Climate Change - Science, Ideology or Money

[AZGrizFan]

[JohnStOnge]

[/quote]


Boy. I can tell THAT came from an unbiased source!

[kalm]

Source?

[youngterrier]

Boy. I can tell THAT came from an unbiased source![/quote]
it's a meme....

[AZGrizFan]

Source?

http://globalwarmignisunfactual.files.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Go ahead and attack the source....because you got nothing to refute the facts.

[D1B]

Boy. I can tell THAT came from an unbiased source![/quote]

Yeah, common sense.

Z, I recall you admitting several times that oil companies pretty much control the US government.

SMFH at global warming deniers.

[kalm]

Source?

http://globalwarmignisunfactual.files.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Go ahead and attack the source....because you got nothing to refute the facts.

globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com doesn’t exist
Do you want to register globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com

[Bronco]

-
Here's some links or you



http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPEC ... IPCC--Gore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oism.org/pproject/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As usual it's not about global warming or cooling,,,not what they say...listen to what they want to do
It's just an excuse to create the change they want

The scam is about controling behavior.

[youngterrier]

http://globalwarmignisunfactual.files.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Go ahead and attack the source....because you got nothing to refute the facts.

globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com doesn’t exist
Do you want to register globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com

I wasn't going to say anything......

[D1B]

-
Here's some links or you



http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPEC ... IPCC--Gore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oism.org/pproject/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As usual it's not about global warming or cooling,,,not what they say...listen to what they want to do
It's just an excuse to create the change they want

The scam is about controling behavior.

Bronco, you seriously believe this planet can handle china, India and South America becoming consumer nations/continents? This coupled with rapid deforestation across the globe.

GW aside, what are your thoughts on these facts?

[JohnStOnge]

I'll side with the experts and specialists:

YT, I have done this a lot but I'm going to do it again because this is a good spot to demonstrate how science is supposed to work. Here is the principle: A controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect.

With that in mind, go the Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the most recent Intergivernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis report. at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Do a "find" on "experimentation" then go to the beginning of the paragraph that brings you to. Here is the portion of that paragraph I want you to contemplate:

‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes
for the detected change with some defi ned level of confi dence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of
recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001).

Underlines added for emphasis.

The important point is that even the IPCC, in that paragraph, concedes that it cannot unequivocally say that human activity or anything else is causing climate change because of that principle mentionated above. So just remember: Regardless of how many climate scientists believe humans are causing some particular climate change, the discipline of the process of science dictates that it would be incorrect to say that any cause and effect relationship has been inferred.

[AZGrizFan]

http://globalwarmignisunfactual.files.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Go ahead and attack the source....because you got nothing to refute the facts.

globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com doesn’t exist
Do you want to register globalwarmignisunfactual.wordpress.com

Right click on the picture, dumbass, and the whole link is right there. Or is that too fucking complicated for you?

[AZGrizFan]

Z, I recall you admitting several times that oil companies pretty much control the US government.

SMFH at global warming deniers.

Well which is it? The oil companies or the bankers?

[SeattleGriz]

Not only climategate I, climategate II, but fakegate as well! Nice job climate scientists! Way to represent!

http://townhall.com/columnists/peterfer ... page/full/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gleick has publicly confessed that he contacted The Heartland Institute fraudulently pretending to be a member of the Board of Directors. Emails released by The Heartland Institute show that he created an email address similar to that of a board member and used it to convince a staff member to send him confidential board materials. Gleick then forwarded the documents to 15 global warming alarmist advocacy organizations and sympathetic journalists, who immediately posted them online and blogged and wrote about them.

Their expectation apparently was that the documents would be as embarrassing and damaging to the global warming skeptics as were the emails revealed in the "Climategate" scandal to the alarmist side. The Climategate revelations showed scientific leaders of the UN's IPCC and global warming alarmist movement plotting to falsify climate data and exclude those raising doubts about their theories from scientific publications, while coordinating their message with supposedly objective mainstream journalists.

But the stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at Heartland in getting the truth out on the actual objective science. They revealed little funding from oil companies and other self interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily to global warming alarmists as protection money instead. The documents also show how poorly funded the global warming skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a shockingly successful global challenge to the heavily overfunded UN and politicized government science

Can't beat them in the science arena so they resort to lies...and then look even worse!

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah, common sense.

More like demogoguery combined with ad hominem argument.

