they earned, through their hard work...?
> 
> Who are you exactly to tell those people what they need or should want? Why is it greed to want a smart phone, or microwaves or jeans or designer shoes...life is to be lived and experienced and their choices on how to live it and experience it are nobody's business but theirs.
> 
> Why should the government take so much from people that they have to make that choice...just to line the pockets of politicians who enter office poor and leave rich...off of the money and influence they get from the very people you are criticizing...why is it better for a truly greedy politician to spend that money rather than the people who actually earned it...?
> 
> Remember...all those things you condemn...cable t.v., designer shoes, jeans, microwaves...are created by other people...who earn money to make those things for other people...and then use that money to support their families...if you don't want those things...good for you...I just enjoy to no end when people tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy...
> 
> Here is an idea...why don't you list all of your belongings...that way I and the other posters here on Martialtalk can decide which of those things you need, or should have...that should be a fun exercise...don't you think?
> 
> The reason two people have to work today is the government takes too much money from us...that is the truth...why should people have to live as primitively as cavemen simply to feel pure of heart because you think "consumer society" is a bad thing. It was that society that also created all the good things,in life, from wonder medicines to ice cream and putting on a holier than thou attitude in defense of corrupt politicians is silly...
> 
> I'm more than willing to continue this on another thread to prevent thread drift...



Marginal income tax rates *1950* --- minimum 20% maximum 91%
Marginal income tax rates *2013* --- minimum 10% maximum 39.6%

Data courtesy of taxfoundation.org US Income Tax Rates History 

Wonderful rant Bill, made my ears bleed a bit with that high pitched whining. Exactly right as usual though.


----------



## billc

> Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money



Yeah, I guess in your world you only pay income tax....you don't eat, drive a car, run a business,  by stuff, own a house...all of which get taxed, and assessed fees from local, state and federal taxing bodies...but it must be nice for you...

http://www.wanttoknow.info/c/f-what-percent-does-average-american-pay-total-taxes









> How much tax do we really pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Item	Rate	Notes
> Federal personal income tax	17%
> (2011 est. - 18.2%)	Top 39.6% rate. Source
> State & local income taxes	10.1%
> (2009 - 10.6%)	State taxes range from under 6% to over 12%. Local taxes run from zero to 2.75%. Source,  source,  source,  2009 source
> Sales tax	9.7%
> (2009 - 10.3%)	Figure is the average rate. State sales taxes range up to 8% and local taxes run from zero to over 5%. Source,  source,  2008 source (broken link as of 2012),  2009 source  2011 source
> Social security & Medicaid	7.65%	Total rate is actually 15.3% since half is paid by the employer, but we're ignoring that to be kind and to avoid being accused of being too political.
> Federal corporate income tax share	3%	Based on corporate taxes being approximately 1/6 of personal taxes, and that they are paid by individuals in the final analysis.
> Property tax	2.5%
> (2007 - 2.7%)	Yearly average actual costs range from under $200 in Alaska to almost $1900 in New Jersey. Source
> Fuel/gasoline tax	.5%
> (2009 est. - .6%)	Approximately 23% of the 2005 gasoline price is for federal & state taxes. The federal excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Per the CPI, about 6% of the average budget is for transportation. Estimated. 2010 estimate, $.45 per gallon average. Source
> Other	6%+
> (2009-2013 - 8%+)	Includes estate tax, fees, licenses, inflation losses, inheritance, deficit allowance, gift, and others too numerous to mention. Estimated.


----------



## pgsmith

billc said:


> Yeah, I guess in your world you only pay income tax....you don't eat, drive a car, run a business, by stuff, own a house...all of which get taxed, and assessed fees from local, state and federal taxing bodies...but it must be nice for you...
> 
> What Percent Does the Average American Pay in TOTAL TAXES?



  Actually Bill, I live in the real world and have worked hard to earn everything I have, and I have everything I need. I guess in your world you don't have to accept any responsibility for your position in life since it's obviously someone else's fault that you don't have enough money for all of the things that you want. Those darn Democrats have stolen all your money so you can barely afford the computer you spend so much time on. Must be sad for you ...


----------



## billc

> Actually Bill, I live in the real world and have worked hard to earn everything I have, and I have everything I need.



Well, you seem ready and willing to judge the work and needs of others so to you I say...how do you know you worked hard for what you have...who are you to judge that...how do you know what you need...who are you to judge that?  Since it is up to others to judge the wants and needs of others you would be a poor judge of what you want and need...according to your judgement of others...


----------



## pgsmith

billc said:


> Well, you seem ready and willing to judge the work and needs of others so to you I say...how do you know you worked hard for what you have...who are you to judge that...how do you know what you need...who are you to judge that? Since it is up to others to judge the wants and needs of others you would be a poor judge of what you want and need...according to your judgement of others...



  Oh no no no ... I am not judging others. Please point out where in any of my posts I judged others. Who I am judging is YOU. YOU are the one whining and crying about how the sea monkeys, err ... I mean the Democrats, are taking all of your money. You are the one crying about how it's not like the "good old days" when we could get by on a single income. I judged nobody but you, and refuted your ranting and whining and complaining. Then, rather than trying to understand that it's really your own fault and that your complaining is doing nothing to make things better, you resort to trying to put me down for pointing out how faulty your reasoning is.

