Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Heisenberg said:
Many of those quotes have nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

That's right, alarmist. Just discount and discredit any and all information that is like a wooden stake through the heart of a vampire to your religion.





We already knew 3% of climatologists disagree.
Click to expand...

There you go with the 3%, meaning there is 97% consensus, when those percentages are lies. In the quotes you tried to just dismiss where were scientists where were former cult members who said there was no consensus, that a small group who simply decided on what sort of front they wanted to portray dreamed up the consensus nonsense.

You should really change your username to Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels because he told Adolph Hitler that if you repeat a lie enough times it eventually becomes the truth, and the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. And that is precisely what your cult does and what you do. You keep repeating the same lies over and over in hopes that people will eventually accept them for being truths. But the facts do not support what you say. People who were involved with what you claim say it is untrue and that it never was true.

It is clear that you drank enough of the Kool-Aid that there is no hope for you, that there is no way that you will ever accept anything other than what you want to believe. It would be simpler for me to teach my cat quantum physics than to get you to accept the fact that scientists who were part of what you preach say it is false, that there was data manipulation, that computer models were known to be flawed, that there is no physical evidence matching the predictions, that after information was reviewed and in what should have been the form it was presented, that others then changed it and rewrote it and there was not another review checking and verifying the changes and what was released were not the actual findings and those who made the findings protested but the cult leaders did not care, they were going to release their sermon the way they wanted it preached and that there are other reasons behind the warming that stopped in 1998 and that since 2003 there has been a period of cooling.
Click to expand...
 
t is clear that you drank enough of the Kool-Aid that there is no hope for you, that there is no way that you will ever accept anything other than what you want to believe. It would be simpler for me to teach my cat quantum physics than to get you to accept the fact that scientists who were part of what you preach say it is false, that there was data manipulation, that computer models were known to be flawed, that there is no physical evidence matching the predictions, that after information was reviewed and in what should have been the form it was presented, that others then changed it and rewrote it and there was not another review checking and verifying the changes and what was released were not the actual findings and those who made the findings protested but the cult leaders did not care, they were going to release their sermon the way they wanted it preached and that there are other reasons behind the warming that stopped in 1998 and that since 2003 there has been a period of cooling.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of claims in there that you should probably cite, just sayin'.
 
Honestly, a few years ago, I personally questioned AGW. I spent quite a bit of time going through the evidence including wading through scientific papers and trying to learn as much of the details as I could. Of course I and everyone else understands that much of our climate are d/t natural cyclical change but the massive amounts of co2 is in fact affected the speed at which the earth is warming. Of course the earth has been warmer previously and plants and animals will be fine but the issue is about mankind's place on this earth. The catastrophe that is predicted doesn't have to do with the harm to the polar bears, although they will be affected, it has to do with sea level rises and how even a small amount will have devastating effects on people. Only a few feet and gone are the barrier islands of most coastlines. Gone are most ports and many major coastal cities that already have areas that are below sea level. Venice, Italy is already struggling with the rise in sea level in only the last 20 years. Just think about the millions of people that will have to relocate inland, it will be magnitudes worse than Katrina and will happen all over the globe. The severe weather that we are already seeing increase will just make matters that much worse. Combine this with any number of other major catastrophes, an earthquake, more tornadoes like this year, a major coronal mass ejection wiping out electronics and communication, along with our already destabilized economy and political problems and you have the making of real global disaster.

I am personally opposed to many of the political 'solutions' that have been proposed. The skeptics are correct about many of the proposals offered to mitigate the problem. Regardless of the fact that quite of bit of the science has been co-opted and abused by leftist extremists under the guise of environmentalism does not change the facts of the science. This is my biggest problem with rants such as Brick Tops and others. They fail to separate the fact that this issue has indeed been used by opportunists to promote an agenda and the fact that there actually is some reason for concern. I very much understand that denying the facts of the science is one way to counter the extremists politics but I believe it is misguided because it places their own ideology over evidence. Be skeptical of the politics, be skeptical of the science, but follow the evidence where ever it leads.
 
Brick Top said:
That's right, alarmist. Just discount and discredit any and all information that is like a wooden stake through the heart of a vampire to your religion.
Click to expand...

This sort of jargon is exactly what we would expect to hear from a conspiracy slanted denier. Again, where have I called for any alarm? It's interesting that to you, apparently, accepting climate change is an alarming prospect. It has scary implications for sure, but no one is calling for panic or fear, quite the contrary, we are calling for understanding, fastidious inquiry, and contentious procedure. The idea of a shadowy secret government conspiracy operating on a global scale is much more alarming, yet I would never use that fact to discount the notion, if there was sufficient rationale to make the claim.


There you go with the 3%, meaning there is 97% consensus, when those percentages are lies. In the quotes you tried to just dismiss where were scientists where were former cult members who said there was no consensus, that a small group who simply decided on what sort of front they wanted to portray dreamed up the consensus nonsense.
Click to expand...