[youngterrier]

I'll side with the experts and specialists:

YT, I have done this a lot but I'm going to do it again because this is a good spot to demonstrate how science is supposed to work. Here is the principle: A controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect.

With that in mind, go the Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the most recent Intergivernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis report. at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Do a "find" on "experimentation" then go to the beginning of the paragraph that brings you to. Here is the portion of that paragraph I want you to contemplate:

‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes
for the detected change with some defi ned level of confi dence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of
recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001).

Underlines added for emphasis.

The important point is that even the IPCC, in that paragraph, concedes that it cannot unequivocally say that human activity or anything else is causing climate change because of that principle mentionated above. So just remember: Regardless of how many climate scientists believe humans are causing some particular climate change, the discipline of the process of science dictates that it would be incorrect to say that any cause and effect relationship has been inferred.

I understand this, but when you think about the science of
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) We burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere
C) it doesn't disappear
D) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
E) More heat is trapped in the atmosphere as a result
F) insert repercussions

You're right, it can't be tested on a global scale, but I find the case that polluting the air with carbon emissions having a neutral effect on the process of global warming and subsequent climate change as a naive, uncompelling, and irrational argument.

The issue isn't that the world is getting warmer, as it's a slow process, the issue is that it is already warm as a result of the atmosphere being more exposed to carbon emissions since the industrial revolution and the advent of fossil fuels. By continuing to pollute the air with CO2, we're not doing ourselves any favors and we're most likely speeding up the heating process.

The heating part isn't the bad part as much as the melting ice caps and the subsequent effects on the climate are. By continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere we're setting ourselves up to climate change that could be economically inconvenient at best and disastrous at worst. The extent of which, I cannot say, but I think it's a legitimate problem that should be addressed.

So, no I'm not concerned about the world getting hotter, I'm concerned about the changing climate as a result of melting ice caps and the extreme likelihood that man is speeding up that process, which could possibly radicalize that change.

[D1B]

-
Here's some links or you



http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPEC ... IPCC--Gore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oism.org/pproject/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As usual it's not about global warming or cooling,,,not what they say...listen to what they want to do
It's just an excuse to create the change they want

The scam is about controling behavior.

Broncster,

Just checked out CFACT. Nothing but an oil and auto industry puppet. Check out some of their funders:

Grantmaker Amount

Year
Chevron
$12,500

1998
Exxon Mobil
$5,000

1998
Exxon Mobil
$5,000

1997
Chevron
$16,000

1996
Chevron
$16,000

1995
Chevron
$16,000

1994

http://web.archive.org/web/200505141358 ... Org=CCT100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil, and banking fortune. At one time, its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. The foundation became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Forbes magazine has estimated Scaife's personal net worth at $800 million, making him the 138th richest person in the U.S. He controls the Scaife, Carthage, and Allegheny foundations. In 1993, Scaife and Carthage reportedly gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks. As of December 31, 1992, Scaife assets were $212,232,888 and Carthage assets were $11,937,862.

Daimler Chrysler Corporation

Funder and CFACT advisor here:

Hugh Ellsaesser A meteorologist and guest scientist at California's Lawrence Livermore nuclear laboratory, Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser is another widely quoted global warming skeptic. He doesn't deny that CO2 buildup causes global warming -- he argues that we should just sit back and enjoy it. He's also a scientific advisor to the Lyndon LaRouche group 21st Century Science Associates, which publishes an anti-environmental magazine promoting LaRouche's wacky Neo-Nazi cult.
Board Member of:
21st Century Science Associates, Scientific Advisory Board
Consumer Alert, Advisory Board
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), Board of Advisors
George C. Marshall Institute, Science Advisory Board
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, Advisor
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Scientific Advisor

Got yourself a real winner there Bronco. I'll pass on checking your other source.

[D1B]

Z, I recall you admitting several times that oil companies pretty much control the US government.

SMFH at global warming deniers.

Well which is it? The oil companies or the bankers?

You said oil companies own the government, both sides. Are you denying this now?

[eagleskins]

You have to be a pretty ignorant person to not believe in climate change. If Dick Chaney was the first advocate of CC, 99.9% or pubs would be dick riding.

[CID1990]

I am skeptical of any science that has been politicized.

I think that the only thing that is proven is that the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. The data is just not there yet to tell us how much of an impact man has had. There is some data that supports AGW, and there is some that doesn't. The problem is that too many people grasp onto the data that fits their (politically pre-determined) beliefs, and there is a LOT of government scientific grant money riding on climate studies. There is also a lot of private money riding on scientific studies that refute AGW.

Anyone who calls it settled science is a complete idiot with little to no understanding of any of it, most of all the classic scientific process. Both sides are currently full of sh!t.

Call me an AGW agnostic.

[AZGrizFan]

Well which is it? The oil companies or the bankers?

You said oil companies own the government, both sides. Are you denying this now?

I believe cleets said oil companies owned the government.

[kalm]

Right click on the picture, dumbass, and the whole link is right there. Or is that too fucking complicated for you?

I did, and that's where the link takes you.

1. unfactual

a word commonly used by teabaggers when they have to defend lies and whatever crap that came out of their mouth.

I'll reframe my question for you...

Source?

And btw, that's MR. dumbass to you.

[kalm]

YT, I have done this a lot but I'm going to do it again because this is a good spot to demonstrate how science is supposed to work. Here is the principle: A controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect.

With that in mind, go the Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the most recent Intergivernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis report. at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Do a "find" on "experimentation" then go to the beginning of the paragraph that brings you to. Here is the portion of that paragraph I want you to contemplate:



Underlines added for emphasis.

The important point is that even the IPCC, in that paragraph, concedes that it cannot unequivocally say that human activity or anything else is causing climate change because of that principle mentionated above. So just remember: Regardless of how many climate scientists believe humans are causing some particular climate change, the discipline of the process of science dictates that it would be incorrect to say that any cause and effect relationship has been inferred.

I understand this, but when you think about the science of
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) We burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere
C) it doesn't disappear
D) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
E) More heat is trapped in the atmosphere as a result
F) insert repercussions

You're right, it can't be tested on a global scale, but I find the case that polluting the air with carbon emissions having a neutral effect on the process of global warming and subsequent climate change as a naive, uncompelling, and irrational argument.

The issue isn't that the world is getting warmer, as it's a slow process, the issue is that it is already warm as a result of the atmosphere being more exposed to carbon emissions since the industrial revolution and the advent of fossil fuels. By continuing to pollute the air with CO2, we're not doing ourselves any favors and we're most likely speeding up the heating process.

The heating part isn't the bad part as much as the melting ice caps and the subsequent effects on the climate are. By continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere we're setting ourselves up to climate change that could be economically inconvenient at best and disastrous at worst. The extent of which, I cannot say, but I think it's a legitimate problem that should be addressed.

So, no I'm not concerned about the world getting hotter, I'm concerned about the changing climate as a result of melting ice caps and the extreme likelihood that man is speeding up that process, which could possibly radicalize that change.

Yup.

And any dumbass can see that increased water vapor in the air might pose a problem.

[D1B]

You said oil companies own the government, both sides. Are you denying this now?

I believe cleets said oil companies owned the government.

I'll pull the quote. Get ready to eat shit.

[BDKJMU]

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts (Update)
January 19, 2011

A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

The study was posted Tuesday on EurekAlert, a independent service for reporters set up by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our website and contacted the submitting organization."

Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

The study cited the UN group's figures for its projections, combined with "the business-as-usual path the world is currently following," said lead author Liliana Hisas of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF), a non-profit group headquartered in Argentina.

But climate scientist Ray Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"

He also noted that study author Hisas was told of the problems in advance of the report's release.

"The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it," said Weymann.

Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take "quite a few decades" to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius.

"Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today," Mandia wrote.

"To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold."

Mandia described the mishap as an "honest and common mistake," but said the matter would certainly give fuel to skeptics of humans' role in climate change.

"More alarmism," said Mandia. "Don't get me wrong. We are headed to 2.4, it is just not going to happen in 2020."

Many people do not understand the cumulative effect of carbon emissions and how they impact climate change, Mandia said.

"This is something that people don't appreciate. We tied a record in 2010 (for temperature records) globally. That is primarily from the C02 we put in the atmosphere in the 70s and early 80s, and we have been ramping up since then," he said.

"So it is not good. We are seeing the response from a mistake we were making 20 years ago, and we are making bigger mistakes today."

Marshall Hoffman of the public relations firm that issued the report on the UEF's behalf said the group stands by the study.

"Earlier, NASA and NOAA estimated that the global temperature increased one degree from 2005-2010. If this stays on the same path, that will be two degrees by 2015. We see that path increasing more rapidly," Hoffman said, in part, in his explanation.

Asked for comment on Hoffman's response, Mandia told AFP: "He is still confused."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-cli ... perts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;