  You occassionally make a decent point, but it's almost impossible to see those few instances for the huge river of rhetorical drivel that you spout. Here's some judgement for you ... I think it would benefit you greatly to ruminate upon the old adage that less is more.

  Cheers,


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> Oh no no no ... I am not judging others. Please point out where in any of my posts I judged others. Who I am judging is YOU. YOU are the one whining and crying about how the sea monkeys, err ... I mean the Democrats, are taking all of your money. You are the one crying about how it's not like the "good old days" when we could get by on a single income. I judged nobody but you, and refuted your ranting and whining and complaining. Then, rather than trying to understand that it's really your own fault and that your complaining is doing nothing to make things better, you resort to trying to put me down for pointing out how faulty your reasoning is.
> 
> You occassionally make a decent point, but it's almost impossible to see those few instances for the huge river of rhetorical drivel that you spout. Here's some judgement for you ... I think it would benefit you greatly to ruminate upon the old adage that less is more.
> 
> Cheers,


Well since Bill is not you then you are judging others


----------



## billc

pgsmith:



> Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.



Hmmm...that isn't judging other people...who you don't know...but seem to be judging...since you judged them to be greedy and stupid...yeah, totally not judging there...

And for you, I'm not the one complaining, I am saying that the government takes too much of peoples money and you are the one condemning their "greed and stupidity" and "judging" them for how they live their lives...and since you have no idea how I live  you make a lot of dumb assumptions...

Yeah and this is for you...

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-the-crushing-tax-burden-on-americas-families



> In 1950, the average American family with children paid only 2 percent of its income to the federal government in taxes. Today that same family pays 24.5 percent.
> The average family now loses $10.060 per year of its income due to the increase in F5 federal taxes, as a share of family income. This tax loss exceeds the annual cost of the average home mortgage.
> A are included the government now takes 37.6 percent of are not aware that they are really working to support Uncle raise their famiy''s standard of living. Among marrieci-couple families the husband and wife are employed, two-thirds of the wie''s earnings go family wi th children federal taxes; only one-third goes to supporting the family 1 2 These figures include federal income and Social Security taxes.
> This figure includ es federal income tax. Social Sdty taxes, fedaal indirect taxes, and state and local taxes. The author wishes to thank Chris Edwards of theTax Foundation for providing this infonnation Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflectin g the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
> A *If federal taxes as a share of family income were restored to the 1950 levels, the aver age employed mother in a two-parent family could lea ve the labor force entirely and the family would see only a modest drop in post-tax income, compared with the fam iy''s post-tax income under tody''s tax rates.*
> During the past four decades, the federal income tax burden on a family of four has in creased by over 300 percent as a share of family income. Single Americans and married couples with no children have escaped most of this tax increase.
> Measured by average after-tax per capitaincome, families with children now are the lowest income group in America. Their average after-tax income is below that of eld erly households, single persons, and couples without children.





> 80. Thus, the annual family income loss due to increased federal tax rates for the average family in the last four decades actually exceeds the annual cost of an average family home mortgage.
> Family Time Famine. The loss of income due to rising taxes also helps explain why so many mothers have felt compelled to join the work force to make ends meet. For the average family in which both the husbandand wife equal about 34 percent of total family hcome2 The average employed mother, juggling her job and family demands, knows only too well that despite her efforts the paychecks she brings home do not seem to be raising her familys living standard very much. *The reason: only about one-third of her earnings actually are taken home for the familys budget. The remaining two-thirds of todays mothers earnings pay the higher federal taxes on family income levied since World War II. In fac t, if federal tax rates as a percent age of family income were restored to 1948 levels, and if the average employed mother in a two-parent family were to leave the labor force entirely, the family would see only a moderate dip in real post-tax income.*


----------



## Steve

Since we are playing the rules lawyers, others is plural.  Billc is other, not others.  Person, not people.

So, since you guys like to fart around with crap like this, he does not, by his own description, judge others.  He judges other.  He doesn't judge people.  He's judging person.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Since we are playing the rules lawyers, others is plural.  Billc is other, not others.  Person, not people.
> 
> So, since you guys like to fart around with crap like this, he does not, by his own description, judge others.  He judges other.  He doesn't judge people.  He's judging person.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Either way he was wrong


----------



## pgsmith

ballen0351 said:


> Either way he was wrong



  Nope, not in my opinion I'm not. Just because an article somewhere says that something is true, does not necessarily make it so. Quoting said article, that may or may not be true, as a way of proving a point is rhetorical chest beating, and not actually attempted learning or discourse. This quote is from the very beginning of the article ... 





> (Archived document, may contain errors)


  I gave Bill facts and easily verifyable figures. In return, he gave me a ten year old article written by a partisan organization that offers no proof of the veracity of their calculations. I told the fellow that he would be better served by whining less and working more to change things more to his liking. His response was to whine some more. Don't see how that makes me wrong.


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> Nope, not in my opinion I'm not. Just because an article somewhere says that something is true, does not necessarily make it so. Quoting said article, that may or may not be true, as a way of proving a point is rhetorical chest beating, and not actually attempted learning or discourse. This quote is from the very beginning of the article ...
> I gave Bill facts and easily verifyable figures. In return, he gave me a ten year old article written by a partisan organization that offers no proof of the veracity of their calculations. I told the fellow that he would be better served by whining less and working more to change things more to his liking. His response was to whine some more. Don't see how that makes me wrong.



That's not what I was commenting on.  But I don't really care so ok your correct...better?????


----------

