ADVERTISEMENT

Ok GK...

big_country90

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 9, 2007
14,691
4,653
113
Let's start with a little video.

You're right. I do respect you and look at you as one of the elder statesmen of this board. This doesn't have to be an argument.

One of my primary beefs is, as the video indicates, how political this has become. Government research dollars are given primarily to scientists who have a pre-disposition to believe in man-made climate change and will agree to give back 'results' that are consistent with that belief. This is common knowledge. That's how you get such a "consensus" among scientists..because only certain ones are targeted for research. These same people have been caught manipulating data on numerous occasions in order to arrive at the conclusion in which they seek.

This is one of the main reasons why I will forever be skeptical. People of certain political persuasions want this to be real, mainly because it's been beaten into their heads that coal and oil are dirty, and don't care to lie in order to pass it off as such.
 
Joe bastardi is always destroying global warming almarmists and the cult followers as well. He has some good stuff on social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Let's start with a little video.

You're right. I do respect you and look at you as one of the elder statesmen of this board. This doesn't have to be an argument.

One of my primary beefs is, as the video indicates, how political this has become. Government research dollars are given primarily to scientists who have a pre-disposition to believe in man-made climate change and will agree to give back 'results' that are consistent with that belief. This is common knowledge. That's how you get such a "consensus" among scientists..because only certain ones are targeted for research. These same people have been caught manipulating data on numerous occasions in order to arrive at the conclusion in which they seek.

This is one of the main reasons why I will forever be skeptical. People of certain political persuasions want this to be real, mainly because it's been beaten into their heads that coal and oil are dirty, and don't care to lie in order to pass it off as such.

BC...I ask that you make this between just you and me. If it goes off on tangents (like responding to herdman) then the discussion will lose validity and deteriorate into...well...what every thread on here looks like. (My apologies herdman) And my apologies in advance for any grammatical errors...I'm just going to type withou proofreading.

First off, the fact that it is political doesn't disprove the science and one isolated case of a denier getting the best of a supporter on tv...although it provides a misguided sense of victory (see herdman in this thread).... doesn't overturn the consensus. But if you want to talk how political this is look no further than the politics of denial.

Bear with me for the curve I'm throwing but I promise it has relevance. The politics of denial is hardly something new and a very small band of scientist with proven and definitive ties to energy companies through conservative think tanks have been proven over and over again to be behind creating the doubt that give the appearance that there isn't consensus in the industry. There is and its overwhelming. The strategy of obfuscation goes to the tobacco companies as far back as the 1950s. Tobacco companies knew (and this was proven in court through internal company documents) that smoking was harmful. The German scientific community knew in the 1930s (Hitler forbade smoking around hm), but the political climate didn't allow us to look at that seriously. But studies started rolling in the 1950s that pointed toward smoking causing cancer. This continued through the 1960s and 70s all the way into the 90s with big tobacco employing a host of strategies. They hired a public relations firm who immediately went out and sought scientist that could lend credibility to their cause.

Two of those scientist were a pair of Freds... Fred Singer and Fred Seitz. There were countless more but allow me to use these two as examples. They were both renown physicist and credible in their fields. Singer worked as a space scientist and Seitz on the Manhattan project. These two scientist were enlisted by RJ Reynolds and were on his payroll. They spent over 20 years obfuscating all the overwhelming evidence coming out against smoking. Tobacco is a great example because we know the outcome and no reasonable person would continue to deny its dangers. Tobacco eventually lost...on RICO charges...but it took over 40 years from the time of knowing the truth to actually having to pay compensation. How many people died because the truth was purposely distorted for years. Profit was obviously more important than people dying.

So what does Singer and Seitz have to do with GW? I'll get there. These two names (among others) continued to pop up as denialist on other issues. They offered denialist views on causes of acid rain, DDT, and CFC and ozone depletion. All of which hindsight shows the validation of the concerns for these items and things that were fixed through the effort of science.

Well guess what? These same two scientist led or are leading (Seitz died in 2008) the denialist charges against GW. Wow...a history of obfuscating the argument on proven science and receiving money from the industry that profits from it, are now receiving money from big oil (through conservative think tanks) and implementing the same song and dance denialist implement that plants doubt in the face of overwhelming world wide consensus.

And one if the industries largest providers of misleading information through the website Climate Depot, Marc Morano, a Republican shill and former producer on Rush Limbaugh and one of the highest paid member on the staff of Richard Melon Scaife, the former billionaire supporter of the Republican Party and a dozen conservative think tanks. Morano...a non scientist...has received money from ExxonMobil and Chevron through the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative think tank supported by Scaife. Morano is a "paid confusionist" whose motives are political.

Exxon Mobil alone has donated 33 million dollars since 1998 to fund countless organizations whose purpose is to obscure the issue. Yet denialist continue to obscure the issue out of the same playbook as big tobacco often times with the exact same players. Yet denialist are trying to assert that this GW threat is some kind of political movement that spans thousands of the worlds scientist across international borders that somehow sweeps in 97% of experts with a huge segment of those receiving funding form different governments? Come on.

I know this is long but it actually only encompasses a small fraction of the information that I've read. I could go on for days with more of the same. All a person has to do is actually research it. The ties of the small group of denialist to the money of big energy companies is so overwhelmingly documented that denying it would be based on willful ignorance. Yet here we are on this board surrounded by people who haven't put the effort into actually getting the facts. Well...outside of googling denialist pieces such as put out by Climate Depot without ever digging further to see if that info is tainted by the same effort used by the tobacco industry for over 40 years.

Read the book Merchants of Doubt. If you don't like reading watch the documentary of the same name. The concrete and documented evidence is so overwhelming.

But let's talk about science. What is th scientific basis for your not believing GW?
 
Also I forgot to mention that Fred Singer was director of the Heartland Institute's Science and Environmental Policy Project, a thInk tank known for denial politics. This is the same group that worked closely with Philip Morris to question the link between smoking, second hand smoke and health risks. This was in the 1990s for crying out loud. Nearly 50 years of evidence and tobacco companies are still employing confusionist to distort credible and known scientific links to the health problems of smoking. Yet when this same Institute works closely with and receives money from big oil for their dissenting views on GW no one sees the same pattern? I mean...how can anyone still say that smoking doesn't have links to health issues? The same people who deny MMGW.
 
Oh by the way...John Coleman (who doesn't have a meteorology degree incidentally) has very close ties with the Heartland Institute as a policy expert. The same Institute that employs policy experts to deny links between smoking and health.
 
I provided names and groups. You didn't. Got it.

Why should I have to. Shouldn't it be safe to assume that someone so "non ideological" and concerned about "ideology" in "scientific" debates look into it a little more closely before claiming only one side's belief is "ideological" based?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Why should I have to. Shouldn't it be safe to assume that someone so "non ideological" and concerned about "ideology" in "scientific" debates look into it a little more closely before claiming only one side's belief is "ideological" based?

Ad hominem and does not address the science or politics behind your argument.

Anyway BC...where do you feel the science fails on global warming? Specifically and in your own words if possible.
 
Wow, extremely disappointed.

The onus is on the people wanting these changes made. Go on. Sell us on how it's better your way.

Prediction: It won't happen.
 
I read all that hoping for maybe something convincing that man is causing it and here are some viable solutions.

Nope. A whole novel trying to discredit discreditors. New ideas must be sold. People are not sold on this. I was out there all day, down to the Reds game. To Kroger. Everybody's hogging, driving, living it up bigtime. They're ignoring all this, and I don't blame them.
 
I read all that hoping for maybe something convincing that man is causing it and here are some viable solutions.

Nope. A whole novel trying to discredit discreditors. New ideas must be sold. People are not sold on this. I was out there all day, down to the Reds game. To Kroger. Everybody's hogging, driving, living it up bigtime. They're ignoring all this, and I don't blame them.


I agree, but Im responding to his assertion that this whole issue is political for acientIst. That's why I discussed the politics of denial. But twice I've asked his opinion on the science behind his belief on GW. I'm fully prepared to respond to that. But I'm sure he's working or doing family stuff. He'll respond in good time.
 
That's not going to advance the issue. And there's another point for his argument. The slower it gets advanced, the longer the funding continues.

I'm by far the most impatient person I've ever known. Each problem is quickly analyzed using what is, not what could be, might be, was, etc. By using what is and coming up with an answer now. Life's too short. Anything that's not settled really is aggravating as hell.

This global warming thing. There's no way they can prove it well enough to warrant bigtime changes. We do the best we can to keep the air good enough to breathe. That's all we need.
 
Ad hominem and does not address the science or politics behind your argument.

Anyway BC...where do you feel the science fails on global warming? Specifically and in your own words if possible.

I think science fails on a few fronts. One, it has been proven on multiple occasions that many scientists have manipulated data in order to reach the conclusions they seek. Two, if you believe the earth to be 5 billion years old, how miniscule and insignificant a sample size is 100 years, much less 20-30 years? Three, during those 5 billion years, how many extreme hot periods and extreme cold periods have we had before humans were even around? How fast did they occur and how long did they last? How do we know that we are trending worse than in those periods? There is no data to prove that. Four, why only now that we can track temperatures are we to assume that the earth's default thermostat setting just so happens to be when we became capable of tracking temperatures. How do we know that the earth isn't supposed to be hotter or colder? Five, science fails to accurately link (the proof I'm always referencing) the correlation between the things you feel harm the environment and the actual harm that it's caused. It's all hypothesis. I need to see where coal mining makes the oceans rise. Heck, I need to see the oceans actually rise first, then we can get to the proof that man caused it. Then someone can show me that an ocean rising is abnormal and shouldn't occur. See the spiral effect? Also, and banker made this point a few years ago, but if the earth is warming, couldn't a much simpler explanation be that there are...just a guess here...double the amount of people on earth than a hundred years ago? Maybe it's simple body heat and nothing else. Science is simply inconsistent and inconclusive.
 
take it easy Raleigh, this is a friendly forum. you beat him like a red headed step child.
 


I read that article long ago. Talk about a distortion. It brings up the "email scandal" that supposedly shows some kind of conspiracy among climat scientist to deliberately distort information about climate change. After many investigations by different independent councils it was definitively shown that the data was not misrepresented and no conspiracy existed.

But let me present you with the highlights from Skeptical Science...


  1. 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."
  2. 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".
  3. 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".
  4. 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".
  5. 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 "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
  6. 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."
  7. 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".
  8. 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".
  9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
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.
 
Continued...


Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"
The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

Trenberth's "travesty we can't account for the lack of warming"
The second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "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." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he'd recently published that discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going (Trenberth 2009).

In Trenberth's paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. More on Trenberth's travesty...

The full body of evidence for man-made global warming
An important point to realise is that 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.

What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heatbuilding in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heatreturning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.
 
take it easy Raleigh, this is a friendly forum. you beat him like a red headed step child.

Yeah man...he sure got me. I mean...he posted a link and everything. But more importantly, he has the backing of a real life internet tough talker like yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: extragreen
similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists

Actually what my link actually showed is that their IS NOT true "independence" in research regardless of your dreams of non ideologues in "science". You attempted to assert that I didn't post evidence of where "funding" for your beliefs came from. There it is.....Liberal groups fund their "science" as much (or more) than Cons fund theirs.

And again. I'm not claiming "conspiracy". Those are your words, not mine. As I've said before, and you conveniently "move on"; this is business. The large amounts of funding and outcomes, meets the ultimate purposes of all involved. The ability to garner a larger "ROI" completely lies in promoting this "consensus".

As for ice melting (2009).... fast forward to 2015....
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"Save the planet"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Oh well, this is a whole lot of nothing. I'm just disappointed. All these years of all this smart science stuff posted here by this guy, and now this.

We should change the name of this place to Has Been Nation. Bunch of has beens, most of us. I used to raise hell, whoreman used to have whores, and this guy used to post actual scientific stuff that sounded so smart that I just glossed over it and tipped my hat to the Carnegie Mellons or whatever it was.

But now this. I'm old and dead, whoreman is old and teaches English, and this guy fell into global warming like the cabinet maker fell into holding the cans.

And we want to live longer, HA!!! Hell, give us 20 more years and we won't be able to wipe our own asses.
 
Oh well, this is a whole lot of nothing. I'm just disappointed. All these years of all this smart science stuff posted here by this guy, and now this.

We should change the name of this place to Has Been Nation. Bunch of has beens, most of us. I used to raise hell, whoreman used to have whores, and this guy used to post actual scientific stuff that sounded so smart that I just glossed over it and tipped my hat to the Carnegie Mellons or whatever it was.

But now this. I'm old and dead, whoreman is old and teaches English, and this guy fell into global warming like the cabinet maker fell into holding the cans.

And we want to live longer, HA!!! Hell, give us 20 more years and we won't be able to wipe our own asses.
This might be the best post the board has seen in many months.
 
Oh well, this is a whole lot of nothing. I'm just disappointed. All these years of all this smart science stuff posted here by this guy, and now this.

We should change the name of this place to Has Been Nation. Bunch of has beens, most of us. I used to raise hell, whoreman used to have whores, and this guy used to post actual scientific stuff that sounded so smart that I just glossed over it and tipped my hat to the Carnegie Mellons or whatever it was.

But now this. I'm old and dead, whoreman is old and teaches English, and this guy fell into global warming like the cabinet maker fell into holding the cans.

And we want to live longer, HA!!! Hell, give us 20 more years and we won't be able to wipe our own asses.
That one goes in the Hall of Fame
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walter Brennaneer
Yeah man...he sure got me. I mean...he posted a link and everything. But more importantly, he has the backing of a real life internet tough talker like yourself.

LOL...the tough talker card.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT