Global Warming, real or fallacy? Science vs pseudo science

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
61

[quote=“BigJohn”]You knew the IPCC was wrong? Who says it’s wrong? They made a few mistakes. It’s only politicals or boneheads who think that makes everything they say wrong[/quote]Uh no…thats not exactly correct:
THE IPCC GETS THE SCIENCE WRONG
PDF from:U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Well, its here for the viewing:

SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY
“Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science”

[i]"The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

  • Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

  • Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

  • Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and

  • Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

“This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

“The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline.”[/i]

I look for a lot of these people to get “lawyered-up” real quick.

62

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“BigJohn”]You knew the IPCC was wrong? Who says it’s wrong? They made a few mistakes. It’s only politicals or boneheads who think that makes everything they say wrong[/quote]Uh no…thats not exactly correct:
THE IPCC GETS THE SCIENCE WRONG
PDF from:U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.[/quote]

TC, is that actually a document issued by the U.S. Senate, or did you just post to a lame press release put out by the minority (Republican) part of the EPW sitting in Inhofe’s office? I mean, in order to claim, as you do that it is “from:U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works,” I would figure at the very least that it would bear the imprimatur of the entire organization. And yet it would appear to be merely a press release put out by the whiny flakes sitting in Dirksen stuck listening to Inhofe clipping his toenails all day.

63

Well, from all these links, one thing is absolutely for CERTAIN. Not one single person has ANY FUCKING IDEA whatsoever what is real or not real, truth or fiction. Not the politicians, not the scientists, and FOR DAMN sure not the peanut gallery.
All it is, is a whole load of warm gas.

64

I know some folks up at the wee school down the road who work on this stuff. Pretty interesting to listen to. Obviously, I’m not going to pretend to ‘know’ anything.

65

Uh no…thats not exactly correct:
THE IPCC GETS THE SCIENCE WRONG
PDF from:U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.[/quote]

Well, more glitches with the IPCC, eh? Too bad for them. Still, that’s the Senate minority report you are referencing, which I can’t believe is unbiased, nor itself above exaggeration. There is a legitimate debate here which is overly politicized. It would be nice to get to the real truth of the matter. I agree with Sandman’s statement. I suggest he take over the UN Climate Change office. Who’s in favor?

66

[quote=“sandman”]Well, from all these links, one thing is absolutely for CERTAIN. Not one single person has ANY FUCKING IDEA whatsoever what is real or not real, truth or fiction. Not the politicians, not the scientists, and FOR DAMN sure not the peanut gallery.
All it is, is a whole load of warm gas.[/quote]

LOL. Climate science does, Sandy. That is why all the world’s major science organizations affirm the fact that the current dramatic spike of warming is driven by human action. The science has been known since the 19th century. Don’t confuse the warm gas put out by fossil fuel funded deniers with actual scientific production.

67

The GlobalWarming/ClimateChange/AGW “science” has been debunked, rebuffed and clearly shown to have been false.
Want to know why this charade is still being pushed like cheap socks at a night market?
Here is why…money.

from the United Nations website:

[quote]Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly to Adopt Strong Climate Change Policies

“Cannot Wait for a Global Treaty,” Investors Tell Congress and other Government Policymakers at United Nations Investors Climate Summit

New York, 14 January 2010 -On the heels of international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen, the world’s largest investors today released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to move quickly to adopt strong national climate policies that will spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change.

Private-sector investors will likely be responsible for financing more than 85 percent of the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

The investor statement was announced at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern,
billionaire investor George Soros and former Vice President Al Gore.
…excerpt[/quote]
Its all about the money.

Climate scientists fight for renewed research funding
“Petition; 1,400 demand Ottawa renew money in budget”

68

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The GlobalWarming/ClimateChange/AGW “science” has been debunked, rebuffed and clearly shown to have been false.
Want to know why this charade is still being pushed like cheap socks at a night market?[/quote]

Not exactly. As has been exposed above, what you’ve done is falsely tried to peddle a Republican press release from Inhofe’s office as being some sort of report issued by an entire Senatorial committee. A better question is why are your arguments being peddled like high-protein baby formula from China?

:laughing: :bravo: Well played, sir! Sorry for laughing, but I always find it amusing when I find wingnuts turning commie on a dime. One moment, they’re all saying “We need market forces, we need to support big business, we need to kiss ass to bankers and oilmen and weapons dealers…” and then as soon as anybody talks about market forces for anything else in the universe that they don’t like, they spin 180 degrees and start swearing upon their copy of Das Kapital that nobody should do anything “for money”. Some guys with a boatload of money think that there are long-term benefits to addressing climate change and some opportunities to get more efficient/clean in our energy use, and you think that’s a problem? Let 'em put their money where they want – that’s how the market works. But thanks for amusing me with your caterwauling about how guys with money want to pursue opportunities with their cash.

69

It really cracks me up. Total market for carbon trading last year was $331 million. Exxon alone had over $440 billion in revenues. TC is right: it is about the money, the money fossil fuel firms are making by preventing policy change.

70

I’ve been following this debate for ages. Now I didn’t want to get involved because it would just soak up all my time and energy. But I can’t - just can’t understand why there are so many buffoons on this planet - its making me angry.

So to start - just a quick one:

[quote=“vorkosigan”]
LOL. Climate science does, Sandy. That is why all the world’s major science organizations affirm the fact that the current dramatic spike of warming is driven by human action. The science has been known since the 19th century. Don’t confuse the warm gas put out by fossil fuel funded deniers with actual scientific production[/quote]

So by this statement, you determine that a): there were many other temperature “spikes” which were driven by other factors not involving humans and that b): you consider that AGW and the case suppoting it is “setteled science” - a notion that many of the worlds top scientists agree on. Am I correct?

71

I’m sure it’s been posted before, but all the science is here: hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/

I would like to see Inhofe prosecuted for crimes against humanity. For a Senator to purposefully put out blatant misinformation is certainly not in the public interest. The only reason I see is that the Democrats want that oil money too. They just aren’t so obvious about it.

72

I don’t think its a conspiracy at all. From what I can see, its just that there are so many conflicting opinions, its safe to say that nobody really has much of an idea, and those who profess to do so have vested interests or a certain political leaning.
Vorsokian, for example: I’d no sooner believe his links than those of Fred Smith. They’re so far from objective – both of them – that it simply boils down to a couple of blowhards with a bunch of links trying to shout each other down. Tiresome and irritating.
I really wish there was some unbiased stuff out there we could read.

73

[quote]people who think Global Warming is a conspiracy have the same mindset as the 9/11 truthers, Kennedy assassination disbelievers, moon landing disbelievers, and believe in the Lizard people etc…

they are f*cking flakes.[/quote]

Go for it, Duece.

The fact is, this is not a conspiracy - it’s just a simple, straight forward scam - not that global warming is a scam in itself, as the globe has cooled and warmed since the dawn of its very existence.
But the fact that global warming (sorry, climate change, as the great minds behind this scam have now conveniently changed the label to suit their propaganda strategy) has no concrete proof that is caused by humans is enough to not believe in this odd debacle at all.

Before the concept of AGW, it was up to scientists to come up with a theory and then try to disprove it. This, as you know, is what is called a hypothesis. With AGW, the scientists have come up with a theory and tried to prove it. This is not how science should be working, and this in itself is reason enough to be skeptical of AGW.

With your assertion that global warming disbelievers are somehow on a par with 9/11 truthers, Kennedy assassination disbeivers, moon landing disbelievers and believe in the Lizard people - well, this is again a typical response from a wooly - minded warmist “believer.”
9-11, the moon landings and Kennedy all have concrete proof of their circumstances and all have absolutely no relevance to AGW.

It is also a common tactic to use negative buzz words to describe AGW skeptics, such as denialist (vague connection to people who disbelieve the holocaust) and propaganda (negative, oppressive advetising). Nothing really negative about having a different opinion now, is there?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a date with a couple of my Lizard people friends. We’ve got tickets to see Elvis.

74

Well played…very well played… :bravo:

75

[quote=“sandman”]I don’t think its a conspiracy at all. From what I can see, its just that there are so many conflicting opinions, its safe to say that nobody really has much of an idea, and those who profess to do so have vested interests or a certain political leaning.
Vorsokian, for example: I’d no sooner believe his links than those of Fred Smith. They’re so far from objective – both of them – that it simply boils down to a couple of blowhards with a bunch of links trying to shout each other down. Tiresome and irritating.
I really wish there was some unbiased stuff out there we could read.[/quote]

I tried a while back to link TC and Fred to a debate, and in particular one by Richard Linzden. Global Warming Debate - Richard Lindzen, part 2 of 10 . He is debating global warming is not a threat, and represents the skeptical crowd if you will on global warming. He is also praised as the greatest scientist alive by Lord Monckton who likes to show his familiarity by referring to him as Dick.

The first minute of the presentation, Dr Linzden makes the point, the debate is not about “if” we are warming, and notes a 0.6 degree rise, he points out its not “if” sea levels are rising and notes a few mm per year, and notes its not “if” humans should be contributing to this. His argument is the extent that this is natural vs AGW.

Unfortunately, those posting on the right wing side, not only not looking at what the alarmists are saying, they appear to have gone right past the skeptical scientists and fill their minds with press releases from politicians and Fox news.

76

It really cracks me up. Total market for carbon trading last year was $331 million. Exxon alone had over $440 billion in revenues. TC is right: it is about the money, the money fossil fuel firms are making by preventing policy change.[/quote]

Even better played, sir! :bravo: TC screams like a stuck pig about how making money is a problem, when he’s just talking about the relative at pittances that frontline scientists make and the anticipated royalty fees and sales that investors hope to make if they put some of their money into cleaner-energy technologies might want to make. And yet the elephant in the room of course (the GOP elephant apparently) is the fact that the guys sitting behind the rampant inefficient use of fossil fuels have every reason to want the earth to burn through as much as it can as fast and as wastefully as it can.

TC’s all in favor of companies making money through investment, unless it’s people putting money into clean technologies or efficiency efforts. Then he’s dancing about with his Mao cap and Che T-shirt.

77

Well, it seems it is about the money.

Something I read in the news earlier today is an article about the last surviving steel mill in the UK. Of course, being industry in the UK, the works is owned by another company, in another country. The country in question is India, a country exempt from the carbon credit wotsit.
In order not to be crippled by the EU’s nasty carbon tradings scheme, Tata steel, the parent company of Corus Steel, who run the plant in the UK, received approximately 1 billion GBP worth or carbon credits SO THAT THE PLANT COULD BE KEPT OPEN by complying with EU regulations.
As the plant is closed, and is therefore not making any carbon emissions, the Indian company has effectively walked away with 1 billion GDP of taxpayer’s money.

That’s 1 billion.

Superb. That’s 1 billion pounds that could have been spent on getting some proper science together. Hell, with that much money, I could even have bought something my wife might appreciate.

To give an example of how much one billion is - an number which politicians and bankers like to throw around with alarming regularity - well, if we were to go back 1 billion seconds, by my quick little bout of research a few minutes ago on the net, that takes us all the way back to 1959.
My father was still learning how to ride a bike then.

Oh, and the EU’s carbon trading scheme is modelled on the IPCC’s instructions - the chairman of which is non other than Dr. Pachauri, who - now how is this for an amazing coincidence - was chairman of the Tata energy research institute, set up by Tata steel.

No conspiracy here - it’s all readily available on the net if you’re interested. Put all the evidence together and come to the conclusions yourselves - it’s all potentially in front of you. There’s a long paper trail leading up to a few key people in all of this and a lot of money is changing hands - money that doesn’t belong to the people involved.
And so much for all those “green” jobs. Tell that to all the workers made redundant this week, again at the hands of AGW and the compliant EU.

It is all about the money. Your money and mine.

78

Everything in the economy is in some way about the money. That doesn’t mean that’s why people are environmentalists. Like D’uh! What are you GOP guys now, like neocon 50 centers, just want to hose forums and BB’s with the latest approved message? Over and over again, all leading people to your bogus exagerated sites? IT’S ABOUT THE SCIENCE, YOU DIMWITS!!!

79

If truth is on your side, you don’t need to resort to name-calling. poo poo head

80

You still don’t get it, Mr Underwear Sniffer. I’m not saying the truth is on my side, I’m saying that I’m on the truth’s side. That is…the science, not some sttoooopid beltway BS 3-card Monty propaganda campaign. OK, Mr Walnut head?