What Do We Think About Climate Change

Whats funny spear is I came on this thread hoping to hear a coherent counter theory to Rapid Global Climate Change and the more waffling I heard and the more of this kind of obvious bunk the deniers brought, the more convinced they were wrong I was. They did as much or more with there ridiculous tactics to convince me and Im sure a few others as anything, such a poorly presented argument containing so many half truths and wildly inaccurate claims could not possibly have hit the nail on the head.

at this point after all the bogus attempts to interject as much agnotology into the frey they have me utterly convinced
they have no valid alternative theory which leaves us only one possible explanation for the data pool we do have

I always found it funny that one of the biggest complaints of the denial movement was that there should be a scientific debate
but when you offer them an opportunity to make there case this kind of tripe is all you get

a few disjointed at best papers that have obvious flaws and little or no connection to other works
or
obvious industry spin

would be funny but its for real

no wonder there is no accredited university that will pander to this view

they have me convinced
Rapid Global Climate change in unarguably correct

 

31,486 American scientists say it is not and you have not posted one piece of empirical evidence that ties C02 to warming.

 

A little bit more about the fraud of the AGW religious fanatics...............


February 7, 2010 (ME79)


Climategate Necessary to Cover Incorrect Climate Basics of IPCC
Canada and the US announced new targets for carbon reduction that are completely unnecessary. It is madness and ultimately destructive to western society but what the perpetrators want. Despite exposure of the complete corruption of the science they continue to assume CO2 is a problem. UN Climate chief Yves De Boer said, “what’s happened, it’s unfortunate, it’s bad, it’s wrong, but I don’t think it has damaged the basic science.”

British Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said, “It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” It’s not one mistake but a complete fabrication of every aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. In addition, science is only correct when accurate predictions are made and the IPCC have been wrong in every single one. Miliband’s thinking helps explain why the UK is on the brink of economic disaster and needs a diversion. It is said, despite the disclosures, because the objective of eliminating fossil fuels and destroying industrial economies is still pursued.

What they don’t understand or choose to ignore is that the basic science was wrong from the start.

Climategate Corruption: Custom Made Science
Corruption disclosed was necessary because the science and the evidence didn’t fit what they wanted. They made the science fit the political goals and stopped at nothing to achieve the end. They succeeded, because beyond manipulations that duped politicians, media and most of the public, they knew many scientists who participated did not understand climate science. Blinded by career ambitions and large funding they ignored what was going on or lacked the expertise to know. Now some scientists incorrectly claim the basic evidence is still valid.

Politicians and political leaders worldwide accepted and adopted these reports as their political Bible. Most of them still don’t understand what went on and therefore failed to react properly. Scientists in political positions support them in their chosen ignorance manifest in inappropriate reactions.

Save My Job
John Beddington, science advisor to the UK government and professor of applied population biology demonstrates his lack of understanding of climate science. He says, “It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.” There are serious questions about the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. For example, the IPCC claimed CO2 stays in the atmosphere for up to 100 years but we know that this residency time is wrong. It is between five and six years. The duration was an essential part of the political game to increase pressure for action: even if we stopped CO2 production right now the impact would be felt for decades. There’s also the troubling fact that in every record of any duration for any time in the Earth’s history temperature change precedes CO2 change. We have little idea of the greenhouse effect when we have no understanding of the role of water vapor. His argument about the speed of change is not an issue either. They made it one by claiming current change is faster than in the past. It isn’t.

Beddington’s comments show he doesn’t understand the scientific method. He said, “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism.” How does he distinguish between skepticisms? What is “proper”? All scientists are skeptics and all of their questions and inputs are healthy. The CRU gang and government agencies actively excluded skeptics and skepticism. The use of the term is dismissive and in a backhanded way acknowledges their behavior.

Complaints about the control, typified by CRU Director Phil Jones’s statement he would keep certain papers out even if it meant changing the peer-reviewed process, led to an external review process. It was a sham, a public relations exercise allowing them to say they were inclusive of skeptics, when they changed virtually nothing. I could never discover who chose the reviewers. Virtually none of the corrections amendments and additions proposed by the external reviewers were included. One review editor claimed he had eliminated files when pushed for an accounting.

Powerful Players Still Active
Recently a paper published in Science announces, “climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.” No they haven’t, only the scientists involved in the IPCC have overlooked it. We then have a quote from Dr. Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface but this is different it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect.”

No, the current climate models do not do a remarkable job. In fact the entire issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas is essentially ignored and badly handled. Dr. Solomon was a co-chair of the Working Group 1, the Scientific Group of the IPCC. This means responsibility for the content of their report. Solomon was in direct communication with the people at CRU. Dr. Solomon failed to identify the serious problems now being disclosed. How does the certainty of the Reports and especially the Summary for Policymakers fit with this statement by Solomon? “We call this the 10/10/10 paper, 10 miles above your head, there is 10% less water vapor than there was 10 years ago. Why did the water vapor decrease? We really don’t know, we don’t have enough information yet.”

Despite this Solomon must play down the limitations the findings imply saying, “this isn’t an indication that predictions on global warming are overstated”. Yes it is, and the cooling trend since 2002 while CO2 levels increased is another. “This doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming.” “There’s no significant debate that it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago, due to anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases.” The only place were that statement is true is in the computer models of the IPCC and we know they are useless. As CRU and IPCC member Trenberth said on October 12 2009, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Solomon apparently found an answer by claiming the upper level water vapor, “very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000.” And that is probably what the research is all about.
Dr. Solomon was also involved in the claim that CFCs were destroying the ozone when there was never any evidence. In fact, UV interacting with oxygen creates ozone but they incorrectly assumed UV was constant. We now know it varies by up to 200%.

Destructive Policies Are a Self-Perpetuating Behemoth
The hypothesis that CO2 was causing warming was accepted as fact before scientific testing began. They blocked most testing and challenges, but it never was the cause. As the evidence accumulated this was the case Climategate became necessary to corrupt and falsify. Now dismissal of Climategate ignores how the fundamental science is wrong. Climategate became necessary to achieve the political objective. Politicians and scientists who bought into the objectives don’t want to believe Climategate or abandon the benefits of appearing green, advancing careers, making money, or imposing taxes and political control on everybody to destroy western economies and democracy.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Items:

•View more articles on Climate Change...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Ball, Senior Fellow has an extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition with additional experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide Magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems. He had a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg until he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a BA from the University of Winnipeg, an MA from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D (Doctor of Science) from the University of London England. On Dr. Ball as a climate change "denier" - more . . .




Help Support New Thinking







All content © 1996 – 2010, The Frontier Centre For Public Policy..


And don't forget boys & girls, Dr. Phil Jones says the debate is not over!

 

Oooh ooh ooh, I forgot to mention again.............

Dr. Phil Jones also says there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. So boys and girls, you don't have to worry. Mommy and Daddy are not killing the polar bears when they give you a ride to school in the SUV.

 

This is a great audio podcast from Dr. Tim Ball. You need to have a little patience to get by the introductory speaker or just f/f about 6 minutes. Tim Ball is the scientist the alarmist hate the most because he basicly told them to f--- off and didn't care about their smear attempts and ad hominem attacks against him..............

http://www.fcpp.org/media.php/1201

The Q & A session afterwards is pretty interesting also.

 

When you first paste in Excel it will be in cell a1. Click on that then go to Data then 'Text to Columns' and follow the prompts. You will want to check comma delimited. Then use Transpose columns to rows. OK, you'll get a lot of PhD's, but an alphabetical sort will put them all together for easy deletion.

 

Brian
in your absence you might have missed the following rebuttal to references made to the Oregon petition

I'm sure if you look into the tactics used by the authors of the Oregon pole and the countless evidences of fraud against it Im sure you will eventually conclude its failure to provide a reasonable look at dissension concerning this issue.

a few other jewels concerning this petition

from
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

there are simply mountains of evidence both disputing the authenticity of the signatures and the questioning the ethics and credibility of the petitions authors

I know its a big distraction from what we were talking about earlier
which is most likely the goal of at least some of the deniers in shifting our previously productive conversation away from the actual issues of climate change by looking at silly things like this but it helps one to understand the underhanded tactics so typical of the deniers to address the particulars of this phony petition

soon as you get chance it might be productive to continue in our previous topic of conversation

cheers
B

 

Hard to believe there are still people trying to defend the credibility of the Oregon Petition. It was very clearly designed and used simply to muddy the debate.