Exact numbers aside, there is a clear consensus. There is sufficient evidence to believe this, as pointed out early in the thread. We don't believe it just because a bunch of scientists said so. A consensus does not depend on the participants permission, it is the result of a transparent methodological process which can and has been repeated by many independent groups whom have all converged on the same avenue of explanation.

You should really change your username to Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels because he told Adolph Hitler that if you repeat a lie enough times it eventually becomes the truth, and the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. And that is precisely what your cult does and what you do. You keep repeating the same lies over and over in hopes that people will eventually accept them for being truths. But the facts do not support what you say. People who were involved with what you claim say it is untrue and that it never was true.

It is clear that you drank enough of the Kool-Aid that there is no hope for you, that there is no way that you will ever accept anything other than what you want to believe. It would be simpler for me to teach my cat quantum physics than to get you to accept the fact that scientists who were part of what you preach say it is false, that there was data manipulation, that computer models were known to be flawed, that there is no physical evidence matching the predictions, that after information was reviewed and in what should have been the form it was presented, that others then changed it and rewrote it and there was not another review checking and verifying the changes and what was released were not the actual findings and those who made the findings protested but the cult leaders did not care, they were going to release their sermon the way they wanted it preached and that there are other reasons behind the warming that stopped in 1998 and that since 2003 there has been a period of cooling.
Click to expand...

Drank the Kool-aid? It's as if you are reading from the denialist's handbook of buzzwords. Climategate it'self is such a sensational and superficial name to latch onto. The organization which was hacked, the CRU, and it's emails were investigated by three independent groups, the latest's report can be found here. All three studies found nothing scandalous, nothing that would effect our idea of what climate change means, unless you cherry pick, quote mine and spin in sensationalism.

Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, carried out by yet another independent group, which confirms exactly what the other three independent groups reported. There is no need for list of scientists and there mostly impertinent quotes to prove converging analysis, no need for red herrings such as trumped up email gossip to discount invalid criticism, and no need for thought terminating cliches and logical exploits to make our case. These are the steps in the song and dance of a denialist.
 
Heisenberg said:
Again, where have I called for any alarm?
Click to expand...

You do all you can to create a facade of credibility for the myth and the cult behind. That makes you a cult member and an alarmist.




Exact numbers aside, there is a clear consensus.
Click to expand...


That is not what is said among those who are or were members of the cult and were writers of sections of the IPCC reports and or were reviewers. There were more who disagreed with the released reports than agreed with them, and those who disagreed were the ones who wrote the originals and the one who agreed were the ones who altered the originals so they said what they wanted them to say rather than saying what was actually found. 52 agreed and 650 publicly pronounced their disagreement. In another case among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis. That was a whopping grand total of 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with it's hypothesis. FOUR!, ONLY FOUR! Do those FOUR equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement, or is it the 52 that equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement?

Drank the Kool-aid? It's as if you are reading from the denialist's handbook of buzzwords. Climategate it'self is such a sensational and superficial name to latch onto. The organization which was hacked, the CRU, and it's emails were investigated by three independent groups, the latest's report can be found here. All three studies found nothing scandalous, nothing that would effect our idea of what climate change means, unless you cherry pick, quote mine and spin in sensationalism.
Click to expand...


Look at the background of those who proclaimed nothing improper occurred.

Professor Geoffrey Boulton:

He spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the
University of East Anglia, right there where the center of the storm was. There is clearly a conflict of interest there. He has been accurately quoted as having said "the argument over climate change is over." There is clearly another conflict of interest. He is biased, he would protect those who he totally agrees with. He tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change, which is more proof of his bias and further proof of a conflict of interest. Even though it has been totally debunked he still lectures that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050. Again, a major bias, again a conflict of interest. He signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity. That was before his being part of the review so there is even more proof of his bias and a major conflict of interest since he went on record saying that alarmist scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity before anything was reviewed. He often refers to anyone who questions or disagrees with his belief of man-made global warming as being a denier. Everything he is on record for saying clearly proves that he could be accurately described as being a global warming doommonger. But you point to his clearing the colluding conspiring cult pseudo-scientists as if it should be believable. After all, since Professor Geoffrey Boulton leads the Global Change Research Group in the University of Edinburgh, the largest major research group in the University’s School of Geosciences. But surely he wouldn’t allow his deep professional commitment to global climate change research to bias his findings. Would he?

Then there was Professor Peter Clarke. Peter Clarke is a physics professor whose CV includes nothing to do with climate change. When I have used information or quotes from certain people you deemed them to not be valid sources because their credential, in your mind, have nothing to do with climate change.

There was also David Eyton, an engineer with British Petroleum. He has no background in climate change research. (Just a little BP trivia, when the Gulf spill caused a change of CEO for BP the new CEO is a guy I went to school with from 7th grade through high school. We used to play hockey together.) David Eyton's was responsible for Research and Development, Technical Service Work, Digital and Communications Technology and Procurement and Supply Chain Management for BP’s Upstream business. Hardly the credentials of a climate scientist or any other field of science related to climate science and therefore hardly one to judge misdeeds of the cult pseudo-scientists.

I wonder how you will spin how an inquiry into the review you claim proved no wrong doing found that it"

  • it did not adequately test the science;
  • it only examined three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports;
  • it did not study hundreds of thousands more unpublished e-mails from the CRU;
  • it failed to investigate whether e-mails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws;
  • none of CRU's critics were interviewed by the two inquiries; and
  • the membership of the Panel had excluded reputable critics of climate science.

I also can only assume that there was nothing questionable about the University of East Anglia solicited and paid for the review. That would be like if President Nixon solicited those who would be involved in investigating his part in Watergate and if President Nixon paid for the investigation.

So the cult member and unqualified members of the review board said nothing improper occurred. That is proof that the University of East Anglia got what it paid for, absolution.



Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, /QUOTE]


That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

I already posted information that proved the study was more falsified junk science.


Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."



But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."


​
This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO[SUB]2[/SUB]." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.


​
Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.


But you are right, you do have that! And you should be proud and thrilled to have thoroughly discredited research to rely on to attempt to validate your position.


​
Click to expand...
 
Brick Top said:
You do all you can to create a facade of credibility for the myth and the cult behind. That makes you a cult member and an alarmist.
Click to expand...

Only in your odd caricature of reality is this thought terminating cliche useful. To the rest of us, I am appealing to reason. That's hardly doing all I can. You can't seem to decide if I am a willing participant in this cult or a gullible victim. You seem to switch when the insult suits you. Again, no climatologists or scientific organization is calling for panic or alarm, just awareness and appropriate procedure. No one is appealing to fear, that stems from your delusion.


That is not what is said among those who are or were members of the cult and were writers of sections of the IPCC reports and or were reviewers. There were more who disagreed with the released reports than agreed with them, and those who disagreed were the ones who wrote the originals and the one who agreed were the ones who altered the originals so they said what they wanted them to say rather than saying what was actually found. 52 agreed and 650 publicly pronounced their disagreement. In another case among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis. That was a whopping grand total of 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with it's hypothesis. FOUR!, ONLY FOUR! Do those FOUR equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement, or is it the 52 that equate to the 97% you alarmists continually claim to be in agreement?
Click to expand...

Cherry picking disagreement is not refuting a consensus.

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • American Astronomical Society
  • American Chemical Society
  • American Geophysical Union
  • American Institute of Physics
  • American Meteorological Society
  • American Physical Society
  • Australian Coral Reef Society
  • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
  • British Antarctic Survey
  • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • European Federation of Geologists
  • European Geosciences Union
  • European Physical Society
  • Federation of American Scientists
  • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
  • Geological Society of America
  • Geological Society of Australia
  • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
  • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Royal Meteorological Society
  • Royal Society of the UK
    [The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

​
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies
(NASAC), including the following bodies:
  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
  • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  • l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
  • Zambia Academy of Sciences
  • Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
  • Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Polish Academy of Sciences
Look at the background of those who proclaimed nothing improper occurred.

Professor Geoffrey Boulton:

He spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the
University of East Anglia, right there where the center of the storm was. There is clearly a conflict of interest there. He has been accurately quoted as having said "the argument over climate change is over." There is clearly another conflict of interest. He is biased, he would protect those who he totally agrees with. He tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change, which is more proof of his bias and further proof of a conflict of interest. Even though it has been totally debunked he still lectures that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050. Again, a major bias, again a conflict of interest. He signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity. That was before his being part of the review so there is even more proof of his bias and a major conflict of interest since he went on record saying that alarmist scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity before anything was reviewed. He often refers to anyone who questions or disagrees with his belief of man-made global warming as being a denier. Everything he is on record for saying clearly proves that he could be accurately described as being a global warming doommonger. But you point to his clearing the colluding conspiring cult pseudo-scientists as if it should be believable. After all, since Professor Geoffrey Boulton leads the Global Change Research Group in the University of Edinburgh, the largest major research group in the University’s School of Geosciences. But surely he wouldn’t allow his deep professional commitment to global climate change research to bias his findings. Would he?

Then there was Professor Peter Clarke. Peter Clarke is a physics professor whose CV includes nothing to do with climate change. When I have used information or quotes from certain people you deemed them to not be valid sources because their credential, in your mind, have nothing to do with climate change.

There was also David Eyton, an engineer with British Petroleum. He has no background in climate change research. (Just a little BP trivia, when the Gulf spill caused a change of CEO for BP the new CEO is a guy I went to school with from 7th grade through high school. We used to play hockey together.) David Eyton's was responsible for Research and Development, Technical Service Work, Digital and Communications Technology and Procurement and Supply Chain Management for BP’s Upstream business. Hardly the credentials of a climate scientist or any other field of science related to climate science and therefore hardly one to judge misdeeds of the cult pseudo-scientists.

I wonder how you will spin how an inquiry into the review you claim proved no wrong doing found that it"
  • it did not adequately test the science;
  • it only examined three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports;
  • it did not study hundreds of thousands more unpublished e-mails from the CRU;
  • it failed to investigate whether e-mails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws;
  • none of CRU's critics were interviewed by the two inquiries; and
  • the membership of the Panel had excluded reputable critics of climate science.
I also can only assume that there was nothing questionable about the University of East Anglia solicited and paid for the review. That would be like if President Nixon solicited those who would be involved in investigating his part in Watergate and if President Nixon paid for the investigation.

So the cult member and unqualified members of the review board said nothing improper occurred. That is proof that the University of East Anglia got what it paid for, absolution.
Click to expand...

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above

Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists

The emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world


Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study, /QUOTE]


That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

I already posted information that proved the study was more falsified junk science.


Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."



But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."


​
This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO[SUB]2[/SUB]." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.


​
Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.


But you are right, you do have that! And you should be proud and thrilled to have thoroughly discredited research to rely on to attempt to validate your position.


​
Click to expand...

Conspiracy Theory 101: Any evidence against the conspiracy gets turned into evidence supporting the conspiracy, via the conspiracy.

You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it? The BEST report confirmed the other Independent reports, so I suppose each organization must be corrupted, yet these are the same models which criticisms, such as cloud effect, are based on. Denialists like to discount any information involving AGW unless they perceive it can help them make a case, then it's suddenly useful data. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole where the rules change when you need an advantage. You are simply doubling down on all the conspiracy angles and repeating well refuted criticisms, and you shroud it all in a thoroughly unpleasant and purposely prejudice attitude of righteousness.
 
Heisenberg said:
Again, no climatologists or scientific organization is calling for panic or alarm, just awareness and appropriate procedure. No one is appealing to fear, that stems from your delusion.
Click to expand...


I suppose you will say that because the article says things like; "scientists say" and; "Chris Thomas, a biologist from University of Leeds." and; "The head of the UN Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, warned" that since none were specifically called climatologists that their doomsday scenario message is meaningless and it does not show how the cult is attempting to scare people into drinking the cult Kool-Aid. Right?



Dire global warming predictions

January 8, 2004 - 4:05PM


[TD="align: right"] [TABLE="class: toolbar"]
[TR]

[TD="align: left"]
[/TD]

[TD="align: left"]
[/TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Over one million plants and animals, a quarter of all life on land, could become extinct in just decades due to man-made climate change, scientists say.

The main culprit for this change, they say in an article in the British journal Nature, is greenhouses gases, which are churned out by automobiles and industry and trap heat in the earth's atmosphere.

"An immediate and progressive switch to technologies that produce little or no new greenhouse gases, combined with active removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, could save a million or more species from extinction," lead author Chris Thomas, a biologist from University of Leeds, said in a statement.

Thomas's team studied six regions rich in biodiversity, representing 20 per cent of the planet's land area, and made projections for the survival of 1,103 species between 1990 and 2050, using elaborate computer models.

Three scenarios for expected climate change were used in the computer models -- a minimum expected total rise of between 0.8 and 1.7 degrees Celsius by 2050; a mid-range scenario with total temperature increases of 1.8-2.0 degrees; and the maximum rise, when the Earth's average climes rise by over 2.0 degrees during the period.

[TABLE="align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Australia, one of the regions studied, would lose over half of its more than 400 butterfly species by 2050, thanks to global warming.
Brazil's Cerrado area, a savannah-type area with a wealth of plant and animal species, could lose between 39 and 48 per cent of its flora -- thousands of plants whose medical or scientific benefits will never be known.

The six regions studied by the scientists were Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Europe, Mexico and South Africa.

The head of the UN Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, warned that "the figure of one million may be an underestimate", since it only counts the extinction of species due to climate change, without taking into account a "ripple effect" that could also kill off interdependent plants and animals.

Toepfer said humans would suffer from the consequences of global warning, the result of their dependence on fossil fuels.

"If one million species become extinct as a result of global warming, it is not just the plant and animal kingdoms and the beauty of the planet that will suffer.
"Billions of people, especially in the developing world, will suffer too as they rely on nature for such essential goods and services as food, shelter and medicines," he said.

Lee Hannah, a co-author of the study with the Washington-based Conservation International, said that species faced with a dangerously warm environment would naturally seek a cooler area, but this was no longer possible in many cases.

"If habitat destruction has already altered those habitats, the species will have no safe haven."

Not all of the million-plus species would disappear by 2050, Thomas said, but many would be in decline and en route to extinction
Click to expand...
.



Cherry picking disagreement is not refuting a consensus.

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • American Astronomical Society
  • American Chemical Society
  • American Geophysical Union
  • American Institute of Physics
  • American Meteorological Society
  • American Physical Society
  • Australian Coral Reef Society
  • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
  • British Antarctic Survey
  • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • European Federation of Geologists
  • European Geosciences Union
  • European Physical Society
  • Federation of American Scientists
  • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
  • Geological Society of America
  • Geological Society of Australia
  • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
  • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Royal Meteorological Society
  • Royal Society of the UK
    [The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

​
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies
(NASAC), including the following bodies:
  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
  • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  • l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
  • Zambia Academy of Sciences
  • Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
  • Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Polish Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...



What you alarmists like to do is attempt to make it appear that any group the cult can get to sign on is 100% in agreement with the cult. In the many quotes I posted there were scientists of all kind, a good number of them that were former cult members, and one of the complaints they had is the facade created that shows a massive group of scientific groups and minds are in agreement, when in fact they are not. But the small number of those at the top who handle the cult's propaganda make sure that any mention of discent is not allowed to reach the public, especially in the U.S. There were specific examples of how cult psuedo-scientists have been proven to be wrong, but you cannot find that information in the U.S. It was not mentioned in the uber-liberal mainstream media that is culpable in the perpetuation of the myth, and it will not even be found on the Internet using search engines, like Google for example.

But then the easiest thing for me to do in reponse to your list above is use one of your tactics and just say it is meaningless and dismiss it. You believe doing so works for you, so if it works for you, it has to work for me.





To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.
Click to expand...


It is becoming more and more evident that you did not bother to read the quotes I posted. In them there are scientists of various types who did erite sections of IPCC reports and later were upset and clearly stated that what was released was not their true findings.

There were other quotes from IPCC report reviewers who reviewed the findings of the various scientists and then gave their stamp of approval only to then have the small group of cult high priests rewrite sections of what had been reviwed and publish their rewritten versions, that were not resubmitted for review, and that altered what had been found and what had been said so it better fit what the cult agenda wanted it to fit, and those reviewers did complain.

You have to search for that sort of information because the uber-liberal mainstream media helps the cult leaders to suppress as much discent as possible. And when something cannot be suppressed a smear campaign is used and every dirty trick imaginable is used to discredit the one or ones who discented and in some cases their funding has been cut off.




In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
Click to expand...


Penn. State investigated one of it's own and found them innocent. Oddly enough when the University of East Anglia solicite for people tp investigate it's part in Climategate1, and paid for the investigation (and likely for the results it brought) it was also cleared of all allegations of wrongdoing.

What we have here is sort of the fox guarding the hen house. If you assign somebody a duty and doing so put that person into a position where he or she then can exploit the situation for his own benefit then you let the fox guard the henhouse. When a group or institution investigates itself or one or some of it's members you cannot expect the results to be honest. There is to much as stake, to much money and prestige so those given the duty to investigate will exploit the situation for their advantage or benefit.

You know damn well that if the situation were reversed and say NASA, who says the sun and planetary influences are responsible for the warming that ended in 1998, had someone accused of falsifying data or results or witholding some data from their equations so they would get the results they desired and NASA investigated itself and said nothing unacceptable was found you, and the rest of the cult, would refuse to accept it, you, and the rest of the cult, would a complete investigation by qualified outsiders with no connections in any way to NASA, past or present.

But the cult sure did accept the findings when investigators checked out the University of East Anglia hand direct ties to it and indirect ties to it and others had clearly been very public and vocal about believing in and supporting the very things they were supposed to be investigationg irregularities in.

Cult members would scream conflict of interest if an investigation of scientists who say the cult is wrong if the investigation was performed like the University of East Anglia investigation and the Penn State investigation.


In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
Click to expand...

True enough, but it is not as if there was nothing negative said in the findings.

"Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others.."

"In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes)."

"In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics."

"The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred..."

Follow-up inquiry "13. The report by the SAP, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was published on 14 April 2010. Although welcomed by most of the scientific community,[22] it received some criticism for being rushed as the review took less than a month to complete."


Gee, the investigation lasted less than one month! They sure must have looked in every nook and cranny and uverturned every rock and looked in every closet and drawer and made forensic tests checking every single hard drive to find what was deleted etc, etc, etc.

An investigation into something so broad and widespread with so many pieces of email taking less than a month? The only way that could happen is if those doing the investigating had their results worked out before they began their alleged investigation. I wonder hwo deeply they delved into things considering Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, who was at the center of the probe, emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little?

Clearly those investigating must have simply figured what was deleted was trivial and didn't matter.

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
Click to expand...

"13. The report by the SAP, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was published on 14 April 2010. Although welcomed by most of the scientific community,[22] it received some criticism for being rushed as the review took less than a month to complete."

As I said, golly gee, they investigated for less than one month. There is no way in the world that investigating for less than one entire month that they could possibly have missed anything or decided ahead of times that certain things were not worth looking into, or having at least a rough draft of their final report written before they began their sham investigation.


When you don't actually look for something, you won't find it. Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, who was at the center of the probe, emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, the investigation team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

Yep, sounds like a heck of a thorough investigation there. If Nixon had been investigaed as thoruoghly he would have ended up cleared of any wrondoing and finished his secon term of office and his legecy would have been very different than what it is.



In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
Click to expand...

See my previous statement about Penn. State investigating one of it's own.

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
Click to expand...

Conflict of interest. A university investigating it's own. As if they would risk the embarassment, the loss of prestige, the loss of funding and all he rest that would go with it. If the investigation had been perofrmed by some outside group with absolutely no ties, past or present, to the university and if there had actually been a full and complete in depth unbiased investigation performed, and then reported fully and accurately what was found that could be believable. But when you have partners in crime investigate each other, nothing bad will ever be found.


In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
Click to expand...


