Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[K-man]

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.

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?

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.

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.

​

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.

“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—times when agriculture was abundant, pyramids and cities were built, and world citizens became connected in trade and culture.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/larry-bell

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:

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]

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 — this is implicit in the fund — 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,” Louw explained

“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 — as long as you cause poverty — we will enrich you.'”

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.

“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 — the government — 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,” 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]

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]

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

It is now that temps are dropping lol

 

[K-man]

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]

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]

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]

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

Of course not he disagrees with you

 

[K-man]

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.

Of course not he disagrees with you

Oh poleeese!

 

[ballen0351]

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]

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’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’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 “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.

 

[ballen0351]

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.