 

This is just more mixing of apples and oranges. The letter for the petition used the same style type font, and never, I repeat never stated or implied it was associated with the NAS. Boston mistakenly(again) uses the word format when font is the correct term. Font puts the objection in perspective. The NAS does not own the font style. The objections to that and the alleged attempt to imply otherwise is trivial at best. The letters author was a past president of the NAS and is entitled to use that part of his resume as a foundation for basic reputation.

The project never implied it was affiliated with the NAS. This myth has been perpetuated simply as a means of nullifying its impact on the public.

There is no mention of publication in the petition, period, again an attempt at smear by bruised egos.

Boston claims there are mountains of evidence about the authenticity of the signatures but doesn't offer even an anthill of evidence. The examples he sites are from the original petition and include names posted there by malicious vandals from the various eco-nazi cults. That he sites that is deceptive at best, but predictable considering the source. Name ten persons from the petition who are not authentic since the phoney names placed there by eco-nazi vandals were removed and the names were re-verifed in 2007. There is no evidence. The objections are raised by those who have an interest in perpetuating the fraud of AGW and can hardly be considered learned or objective. You are entitled to your opinion Boston, not your own version of the truth, you can't make a lie the truth no matter how many times you try.

The objections listed to the actual paper are again trivial and irrelevent to findings and again just serve as a smokescreen to bandage bruised egos. The objection regarding C02 and plant health is so trivial as to be silly.

That the NAS, whose members are dependent on goverment funding, thus their opinions are tainted, would object to the paper is hardly surprising.

The petition is not damaged in reality. It stands as testimony to the determination of real scientists to not be bullied or intimidated by the government minions who seek to use climate change as a foundation for imposing a social agenda.

And finally there is the bogey man of the oil industry injected again as if it were evil to be associated with a profit making operation and that taking funding from them makes you less objective than if your funding came from taxpayers or universities dependent on taxpayers. No attempt is made to prove any of the findings wrong, just an ad hominem attack to divert attention from the facts.

31,486 American scientists disagree and have signed their names. To imply they were all duped is ludicrous and anyone making that charge can't be taken seriously.

 

guess work

my best guess is that global warming as an "end of the world" scenario is all bunk. Many studies seem to indicate long term fluctuations are normal. Think about it; NOTHING in our universe is stable, why should weather vary from that norm? As an aside, in the Viking era, They occupied Greenland for around 2-300 years, raised livedstock and some how survived. The coastline was free of ice and totally accessable at least part of the year in the southern parts. The climate cooled, grass wouldn' support their animals and they left. It still isn't as warm as when they colonized despite all the ruckus to the contrary.

 

So it is ok for the oil and gas industry to fund the Oregon Petition, the people involved are not tainted; but as soon as the NAS receives government money all of them are tainted and not to be trusted? It is truly hard to take you seriously.
The government is far more objective than the Oil and Gas industry. The government can make money from both sides, Oil and Gas industry can only make money if they are still favored. I think you need to stop contradicting yourself.

 

There has been no evidence posted that the oil & coal industry funded the petition project. Even were it true, it would be irrelevent if the science is not contradicted. I only posted that absurdity about not trusting the NAS to show how faulty your logic is. As far as the government being more objective, you have got to be kidding. What kind of cookies did you leave out for Santa on Christmas eve?

 

Oopsie, another heretic, gather the wood!

 

O ya, your right. The government gives 10x as much money and incentives to Oil and Coal than they do to renewables and climate change research. I guess that isn't objective after all.
If the Oil and Coal industry didn't fund that project, why is their contribution list a secret? What are they hiding?
The science is contradicted. The whole project is a response to actual research that was done and published. To say that there is no research that contradicts the statement "CO2 has no effect on climate" is plain ludicrous.
Please explain how saying you can't trust NAS because of government money proves how faulty my logic is. Clearly you don't trust them because of their funding source. Why should I trust the Oregon project?