Look back through my messages, you know, the ones that you do not read and you only glance at long enough to know how to word how to dismiss or attempt to discredit them, and find the one that mentioned the EPA and the massive U.S. governemt commitment, including financial, to the global warming scam and also how it would at times dictate what information should or should not be shared.

The EPA was complicite, the EPA is as culpable as the rest. No wonder it said, nothing to see here folks!



In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
Click to expand...


OK, so according to law Prof. Jones would not have been legally required to release any information. Then clearly he paniced for nothing when he "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little, as he admitted to doing.

You do not delete; "loads of emails" when fearing someone might bring a Freedom of Information Act request and you want to make sure they would get very little, unless there was something in the deleted emails that you know would be highly damaging and totally damning.

Think about it a bit, as in logically and rationally. Why would someone panic and delete "loads of emails" if there was nothing extremely damaging in them? It would be like a guy whose girlfriend was shot to death going out in a boat on the ocean and dismantling a guy and spreading it's pieces around in over 1000 feet of water if it wasn't the gun used to murder hs girlfriend. It would make absolutely no sense to do that and it would make absolutely no sense to panic and delete "loads of emails" if there was not something highly damaging in them to be found.

What do you think he deleated "loads of," internet porn he was passing around with his cult buddies and he just didn't want to be embrassed if it would be found? It was evidence that if found would sink the cult's battleship.





Conspiracy Theory 101: Any evidence against the conspiracy gets turned into evidence supporting the conspiracy, via the conspiracy.

You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it? The BEST report confirmed the other Independent reports, so I suppose each organization must be corrupted, yet these are the same models which criticisms, such as cloud effect, are based on. Denialists like to discount any information involving AGW unless they perceive it can help them make a case, then it's suddenly useful data. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole where the rules change when you need an advantage. You are simply doubling down on all the conspiracy angles and repeating well refuted criticisms, and you shroud it all in a thoroughly unpleasant and purposely prejudice attitude of righteousness.
Click to expand...

Again, if you had read my messages in full rather than just discount them and only scan them enough to have some idea of how to reply and appear factual you would have seen that the truth has been found in several ways. One is through newer more accurate technology and also factoring in things that the cult refused to factor in. That is why a number of the quotes you simply ignored and dismissed that were from cult scientists and former cult scientists say they now no longer believe what in the past they believe to be the cause. More has been discovered and a more complete puzzle has been assembled and it shows that the picture the cult thought was one thing is actually something else.


You say how unreliable the temperature data is, yet you use this data to try to prove recent cooling and that it was warmer in the past. Which is it?
Click to expand...


Since you basically just said that no matter where the data comes from it is unreliable than the only fair and equitable thing to do is to say that the data of neither side of the argument is accurate and neither side has clearly shown anything, let alone proven anything, so since there is nothing factual proven and all data is inaccurate then there is no use iscussing what then would be a non-issue.

But then there is that pesky little thing about the cults computer model that created the infamous hockey stick, the one where you can punch in virtually any data and it always results in a hockey stick graph. It was proven that totally random data can be used and the results are a hockey stick graph, and the cult relied heavily on the hockey stick, until it was proven to be a joke, and possibly a case of intentional unprofessional unscientific computer programming to assure the desired results.

I have never heard of anything on the other side that has been proven to be so inaccurate so it would still appear that the cult is behind in the credibility race.


I was wondering about something. You pulled the Berkley info like a knife but when I responded to how it turned out to be fraudulant you didn't bother to say anything, you simply tried to forget that you had even mentioned it, you made no attempt whatsoever to defend it. Why? Is it because you already knew it was bogus when you mentioned it and just hoped I wouldn't know, and when you had painted yourself into a corner you remembered that those who fight and run away, live to fight another day, so rather than end up on a slab in the morgue you figured it was time to retreat and try another tactic?


Then we have the latest analysis, The Berkley Earth Temperature Study,
Click to expand...


That's right, you do have that ... the Muller - Berkley study, right? Well his findings were almost instantly found to be bunk and his co-author admitted the flaws and in the end Muller himself caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

I already posted information that proved the study was more falsified junk science.


Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."



But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."


​
This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO[SUB]2[/SUB]." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.


​
Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
Click to expand...


Remember that? Do you care to comment on it now, or will you again attempt to ignore it and hope that it just goes away?
 
I don't feel those statements are calling for an unnecessary alarm, and personally I don't find them particularly alarming. Saying AGW can and probably will have devastating impacts on our future is not saying the sky is falling, as you characterized it. It is simply a prediction that can be made by examining the data. You speak as if people are being instructed to turn cannibal. I don't see anything unreasonable about those statements since they are presented as speculation. Is this the alarm you were speaking of? Is this what you suppose the motivation is behind the propaganda? To make mildly concerning predictions about what could happen decades from now under certain conditions, when many of us will be already be dead? I would think a global propaganda machine could do better than that, and I think anyone who is alarmed at these statements isn't thinking very efficiently about them.

I do believe journalists and media put a doom and gloom spin on global warming, just as they like to put a sensational spin on most everything. I don't see any evidence or conjecture that would indicate this is the result of a conspiracy, just superficial and inadequate reporting skills and standards which manifest on a number of unrelated topics. Alarmism has become a staple of news reporting, but we are talking about a scientific consensus, not the media circus. I see deeply concerning evidence-based information in climate reports, I do not see fear mongering or rash paranoia. I do not see any rationale behind labeling those who support the consensus a cult. I see far more alarmism in your statements and terminology.

I brought up the BEST study, which you inexplicably perceived as a weapon, because it is the latest and confirmed other studies. It is yet one more independent study that supports the consensus, which makes it a legitimate and pertinent topic to bring up. I was not surprised at your criticism of it, you are a denier. This isn't simply a game of who gets the last word. All of your arguments, earth being warmer in the past, a cooling trend starting, the broken hockey stick, are old, tired and well refuted. It's all indicative of the conspiracy dynamic, the endless game of whack-a-mole you apparently enjoy playing, and get upset when I don't. There has certainly been enough information provided by both of us for people to decide for themselves should they chose to research it. You seem to think my motivation is to trump you, to prove you wrong, when it is simply to defend science and represent reason.
 
Heisenberg said:
I I do not see any rationale behind labeling those who support the consensus a cult.
Click to expand...

But, there is rational behind labeling those that disagree, "Deniers?" This is the voted consensus of those that agree with the current political correctness,
consensus? I see a lot of point by point arugements, very little science, a lot of name dropping, UN dirty laundry, etc.

Buit it is the Cult that label heretics deniers.

And those that take an above the fray, academic viewpoint can be the first to lay labels. It's part of the problem and why? There is only one conclusion.

This, obviously ,isn't a problem with scientists or Atmospheric Science Methods, but with the global liberal elitists turning a blind eye to what imposittions their juggernaut.
 
Doer said:
But, there is rational behind labeling those that disagree, "Deniers?" This is the voted consensus of those that agree with the current political correctness,

consensus? I see a lot of point by point arugements, very little science, a lot of name dropping, UN dirty laundry, etc.

Buit it is the Cult that label heretics deniers.

And those that take an above the fray, academic viewpoint can be the first to lay labels. It's part of the problem and why? There is only one conclusion.

This, obviously ,isn't a problem with scientists or Atmospheric Science Methods, but with the global liberal elitists turning a blind eye to what imposittions their juggernaut.
Click to expand...
Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.
 
my lord people still believe in this nonsense



im more worried about my house collapsing then this nonsense



you want facts we got a country full of lazy people waiting for someone to tell them what to do and what to beleive


form your own opinion rather than using that mind of yours as a place holder for some one elses beliefs
 
mindphuk said:
Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.
Click to expand...

dude really your making CRAZZZZZZY stretches

911 holocaust?


hes not a denier the fact is Global warming was embeleshed i saw first hand and i use to be a fervent beleiver

till i saw the scumbaggery that was be had


bricktop by far as a person of character is one of the best i know on this site


and calling someone a conspirist just makes you look bad you know what it means to conspire to come together under a unified goal



edit ps... you do alot of lumping together since where does it say you cant understand science with out believing global warming

its a theory THEORY and a shotty ass one at that get over it
 
mindphuk said:
Do you refuse to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists, deniers? How about those that disagree with the consensus of historians wrt Hitler's genocide? You use the same rhetoric as other groups of deniers, so yes, there is rational behind the label. Legitimate scientific work is often ridiculed and denounced quite harshly when it goes against the consensus, however the champions of those fringe ideas do not automatically go to the press and blogs crying "unfair," and thinking it is a conspiracy to keep them down. No, they fight the criticism with more and better science. They keep researching, struggling for a break that might prove them right. Often that break comes from a totally unexpected area, other times it take just one other notable person that takes notice and helps convince others. That's the problem from your side, you aren't doing the science to bring about a change in scientific opinion, you are taking a page from the creationists and evolution, and merely criticizing and trying to find holes in the established ideas.
Click to expand...

Cloud Effect. I've posted specific science abouit the satalite data not aligning with any positive feedback model.

And I don't label these people/groups you mention with Cultish monikers. That's passive agressive. And elitist dismissive.

IAC, it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.
 
Doer said:
Cloud Effect. I've posted specific science abouit the satalite data not aligning with any positive feedback model.

And I don't label these people/groups you mention with Cultish monikers. That's passive agressive. And elitist dismissive.

IAC, it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.
Click to expand...
These people wouldn't get the moniker if they didn't act as such. Don't forget how you started this thread with your OP name calling...bully, smug, tyrannical, pigs, snobs, right before you predict character assassination and 'mud slinging.' How ironic.

it's a false argument, since those events you metioned happened and GW is not an event and didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Well isn't that the exact same argument they use when labeled as conspiracy theorists? Remember it wasn't that 9/11 didn't happen, it was who orchestrated it, much harder to discount the arguments from Loose Change if you don't study the details and claims very carefully. Some of the recent Holocaust denial has been getting creative as well. It wasn't that the Nazi's didn't have work camps, it was the systematic extermination they deny. It was disease that swept through that that killed the Jews. They claim no evidence for gas chambers, they were delousing chemicals or something like that. These things are much harder to disprove unless you do the work.

You might be different but most of the people that sign up for denying AGW are just not going to understand much of the science. It's not that they're not capable, just that it takes a lot more effort to get familiar with the details than most people are willing to put in. I see it all of the time with evolution. People think they understand it but by their very questions or criticisms, it is obvious they don't. From personal conversations I have had with other "skeptics' most have never even heard of the Malankovitch cycles or know whether we should naturally be in a window of heating or cooling based on things like ENSO, PDO and solar irradiance. IOW, what should the earth be doing right now if man wasn't around, the null hypothesis of AGW. If they don't understand or learn the details enough to make an informed decision, they must rely on an authority. Even without a consensus, how would a normal person pick an authority to side with? Even if the opinion in the scientific community was split 50:50, then no one should be able to pick a side and say who's right, yet that's exactly what skeptical lay persons are doing with a clear minority. Like I said, you might be different, I know you have science education and may have taken the time to learn all of the details but from reading your posts, I don't believe you have. I'm sorry if I formed that opinion incorrectly but I just need you to understand my POV. If you can at least understand my POV, I don't think you would need to be so hostile toward me and I will not toward you. I have not been PA when I used these terms, I formed these opinions with good reason as I just outlined.

Now back to the civilized discussion. You have not refuted one thing I brought to the table about cloud effect. You asked, I presented, and I feel you have ignored it all. Everything points to a positive FB, i.e more warming. Sure, it's not conclusive and more study is being done, but it is hardly the dagger in the heart of AGW as you seem to imply. Look, if you end up being right, I will be the first to tell you so, but I am looking at all of the evidence.
 
I have watched with some sadness as this thread has descended into a brawl.
I will speak to the part where Brick Top shouted (large fonts, use of color).

A decade is a short timespan at the scale of climatology, and the weather data on which climatology is built are very noisy on such short timespans. It's like looking at a stock price chart and deciding next week's trend from this week's performance. So in my estimation (and assuming that the Berkeley authors' claim of a totally flat decade was the result of sound work) such short-term vacillations would be more notable for their absence than presence, and using one such to either champion or debunk a theory is lousy science ... but good politics.

A strange thing about noisy data like stock prices and weather data is that they spark our unique human talent for apophenia/pareidolia. We see trends where perhaps none exist, and we overextend our experience of trends real and apophenetic into ... a System. Millions who played the machines in Vegas, or who staked the nest egg on eTrade, entered completely convinced of the goodness of their System. they got ground down by the slings and arrows of outrageous randomness. Interestingly, many still believe in their System, demonstrating that random fact is no match for sheer bullheaded conviction.

The downside of this is that the creation of skewed, semi-plausible reinterpretations of noisy data is easy, like laying razor wire.
The disposal of these Systems for wresting unwarranted clarity from murky information is hard, unrewarding work ... like clearing razor wire.
Unlike making Systems, which is a sport for everyman, the hopelessly un-mediagenic cleanup is left to actual scientists. Jmo.
cn
 
You are right, of course. There is a real downside to the information age. It's easy, far too easy, to take up banners for politcal purposes. The ends justify the means it seems for both sides of the political specturm. How often does the News get it wrong? The News correct themselves rarely and grudgingly. Mis-conceptions abound. They do interlock into roadblocks, razor wire, if you will.

So, you don't need a conspiracy theory. It's more like a wildfire. Everyone has their cocktail party micro-world. That's what matters to most people. Have the correct opinions. Impress the correct people.

In my micro-world, in my liberal state, I can't even have the harsh conversations we have here, I'd be shouted down as a denier. Maybe a drink tossed in my face by some drunken do-gooder. When they are RIGHT, they are right. I know the base opinions of them all. Like homogenized milk. No real thought, just cozy mantra regurg.

Then I go to a conservative state where my dad lives and his micro-world is ex-military conservative. I know the base opinions of them all. Like homogenized milk. No real thought, just cozy mantra regurg. There I can't talk about equal rights or MMJ, I'd be shouted down as a fool.
Or punched up by some drunken Clan wannabe.

So, althoough the real scientists can stick to the middle of the road, for science, they still have their micro-world to go along in....to get along in..to get ahead with.
 
researchkitty said:
When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........
Click to expand...


"Nature is ever at work building and pulling down, creating and destroying, keeping everything whirling and flowing, allowing no rest but in rhythmical motion, chasing everything in endless song out of one beautiful form into another." John Muir (1838-1914) Naturalist and explorer


​




​

...fckn screwed-up copy and pasties! :lol:
 
eye exaggerate said:
"Nature is ever at work building and pulling down, creating and destroying, keeping everything whirling and flowing, allowing no rest but in rhythmical motion, chasing everything in endless song out of one beautiful form into another." John Muir (1838-1914) Naturalist and explorer


​




​

...fckn screwed-up copy and pasties! :lol:
Click to expand...

I think mine was inspired by George Carlin, pretty sure it was one of his lines :) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top