Climate Change - Is the Tide Turning?

[redrumloa]

Waking up to -10F makes me want to encourage Global Warming!

Lucky you! It has been brutally hot down here :x

90's and 100% humidity, typical South Florida winter :evil:

 

[Robert]

Biggest scam in human history, horrible crimes against humanity. We need modern day Nuremberg Trials in 2010.

Nuremberg trials, eh? What was the gravest offence there again?
Oh, that's right, planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression.
Yes! Let's have some trials for that please.
Bush, Blair and Howard as the first three defendants.

But as for these nutters who think the climate is changing - Nuremberg? Nah - Hanging's to good for 'em!

Start with waterboarding, followed by ritual humiliation, forced masturbation, a bit of dog-biting, simulated execution and finish off with actual execution.

Let's get medieval on their erses!

They deserve it for the huge amount of death and destruction they've caused with their outrageous suggestion that maybe we should think about trying to reduce the pollution of the environment we live in.

Or maybe I need to reign in my absurd hyperbole with some vague sense of perspective?

 

[Robert]

It's truly a shame how little factual information is available.

Indeed.
Despite all this fuss, has anyone actually found any evidence of deliberate lying in a published paper?

If so, I've yet to see it.

 

[Glaucus]

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (with links)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html

Biggest scam in human history, horrible crimes against humanity. We need modern day Nuremberg Trials in 2010.

I'll call your 450 and raise you 1250: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science.

 

[redrumloa]

Biggest scam in human history, horrible crimes against humanity. We need modern day Nuremberg Trials in 2010.

Nuremberg trials, eh? What was the gravest offence there again?
Oh, that's right, planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression.
Yes! Let's have some trials for that please.
Bush, Blair and Howard as the first three defendants.

But as for these nutters who think the climate is changing - Nuremberg? Nah - Hanging's to good for 'em!

Start with waterboarding, followed by ritual humiliation, forced masturbation, a bit of dog-biting, simulated execution and finish off with actual execution.

Let's get medieval on their erses!

They deserve it for the huge amount of death and destruction they've caused with their outrageous suggestion that maybe we should think about trying to reduce the pollution of the environment we live in.

Or maybe I need to reign in my absurd hyperbole with some vague sense of perspective?

OT!! :shocked:

-Edit-

Amazing how some of you are so eager to enslave 99% of the population for eternity. Do you really understand what cap & trade will do to YOU???

PUT THE KOOLAID DOWN AND STEP BACK SLOWLY!!!

 

[redrumloa]

I'll call your 450 and raise you 1250: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science.

That is papers -vs- scientist.

31,500 American scientists, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that states that there is no convincing evidences that human caused global warming

http://www.thevoyager.net/opinion/globa ... -1.2108384

9,029 yanks >> 1,700 red coats :shocked:

 

[redrumloa]

Indeed.
Despite all this fuss, has anyone actually found any evidence of deliberate lying in a published paper?

If so, I've yet to see it.

You haven't been looking very hard now have you? Destroyed data, fudging numbers into a complete fantasy not good enough?

 

[redrumloa]

Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... pared.html

Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.

The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus – the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers – and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer.

The real science points to the sun’s magnetic cycle as the key driver by unknown mechanisms. Right now, Nasa is throwing its hands up and saying ‘we’ve never seen anything like it and can’t tell what it is going to do next’.

Many scientists expect a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter – and famine spread through Europe and China.

Errr...

Climategate does not just demonstrate the corruption of science and peer-review; it also demonstrates the incompetence of specialists who do not understand planetary ecology, especially its cycles.

We’re being fatally led up the wrong garden path by green businesses, politicians, the IPCC and their computer geeks with their doctored spreadsheets and forecasts. They need to get out more and study the real world – not their virtual reality – because, like the asset bubbles of the financial crisis, the global warming bubble is about to burst…

Bingo!

 

[Robert]

Indeed.
Despite all this fuss, has anyone actually found any evidence of deliberate lying in a published paper?

If so, I've yet to see it.

You haven't been looking very hard now have you?

Correct. Call me old-fashioned but when someone claims something, I generally think the onus is on them to produce the evidence.

Destroyed data, fudging numbers into a complete fantasy not good enough?

None of which is evidence of deliberate lying in a published paper.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I haven't seen it.

Now, since you obviously have been looking and obviously have found this evidence, perhaps you could point me to at least one specific example?

Maybe we can then try to discuss the(se) example(s) without over the top hyperbole?

Or you can continue to vent fire and brimstone against nothing of substance, which you appear to rather enjoy.

 

[Robert]

That is papers -vs- scientist.

31,500 American scientists, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that states that there is no convincing evidences that human caused global warming

"Human caused"? Your position is that there is no such thing as global warming, human caused or otherwise.
Why would you care about a petition regarding the cause of something you deny exists?

 

[redrumloa]

"Human caused"? Your position is that there is no such thing as global warming, human caused or otherwise.
Why would you care about a petition regarding the cause of something you deny exists?

I quoted the article. Me? It depends what reference point you are looking at. We are certainly hotter than the little ice age, but clearly have been cooling over the last 10 years. Throughout human history there has been warming and cooling trends, which had nothing to do with people. The "Global Warming" crowd would have you believe this is man made and will cauase total destruction. Complete nonsense, which should be clear to see.

