Climate Change III

[Fortigurn]

@TainanCowboy

2) Is there solid evidence presented that this change has occurred due to ‘other than “natural” causes’?

Yes, [url=Nicotine and AGW: 'teach the controversy' - #2 by Fortigurn 100 years[/url] of such evidence.

3) What is the motivation for pushing the “AGW” theory? (Its money & power of course… as has been repeatedly demonstrated)

No. On the contrary, the earliest proponents of the AGW model (for the first 60 years of research on the topic), were convinced that AGW was a benefit, and did not regard it as a threat. They actually believe it should be left to continue. It was only in the 1950s that scientists gradually realised AGW would be a threat to human society.

That aside, what do you do about the fact that the energy industry’s own scientists have acknoweldged AGW is a fact. The ‘Global Climate Coalition’ was an industry funded group supposed to be generating ‘controversy’. In public they maintained the predictable industry line:

The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.

However, privately its own scientists were producing reports admitting the painful truth:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.

Can you seriously try to argue that this industry funded scientific group was motivated by ‘money and power’ to produce results and a conclusion which contradicted directly the industry’s own position on this issue?

Republican Frank Lutz was previously a vigorous opponent of the AGW model. Later he very honestly admitted that he had since changed his views:

FRANK LUNTZ: I have, and as have most people. When I started doing work on this issue about a decade ago, a majority, a clear majority of Americans, in fact all over the globe, did not buy the science at that point. But over the last 10 years the science has been much clearer. The results have been much more comprehensive and I, like millions of Americans, have changed my point of view and you will see across the globe that people now have come to accept that there is an issue here.

Was he motivated by money and power to change his mind?

4) Why has the “scientific community” in favor of the AGW line been so extremely hostile to the expose’ of the falsification of research rather than supportive of correcting such politically and economically motivated errors in conclusion?

The scientific community has not been in the least hostile to the exposure of falsification of research. It has been understandably hostile to false claims of falsification of research. Ironically the falsification of research has overwhelmingly been carried out by those attempting to argue that AGW is not taking place.

[quote]Have humans been a factor in this climate change occurring?
Well thats the question, isn’t it? A big fat open-ended non-specific be all end-all question. And, IMO, its a BS question. To ask such a non-specific question as that just leads to ambiguous responses that can be, and obviously are being, answered with whatever suits the flavor of the day.[/quote]

But you don’t base this view on any evidence, it’s just based on what ‘feels right’ to you.

As with the tobacco industry, when we follow the money we find out who is really responsible for distortion of the truth. As with the tobacco industry, the very scientists hired to do their utmost to defend the industry’s preferred position ended up coming inexorably to completely the opposite conclusion. However we may doubt the evidence produced by ‘environmentalists’, or anyone else we think is too unpleasant different to be correct, when the very industry which has literally the most to lose from a particular scientific conclusion ends up contributing to the evidence supporting it, there can be no talk of collusion, prejudice, or bias towards any preferred results.