Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[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]

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]

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]

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)—the source of the Climategate emails—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—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]

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?

Yeah, and money given to universities never has strings attached...

Certainly not here, but I can't speak for American universities.
:asian:

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—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"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—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—including the thousands of jobs they provide—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]

Blocking the work of other scientists, especially skeptics, was what climategate was all about...

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?