 

[Robert]

"Human caused"? Your position is that there is no such thing as global warming, human caused or otherwise.
Why would you care about a petition regarding the cause of something you deny exists?

I quoted the article.

Yes, I had noticed that.

The question is why?

We are certainly hotter than the little ice age, but clearly have been cooling over the last 10 years.

So your position is that there is no global warming trend, which again makes me wonder why you would care about what causes something you deny exists.

And I'm still waiting on your, "you haven't been looking very hard now have you?" examples of deliberate lying in a published paper.
Do you have any or not?

 

[redrumloa]

Maybe we can then try to discuss the(se) example(s) without over the top hyperbole?

Or you can continue to vent fire and brimstone against nothing of substance, which you appear to rather enjoy.

The info is out there, you really want me editorializing all of the articles/blogs? Have you read any? Anyhow, this should just all be common sense, I have known since day one. I mean heck, ENRON was the driving force behind Cap & Trade!

http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm

February 2, 2002

It’s not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process. What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system was global warming.

Even after President Bush decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto treaty, Enron continued to push for a domestic regulatory scheme known as cap-and-trade, whereby the government would set a cap on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed in the U.S.

It would then distribute permits or allowances to companies affected by the cap giving them the right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Those allowances could then be traded in the open market.

Enron executives believed that a cap-and-trade program would put them in a position to dominate the U.S. energy market. Electric utilities, required to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, would be forced to switch from coal to natural gas as the only practical alternative to electricity production. As a leading trader of natural gas, Enron would be the recipient of a huge financial windfall.

Moreover, Enron is already a major trader of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the world, making it similarly positioned to take a fee with each and every ton of carbon dioxide traded within the United States.

 

[Glaucus]

Red, you're talking about the Oregon Petition. Ron Paul referenced it in his little article about global warming back in June: Global warming merely a political hoax (which only reinforces my original suspicions about him).

Looking at the wiki we see this little bit:

• Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline: 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697; 2. Computer and mathematical sciences: 903; 3. Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691; 4. Chemistry: 4,796; 5. Biology and agriculture: 2,924; 6. Medicine: 3,069; 7. Engineering and general science: 9,992.[2] As of 2007, about 2,400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition."[20]

And also this:

• The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories; however, many of the signatories have degrees in engineering or medicine, including veterinary medicine. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

So it seems that 32K scientists is a bit of a stretch. Less then 4000 are even in the field that studies climate change. Almost a full third of the signatories are engineers. From the looks of it, I'm fully qualified to sign this petition and really I know nothing about climate change, or at least, not enough that my name on that paper should mean anything to you. But what the petition didn't capture at all is which of those signatories work for energy corporations. That would have been very telling indeed, which is probably why it was never collected.

 

[Robert]

The info is out there, you really want me editorializing all of the articles/blogs?

Not at all.
All I'm asking for are specific examples. So we can discuss them. You still haven't provided any.
You claim there is evidence of deliberate lying in published papers.
Not only that but there is so much evidence and it is oh-so-easy-to-find that you mock me for not finding it.
Yet when asked to provide some specific examples you obfuscate.

To the untrained eye it might appear that someone other than a climate scientist is lying here....

Anyhow, this should just all be common sense

Perhaps it should...... perhaps it should, indeed.

 

[redrumloa]

And I'm still waiting on your, "you haven't been looking very hard now have you?" examples of deliberate lying in a published paper.
Do you have any or not?

WTF? The news you have access to must be quite limited. Is your internet feed from China? Have you not heard of the "hide the decline"?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/m ... e-decline/

For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.

The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.)

A retrieval script follows.

Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions. The relevant IPCC 2001 graph, shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction.

Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.

The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.

 

[redrumloa]

So it seems that 32K scientists is a bit of a stretch. Less then 4000 are even in the field that studies climate change.

Actually I agree with you about that number being padded. But then again, the other side has been fudging numbers all along too.

 

[redrumloa]

http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/ ... its-worst/

At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?

It’s no wonder that MannCo. has been surprisingly quiet during all this. The damage control on this affair is beyond the capability of their overarching propaganda machine.

 

[Robert]

And I'm still waiting on your, "you haven't been looking very hard now have you?" examples of deliberate lying in a published paper.
Do you have any or not?

WTF? The news you have access to must be quite limited. Is your internet feed from China?

[/quote]

Maybe or maybe I'm just stupid but I'm hoping you can help, since you find it all so easy.

Which published papers have deliberately lied?
Just give me the name of a couple of papers to start with.

 

[faethor]

So it seems that 32K scientists is a bit of a stretch. Less then 4000 are even in the field that studies climate change.

Actually I agree with you about that number being padded. But then again, the other side has been fudging numbers all along too.

I'm sure you know this but tu quoque is a logical fallacy.

BTW you claim not to believe in God... Discovery Institute recently came out with a survey that 60% of doctors discard evolution and 38% more think God had a hand in evolution. So with 98% of medical scientists discarding pure evolution in favor of a Diety which church will you be joining this weekend? :wink: