skiskyrock 0 #26 January 30, 2012 Quote It seems AGWing ended in 1997 My bad[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html[/url] Quote Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years In any event It is more data to go over Interestingly the Met Office has a response to the piece cited above: "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997." http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #27 January 30, 2012 Quote Quote It seems AGWing ended in 1997 My bad[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html[/url] Quote Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years In any event It is more data to go over Interestingly the Met Office has a response to the piece cited above: "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997." http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ The Mail caught in a lie? Oh the humanity Will we hear next that the Sun's Page Three girl has implants.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #28 January 30, 2012 Quote***If the sun burns out, I don't think putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere will warm things up much. BSBD, WinsorQuote Fair enough, and a lot like the old joke about what controls airspeed; elevator or throttle. OK, so you don't think CO2 is the issue. If it's not CO2, then what is the issue? Therein lies the rub. When you say "the" issue, all is lost. The heat-transfer characteristics of the planet are complex, and CO2 is a FACTOR. Are there other significant factors? YES! Is the consumption of fossil fuels in heroic proportions a problem? YES! Is CO2 emission the only, or even the most, significant, problem with the consumption of fossil fuels? Not by a long shot! I can not recall the Zen term from the Sanskrit (distarka?), but the rough idea in English is "wrong question"/"would you rephrase the question to become meaningful." BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ShcShc11 0 #29 January 30, 2012 Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #30 January 30, 2012 Quote Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! That fiction movie was a lie at best AGWing is a religion (not science) That is why the debate gets so heated"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #31 January 30, 2012 Quote Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? Please quote where I stated that I was an "expert in the field." If you want to make reference to what I did or did not say, be exact. Quote "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. No fooling? It is also less factually accurate than a decent comic book. Quote There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! Why do you assume that it is my job to do your homework? If you want instruction on the subject, you are free to enroll in a course of study. This presumes that you A) qualify for admission and B) can afford the tuition. Jeers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,078 #32 January 30, 2012 =================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #33 January 30, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Sources please I would guess it is from the church of climate change but I would like to see where these came from if you dont mind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #34 January 30, 2012 Quote What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. Winsor This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #35 January 30, 2012 Quote This whole debate by casual people always seems without substance. You’d be amazed at the depth that some discussions have gone into with this. There are people like billvon and VTMotoMike who are up on things and provide worthy and insightful commentary on the topic that comes from a fairly good knowledge of the subject. Indeed, their commentary caused me to do plenty of studying in my spare time on the subject of climate change, modeling, forcings, etc. I miss you, nerdgirl!!!! But the thing to note is that there are plenty of people who understand the concepts being described. There is a lot of play by many who discuss “deniers” like the Church against Galileo. I prefer to think of it as Einstein versus Newton. Einstein didn’t disprove Newton, since his mechanics work just fine and got us to the moon and back. But we also know that relativity also does not explain the physics of particles very well. Sure, the casual person may have a problem understanding how a climate model is designed to be more accurate the further out it goes. I’m a skeptic, but I understand this well how the design works out on it. On the other hand, I also have thought deeply enough about it to posit, “Show me the validation of the computer model for the year 2080.” Because I also understand that a climate model is a prediction to be tested. Like Einstein, who predicted that a star’s apparent location would be shifted by 1.75 arcseconds due to the sun’s warping, it’s something that he could have modeled the hell out of to prove it correct. But he had to wait until May, 1919 eclipse to get raw data for it and then another six months for the results to be worked out. In the same way we have to wait until 2080 to see whether the computer models are correct. Thus far they aren’t looking too great, but they are supposed to be more accurate as time goes on. Computer models predict climate. Climate prediction is based on thousands of variables. I failed calculus, but I don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out, “How did you determine the forcing effects of land use in western Africa as relates to the surface LR albedo and ground level humidity?” After the Anglia/CRU hack, there were investigations launched. While none of them would say that the science itself with compromised, they all commented on a subculture among climate scientists that was one of exclusion of those who were not in the group and the culture of secrecy that pervades climate science. In effect, they said climate scientists are bringing scrutiny on themselves. One of the investigations concluded that the SOP at Anglia/CRU was one that is ripe for selection bias, and suggested that professional statisticians take a greater role in the processing of data. Notably, many attacks on climate models – forward and backward looking – are coming from statisticians. Climate science is an amalgam of many disciplines. Physics. Chemistry. Statistics. Mathematics. Meteorology. Geology. Oceanography. As such, it is subject to attack from any of these perspectives. But I note that “climate science” is, in the grand scheme, “political science.” Science is an adjunct to politics. It’s why it is so polarizing. As people begin thinking more deeply, there becomes less knee-jerk response and more discussion of the subject matter. Consider the lack of substance brought about when someone argues, “Oh. That guy did a study for Chevron back in 1987. A petrochemical hack!” The substance is lost in favor of ad hominem. Spend some time going through the posts and while there is plenty of incendiary and irrelevant fluff, you’ll find plenty of nuggets to check out and lead to new sources. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #36 January 31, 2012 =================== Climate change denial QuoteClimate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. I think that this is an unfair pigeonhole. I can’t say that I am part of any organized effort. Nor can I identify anybody on here who is part of some organized effort on either side. Rather, it seems that it’s more grass roots. AGW became a political fact. But then there were those who dissented. Who on here is part of any organized effort for climate change denial? Claiming that billvon is part of the “set of organized attempts to build up, elevate or otherwise indoctrinate those to join the consensus on the extent of global warming, its significant, and the need for trillions of dollars to be directed to its proponents” would be similarly accurate. There are plenty of people on both sides who are independent thinkers. I think MOST of them are. QuoteTypically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Such as the ad hominem which is your post. Attack the opponent and their motivations. Group them in so that the debate centers not on the topic but who they are. No scientific debate. The topic is not global warming, but deniers. QuoteClimate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Associated by whom? Oh yes. The other side. QuotePeter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. Of course, such requires looking at the judgment of an individual on an opposing viewpoint as evidence of what it is. [Reply]e went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. Why is it over? Because he says it is. That’s what science is all about – a self-anointed individual saying it’s over and done with. QuoteThere are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Yes. He determines who is credible and who is not. That’s the scientific method. QuoteThe relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.Quote And Obama has been compared to Stalin. Must be true, eh? QuoteAside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Quote Wow! Climate change has a political bent to it. And politics has more than one side? Who knew??? QuoteScientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. Fine. QuoteHowever, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. WAIT!!! WAIT RIGHT THERE! IS HE SAYING THAT THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE IS CAUSING DEBATE??? QuoteNumerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. Funny, these think tanks allege that the climate change alarmists are dipping their hands in the public till and scaremongering to increase funding to them. Both sides must be correct. =================== QuoteGlobal warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations See Part 1 of your post, bill. Quotethat through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Ah! The other side’s allegations through the eyes of, um, the same side that made similar allegations. QuoteProponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Objectively true. Those allegations have been made. QuoteWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Compare with “the 'big' debate over climate change is over,” supra. That 10% is not enough to win an election, but 10% is a big number when it comes to “certainty.” QuoteThese findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. As was the idea that the universe was the size of the Milky Way, till Hubble figured out that a standard candle in another galaxy was billions of miles away. But the universe was still static, until Hubble figured out that the universe is expanding. But there was still the lingering idea of a steady state universe, until the cosmic microwave background radiation was detected. Then it was recognized that, yes, the universe is expanding, but that the expansion was decelerating due to gravity. Until they figured out that the data didn’t show contraction but that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. These paradigm shifts have all come in the last century. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking and see what has been proven wrong over the last thirty years. QuoteDespite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. Yeah. Just because they aren’t doesn’t mean that they are correct. QuoteThere have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." Russel also stated explicitly about his worries of selection bias. And both reports pointed their fingers at the CRU for bringing this on themselves by hiding. Lack of openness breeds this sort of suspicion. Hopefully things will change in the long run. QuoteThe scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. The investigations were not reviewing climate models and the like. There was plenty of ammunition for all sides in the Russell report. But it didn’t seek to run the models, test the science, etc. It merely looked at procedures. Russell wasn’t out looking to affect the consensus or test the science. Nor were the other reports because the reports weren’t peer reviewed science. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #37 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuote What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. Winsor This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. I find it amazing that, with your background, you are as credulous as you would seem. The site to which you referred is about as unbiased regarding "global warming" as vatican.com would be regarding Catholicism. Don't get me wrong, the Vatican has something together in order to wield so much power for so long, but, as in the case of the website, the level of dogma makes it hard to accept the data at face value. I am not saying they are wrong, but that I do not trust anyone with so blatant a conflict of interest. As far as computer models go, I can make a graph sit up and wag its tail. You know GIGO - Garbage In, Gospel Out. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #38 January 31, 2012 QuoteIf you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. Thank goodness the Minoans, Romans and Vikings got rid of their SUV's...who *knows* where we'd be now!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #39 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Sources please?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #40 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial QuoteClimate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. I think that this is an unfair pigeonhole. I can’t say that I am part of any organized effort. Nor can I identify anybody on here who is part of some organized effort on either side. Rather, it seems that it’s more grass roots. AGW became a political fact. But then there were those who dissented. Who on here is part of any organized effort for climate change denial? Claiming that billvon is part of the “set of organized attempts to build up, elevate or otherwise indoctrinate those to join the consensus on the extent of global warming, its significant, and the need for trillions of dollars to be directed to its proponents” would be similarly accurate. There are plenty of people on both sides who are independent thinkers. I think MOST of them are. QuoteTypically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Such as the ad hominem which is your post. Attack the opponent and their motivations. Group them in so that the debate centers not on the topic but who they are. No scientific debate. The topic is not global warming, but deniers. QuoteClimate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Associated by whom? Oh yes. The other side. QuotePeter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. Of course, such requires looking at the judgment of an individual on an opposing viewpoint as evidence of what it is. [Reply]e went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. Why is it over? Because he says it is. That’s what science is all about – a self-anointed individual saying it’s over and done with. QuoteThere are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Yes. He determines who is credible and who is not. That’s the scientific method. QuoteThe relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.Quote And Obama has been compared to Stalin. Must be true, eh? QuoteAside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Quote Wow! Climate change has a political bent to it. And politics has more than one side? Who knew??? QuoteScientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. Fine. QuoteHowever, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. WAIT!!! WAIT RIGHT THERE! IS HE SAYING THAT THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE IS CAUSING DEBATE??? QuoteNumerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. Funny, these think tanks allege that the climate change alarmists are dipping their hands in the public till and scaremongering to increase funding to them. Both sides must be correct. =================== QuoteGlobal warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations See Part 1 of your post, bill. Quotethat through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Ah! The other side’s allegations through the eyes of, um, the same side that made similar allegations. QuoteProponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Objectively true. Those allegations have been made. QuoteWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Compare with “the 'big' debate over climate change is over,” supra. That 10% is not enough to win an election, but 10% is a big number when it comes to “certainty.” QuoteThese findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. As was the idea that the universe was the size of the Milky Way, till Hubble figured out that a standard candle in another galaxy was billions of miles away. But the universe was still static, until Hubble figured out that the universe is expanding. But there was still the lingering idea of a steady state universe, until the cosmic microwave background radiation was detected. Then it was recognized that, yes, the universe is expanding, but that the expansion was decelerating due to gravity. Until they figured out that the data didn’t show contraction but that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. These paradigm shifts have all come in the last century. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking and see what has been proven wrong over the last thirty years. QuoteDespite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. Yeah. Just because they aren’t doesn’t mean that they are correct. QuoteThere have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." Russel also stated explicitly about his worries of selection bias. And both reports pointed their fingers at the CRU for bringing this on themselves by hiding. Lack of openness breeds this sort of suspicion. Hopefully things will change in the long run. QuoteThe scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. The investigations were not reviewing climate models and the like. There was plenty of ammunition for all sides in the Russell report. But it didn’t seek to run the models, test the science, etc. It merely looked at procedures. Russell wasn’t out looking to affect the consensus or test the science. Nor were the other reports because the reports weren’t peer reviewed science. I gotta wonder why he does not provide his sources?? Afraid?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 January 31, 2012 It's from wikiMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #42 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,545 #43 January 31, 2012 References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #44 January 31, 2012 Quote References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. So, why does he refuse to post his sources and, he gets a pass from many here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 January 31, 2012 It can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source. I tried that It is not real clean Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #47 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #48 January 31, 2012 QuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #49 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. You may want to go back and read the op"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #50 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. I think he will be asking for his money back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
ShcShc11 0 #29 January 30, 2012 Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 January 30, 2012 Quote Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! That fiction movie was a lie at best AGWing is a religion (not science) That is why the debate gets so heated"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #31 January 30, 2012 Quote Quote "What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Quote Else your post feels like ... Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? Please quote where I stated that I was an "expert in the field." If you want to make reference to what I did or did not say, be exact. Quote "Inconvenient Truth" was made for the public mass. Its the same league as giving a first year student Macroeconomics 101. It's supposed to cover the generalities rather than the specifics. No fooling? It is also less factually accurate than a decent comic book. Quote There are far more sophisitcated and well-researched literatures on this issue and you seem very unwilling to back your accusations with real evidence, real numbers and real research. Cheers! Why do you assume that it is my job to do your homework? If you want instruction on the subject, you are free to enroll in a course of study. This presumes that you A) qualify for admission and B) can afford the tuition. Jeers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #32 January 30, 2012 =================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 January 30, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Sources please I would guess it is from the church of climate change but I would like to see where these came from if you dont mind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #34 January 30, 2012 Quote What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. Winsor This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 January 30, 2012 Quote This whole debate by casual people always seems without substance. You’d be amazed at the depth that some discussions have gone into with this. There are people like billvon and VTMotoMike who are up on things and provide worthy and insightful commentary on the topic that comes from a fairly good knowledge of the subject. Indeed, their commentary caused me to do plenty of studying in my spare time on the subject of climate change, modeling, forcings, etc. I miss you, nerdgirl!!!! But the thing to note is that there are plenty of people who understand the concepts being described. There is a lot of play by many who discuss “deniers” like the Church against Galileo. I prefer to think of it as Einstein versus Newton. Einstein didn’t disprove Newton, since his mechanics work just fine and got us to the moon and back. But we also know that relativity also does not explain the physics of particles very well. Sure, the casual person may have a problem understanding how a climate model is designed to be more accurate the further out it goes. I’m a skeptic, but I understand this well how the design works out on it. On the other hand, I also have thought deeply enough about it to posit, “Show me the validation of the computer model for the year 2080.” Because I also understand that a climate model is a prediction to be tested. Like Einstein, who predicted that a star’s apparent location would be shifted by 1.75 arcseconds due to the sun’s warping, it’s something that he could have modeled the hell out of to prove it correct. But he had to wait until May, 1919 eclipse to get raw data for it and then another six months for the results to be worked out. In the same way we have to wait until 2080 to see whether the computer models are correct. Thus far they aren’t looking too great, but they are supposed to be more accurate as time goes on. Computer models predict climate. Climate prediction is based on thousands of variables. I failed calculus, but I don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out, “How did you determine the forcing effects of land use in western Africa as relates to the surface LR albedo and ground level humidity?” After the Anglia/CRU hack, there were investigations launched. While none of them would say that the science itself with compromised, they all commented on a subculture among climate scientists that was one of exclusion of those who were not in the group and the culture of secrecy that pervades climate science. In effect, they said climate scientists are bringing scrutiny on themselves. One of the investigations concluded that the SOP at Anglia/CRU was one that is ripe for selection bias, and suggested that professional statisticians take a greater role in the processing of data. Notably, many attacks on climate models – forward and backward looking – are coming from statisticians. Climate science is an amalgam of many disciplines. Physics. Chemistry. Statistics. Mathematics. Meteorology. Geology. Oceanography. As such, it is subject to attack from any of these perspectives. But I note that “climate science” is, in the grand scheme, “political science.” Science is an adjunct to politics. It’s why it is so polarizing. As people begin thinking more deeply, there becomes less knee-jerk response and more discussion of the subject matter. Consider the lack of substance brought about when someone argues, “Oh. That guy did a study for Chevron back in 1987. A petrochemical hack!” The substance is lost in favor of ad hominem. Spend some time going through the posts and while there is plenty of incendiary and irrelevant fluff, you’ll find plenty of nuggets to check out and lead to new sources. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 January 31, 2012 =================== Climate change denial QuoteClimate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. I think that this is an unfair pigeonhole. I can’t say that I am part of any organized effort. Nor can I identify anybody on here who is part of some organized effort on either side. Rather, it seems that it’s more grass roots. AGW became a political fact. But then there were those who dissented. Who on here is part of any organized effort for climate change denial? Claiming that billvon is part of the “set of organized attempts to build up, elevate or otherwise indoctrinate those to join the consensus on the extent of global warming, its significant, and the need for trillions of dollars to be directed to its proponents” would be similarly accurate. There are plenty of people on both sides who are independent thinkers. I think MOST of them are. QuoteTypically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Such as the ad hominem which is your post. Attack the opponent and their motivations. Group them in so that the debate centers not on the topic but who they are. No scientific debate. The topic is not global warming, but deniers. QuoteClimate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Associated by whom? Oh yes. The other side. QuotePeter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. Of course, such requires looking at the judgment of an individual on an opposing viewpoint as evidence of what it is. [Reply]e went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. Why is it over? Because he says it is. That’s what science is all about – a self-anointed individual saying it’s over and done with. QuoteThere are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Yes. He determines who is credible and who is not. That’s the scientific method. QuoteThe relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.Quote And Obama has been compared to Stalin. Must be true, eh? QuoteAside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Quote Wow! Climate change has a political bent to it. And politics has more than one side? Who knew??? QuoteScientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. Fine. QuoteHowever, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. WAIT!!! WAIT RIGHT THERE! IS HE SAYING THAT THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE IS CAUSING DEBATE??? QuoteNumerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. Funny, these think tanks allege that the climate change alarmists are dipping their hands in the public till and scaremongering to increase funding to them. Both sides must be correct. =================== QuoteGlobal warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations See Part 1 of your post, bill. Quotethat through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Ah! The other side’s allegations through the eyes of, um, the same side that made similar allegations. QuoteProponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Objectively true. Those allegations have been made. QuoteWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Compare with “the 'big' debate over climate change is over,” supra. That 10% is not enough to win an election, but 10% is a big number when it comes to “certainty.” QuoteThese findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. As was the idea that the universe was the size of the Milky Way, till Hubble figured out that a standard candle in another galaxy was billions of miles away. But the universe was still static, until Hubble figured out that the universe is expanding. But there was still the lingering idea of a steady state universe, until the cosmic microwave background radiation was detected. Then it was recognized that, yes, the universe is expanding, but that the expansion was decelerating due to gravity. Until they figured out that the data didn’t show contraction but that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. These paradigm shifts have all come in the last century. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking and see what has been proven wrong over the last thirty years. QuoteDespite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. Yeah. Just because they aren’t doesn’t mean that they are correct. QuoteThere have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." Russel also stated explicitly about his worries of selection bias. And both reports pointed their fingers at the CRU for bringing this on themselves by hiding. Lack of openness breeds this sort of suspicion. Hopefully things will change in the long run. QuoteThe scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. The investigations were not reviewing climate models and the like. There was plenty of ammunition for all sides in the Russell report. But it didn’t seek to run the models, test the science, etc. It merely looked at procedures. Russell wasn’t out looking to affect the consensus or test the science. Nor were the other reports because the reports weren’t peer reviewed science. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #37 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuote What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. Winsor This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. I find it amazing that, with your background, you are as credulous as you would seem. The site to which you referred is about as unbiased regarding "global warming" as vatican.com would be regarding Catholicism. Don't get me wrong, the Vatican has something together in order to wield so much power for so long, but, as in the case of the website, the level of dogma makes it hard to accept the data at face value. I am not saying they are wrong, but that I do not trust anyone with so blatant a conflict of interest. As far as computer models go, I can make a graph sit up and wag its tail. You know GIGO - Garbage In, Gospel Out. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #38 January 31, 2012 QuoteIf you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. Thank goodness the Minoans, Romans and Vikings got rid of their SUV's...who *knows* where we'd be now!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #39 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Sources please?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #40 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial QuoteClimate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. I think that this is an unfair pigeonhole. I can’t say that I am part of any organized effort. Nor can I identify anybody on here who is part of some organized effort on either side. Rather, it seems that it’s more grass roots. AGW became a political fact. But then there were those who dissented. Who on here is part of any organized effort for climate change denial? Claiming that billvon is part of the “set of organized attempts to build up, elevate or otherwise indoctrinate those to join the consensus on the extent of global warming, its significant, and the need for trillions of dollars to be directed to its proponents” would be similarly accurate. There are plenty of people on both sides who are independent thinkers. I think MOST of them are. QuoteTypically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Such as the ad hominem which is your post. Attack the opponent and their motivations. Group them in so that the debate centers not on the topic but who they are. No scientific debate. The topic is not global warming, but deniers. QuoteClimate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Associated by whom? Oh yes. The other side. QuotePeter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. Of course, such requires looking at the judgment of an individual on an opposing viewpoint as evidence of what it is. [Reply]e went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. Why is it over? Because he says it is. That’s what science is all about – a self-anointed individual saying it’s over and done with. QuoteThere are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Yes. He determines who is credible and who is not. That’s the scientific method. QuoteThe relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.Quote And Obama has been compared to Stalin. Must be true, eh? QuoteAside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Quote Wow! Climate change has a political bent to it. And politics has more than one side? Who knew??? QuoteScientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. Fine. QuoteHowever, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. WAIT!!! WAIT RIGHT THERE! IS HE SAYING THAT THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE IS CAUSING DEBATE??? QuoteNumerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. Funny, these think tanks allege that the climate change alarmists are dipping their hands in the public till and scaremongering to increase funding to them. Both sides must be correct. =================== QuoteGlobal warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations See Part 1 of your post, bill. Quotethat through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Ah! The other side’s allegations through the eyes of, um, the same side that made similar allegations. QuoteProponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Objectively true. Those allegations have been made. QuoteWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Compare with “the 'big' debate over climate change is over,” supra. That 10% is not enough to win an election, but 10% is a big number when it comes to “certainty.” QuoteThese findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. As was the idea that the universe was the size of the Milky Way, till Hubble figured out that a standard candle in another galaxy was billions of miles away. But the universe was still static, until Hubble figured out that the universe is expanding. But there was still the lingering idea of a steady state universe, until the cosmic microwave background radiation was detected. Then it was recognized that, yes, the universe is expanding, but that the expansion was decelerating due to gravity. Until they figured out that the data didn’t show contraction but that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. These paradigm shifts have all come in the last century. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking and see what has been proven wrong over the last thirty years. QuoteDespite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. Yeah. Just because they aren’t doesn’t mean that they are correct. QuoteThere have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." Russel also stated explicitly about his worries of selection bias. And both reports pointed their fingers at the CRU for bringing this on themselves by hiding. Lack of openness breeds this sort of suspicion. Hopefully things will change in the long run. QuoteThe scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. The investigations were not reviewing climate models and the like. There was plenty of ammunition for all sides in the Russell report. But it didn’t seek to run the models, test the science, etc. It merely looked at procedures. Russell wasn’t out looking to affect the consensus or test the science. Nor were the other reports because the reports weren’t peer reviewed science. I gotta wonder why he does not provide his sources?? Afraid?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 January 31, 2012 It's from wikiMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #42 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,545 #43 January 31, 2012 References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #44 January 31, 2012 Quote References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. So, why does he refuse to post his sources and, he gets a pass from many here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 January 31, 2012 It can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source. I tried that It is not real clean Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #47 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #48 January 31, 2012 QuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #49 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. You may want to go back and read the op"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #50 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. I think he will be asking for his money back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
winsor 236 #37 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuote What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. Winsor This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. I find it amazing that, with your background, you are as credulous as you would seem. The site to which you referred is about as unbiased regarding "global warming" as vatican.com would be regarding Catholicism. Don't get me wrong, the Vatican has something together in order to wield so much power for so long, but, as in the case of the website, the level of dogma makes it hard to accept the data at face value. I am not saying they are wrong, but that I do not trust anyone with so blatant a conflict of interest. As far as computer models go, I can make a graph sit up and wag its tail. You know GIGO - Garbage In, Gospel Out. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 31, 2012 QuoteIf you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. Thank goodness the Minoans, Romans and Vikings got rid of their SUV's...who *knows* where we'd be now!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. =================== Global warming conspiracy theory Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations that through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Despite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. There have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. =================== Sources please?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 January 31, 2012 Quote=================== Climate change denial QuoteClimate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. I think that this is an unfair pigeonhole. I can’t say that I am part of any organized effort. Nor can I identify anybody on here who is part of some organized effort on either side. Rather, it seems that it’s more grass roots. AGW became a political fact. But then there were those who dissented. Who on here is part of any organized effort for climate change denial? Claiming that billvon is part of the “set of organized attempts to build up, elevate or otherwise indoctrinate those to join the consensus on the extent of global warming, its significant, and the need for trillions of dollars to be directed to its proponents” would be similarly accurate. There are plenty of people on both sides who are independent thinkers. I think MOST of them are. QuoteTypically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Such as the ad hominem which is your post. Attack the opponent and their motivations. Group them in so that the debate centers not on the topic but who they are. No scientific debate. The topic is not global warming, but deniers. QuoteClimate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. Associated by whom? Oh yes. The other side. QuotePeter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. Of course, such requires looking at the judgment of an individual on an opposing viewpoint as evidence of what it is. [Reply]e went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. Why is it over? Because he says it is. That’s what science is all about – a self-anointed individual saying it’s over and done with. QuoteThere are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Yes. He determines who is credible and who is not. That’s the scientific method. QuoteThe relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.Quote And Obama has been compared to Stalin. Must be true, eh? QuoteAside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials. Quote Wow! Climate change has a political bent to it. And politics has more than one side? Who knew??? QuoteScientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. Fine. QuoteHowever, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. WAIT!!! WAIT RIGHT THERE! IS HE SAYING THAT THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE IS CAUSING DEBATE??? QuoteNumerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. Funny, these think tanks allege that the climate change alarmists are dipping their hands in the public till and scaremongering to increase funding to them. Both sides must be correct. =================== QuoteGlobal warming conspiracy theory is a collection of unproven allegations See Part 1 of your post, bill. Quotethat through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Ah! The other side’s allegations through the eyes of, um, the same side that made similar allegations. QuoteProponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax", or "global warming fraud". Objectively true. Those allegations have been made. QuoteWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Compare with “the 'big' debate over climate change is over,” supra. That 10% is not enough to win an election, but 10% is a big number when it comes to “certainty.” QuoteThese findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. As was the idea that the universe was the size of the Milky Way, till Hubble figured out that a standard candle in another galaxy was billions of miles away. But the universe was still static, until Hubble figured out that the universe is expanding. But there was still the lingering idea of a steady state universe, until the cosmic microwave background radiation was detected. Then it was recognized that, yes, the universe is expanding, but that the expansion was decelerating due to gravity. Until they figured out that the data didn’t show contraction but that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. These paradigm shifts have all come in the last century. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking and see what has been proven wrong over the last thirty years. QuoteDespite the broad international scientific consensus, allegations have been made that these researchers and institutions are part of a global scientific conspiracy. Yeah. Just because they aren’t doesn’t mean that they are correct. QuoteThere have been investigations into some alleged malpractice, most notably the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." Russel also stated explicitly about his worries of selection bias. And both reports pointed their fingers at the CRU for bringing this on themselves by hiding. Lack of openness breeds this sort of suspicion. Hopefully things will change in the long run. QuoteThe scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations. The investigations were not reviewing climate models and the like. There was plenty of ammunition for all sides in the Russell report. But it didn’t seek to run the models, test the science, etc. It merely looked at procedures. Russell wasn’t out looking to affect the consensus or test the science. Nor were the other reports because the reports weren’t peer reviewed science. I gotta wonder why he does not provide his sources?? Afraid?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 January 31, 2012 It's from wikiMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #42 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,545 #43 January 31, 2012 References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #44 January 31, 2012 Quote References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. So, why does he refuse to post his sources and, he gets a pass from many here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 January 31, 2012 It can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source. I tried that It is not real clean Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #47 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #48 January 31, 2012 QuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #49 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. You may want to go back and read the op"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #50 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. I think he will be asking for his money back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #41 January 31, 2012 It's from wikiMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #42 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #43 January 31, 2012 References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 January 31, 2012 Quote References on which it's based are identified in the article, and the actual sources listed at the end of the article. You can also go through the history to find out which actual person wrote the text. The article itself is locked due to (I'm assuming) vandalism or too much churn; that means that changes have to be submitted and reviewed by Wikipedia regulars. These are people whose contributions are generally considered to be positive who make sure that entries aren't vandalistic (like the time I found a reference to Czechoslovakia lobbing missiles at the Brazilian space program ). It's no more a conspiracy than any other encyclopedia or reference work -- after all, those, too, have review boards etc, whose members are selected based on contributions in the area. Wendy P. So, why does he refuse to post his sources and, he gets a pass from many here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 January 31, 2012 It can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 January 31, 2012 QuoteIt can be aggravating, but that's just bill. Select the first few sentences and do a google search and you'll usually find the source. I tried that It is not real clean Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #47 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 January 31, 2012 QuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 January 31, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's from wiki Somebody wrote it I wonder who? You have issues with wiki but post crap from the Mail as if it's from the gospels. You may want to go back and read the op"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 January 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo, why does he refuse to post his sources To mess with your mind. Quoteand, he gets a pass from many here? Oh, I'd be all over it, but he pays me $50/month to keep my yap shut. I think he will be asking for his money back"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
