Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[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]

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]

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]

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 “definitive” 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 “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The paper was published on February 24, 2014.
The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “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.”
“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.”
The paper conclusions read in part: “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.” — ‘We show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufficient IEA participation.”
“In fact, our key result—that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem—implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society,” 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 “trick…to hide the decline” in reliability of proxy data in Mann’s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he’s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”
As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: “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?”

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 “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….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.”
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—11 organized by him—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: “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].”
Jaworowski stated that the IPCC AR4 Summary Report was “plagued with improper manipulation of data,” 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’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?​

And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.​

Bingo! Proof of intention (mens rea) to commit a criminal destruction of evidence–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, “hide behind” 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—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….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’ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act!​

Again, proof Jones will “argue” against compliance betraying his guilty frame of mind, in seeking to pervert the law — 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! …Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! ….PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit … temperature data. Don’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 – another emerged last week – 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 – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."