Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

a reply to: M5xaz

Obama lies on a regular basis

Really? Name once. Remember that making a campaign promise that Congress won't let him keep is not a lie, it is, at most, just a broken promise.

You are so enamored with "dear leader" that you are divorced from reality.

The only thing I am divorced from is my first wife. She certainly didn't much of a firm grasp on reality herself, so that would be a fail for you. Sorry.

Temperatures have been flat for 18 years (check RSS).

Wrong again. 18 years? Why does that number sound familiar? Oh yeah. You mean 1997, the 'perfect storm' of heat waves and El Ninos. Everything coming together to create a record high temperature setting that hasn't been topped yet. That, my friend is called 'cherry picking' and is wrong anyway.

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

What's Really Warming the World

1997 was an outlier. If you take 1997 out of the dataset there is no noticable 'pause'. The rate of increase may be less but it is still trending hotter. Not year on year, there are natural ups and down. 2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record, that would make the three hottest years since records began in 1880 in the last 5 years and 10 of the hottest years on record since 2000.

That is NOT 'flat for 18 years'. That is continuing to trend upwards.

Calling for opponent to be jailed seals it - only political scientists call for this, not scientists

OK, look, the authors of this letter are just trying to suggest that the same legal processes that were used against the tobacco companies for using the same kind of society destroying tactics could be used. They are not lawyers, they are scientists. Scientists have opinions too, and their opinions are just as protected by the first amendment as your opinions are about AGW. Just as you have the right to spout nonsense about scientific topics you know absolutely nothing about, so do they have the right to spout nonsense about legal topics they know nothing about.

They only difference is that they actually have a reasonable point, and you don't.

This, like everything else Obama (or Gore) is a political/money issue.

How do you justify attacking President Obama or Ex-Next President Gore for something a group of scientists wrote in order to make a sarcastic point?

Period

Full stop.

a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: neo96

If some groups with mass amounts of money organized to lie to everyone claiming that toxic waste in their drinking water was healthy for them should they not be investigated???[/post]

They should. Let's start with water fluoridation.

What's wrong with looking into the deceptive practices that could possibly cause great harm to people??

Not a thing. Let's look at Big Pharma's tendency to bury studies showing negative effects while giving FDA only the beneficial ones.

a reply to: riiver

Not a thing. Let's look at Big Pharma's tendency to bury studies showing negative effects while giving FDA only the beneficial ones.

Yeah. Lets.

America's Most Admired Lawbreaker

Though what it has to do with a publicity stunt by Climate Scientists is beyond me.

a reply to: rnaa
It was in reply to the question of "If Big Whatever is knowingly falsifying data, and in doing so causing great harm to a great many people, don't you want to see them investigated?" (Not the actual wording of the question, but the gist of it.) And my answer was yes. I do. And let's start out with some of those who've been doing it for decades, who are causing great harm--immediate, ongoing, bodily harm--that affects a great many people intimately each and every day.

originally posted by: riiver

They should. Let's start with water fluoridation.

Not a thing. Let's look at Big Pharma's tendency to bury studies showing negative effects while giving FDA only the beneficial ones.

I'm good with both of those actually. I hope you have a good set of lawyers because we'll need them. Probably a good PR firm too. Some extra cash would help as well.

a reply to: rnaa

About that campaign promise...he mad e it first time around as well and he had both houses...and if you cant get somethiing with both houses done you are a stupid president.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: yuppa

HAve answered those questions on other threads i am not going to do it again. AGW is Bullcrap. natural warming is true though. And besides the chinese and the rest of the world will not change so our small percentage (if ti was true) would not make any difference.

China and the rest of the world (except Australia - and there might be an inkling of hope for them too) ARE changing.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Pot..... Kettle called he said youre black.
According to data available now they are not. China,india,and other non caucasian looking nations who are developing are increasing the usage. Australia isnt a 3rd world country,or communist. I can see the falsified data why cant you?
The models are incorrect,and just going off of satellite data alone and relying on predicting weather patterns is stupid.
A good example of models that they use is the Average "weatherman" on TV. How often are they wrong? over half the time most of the time. Wow so Science knows it all huh? This is about money not science,and those people in th e governments pockets who are apparently above reproach to the relgion of SCIENCE! 97 percent of a small group is not all scientist btw. SMells liek a fake number too.

a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

On the contrary, I have asked you to speak your mind twice. I can only assume you are now exercising your right not to incriminate yourself. You have that right, but your silence testifies against you.

a reply to: neo96

Ooops sorry ... double post, but still relevant:

a reply to: neo96

"For the record ?

Science is NEVER settled. It is always subject to change. "
----------------

When science is settled, it is no longer science -- it becomes religion!

Saying science is ever settled with any topic becomes a constraint to figuring things out better!

With science, you can always look between any two points you might consider, and find another point there ... ad infinitum!

If you tell someone "the science is settled", you are in essence telling them to shut up and to just stop looking at the world anymore....

Nothing to see here folks ... move along hah!

I think this is hogwash. Science is never settled.

Are we all going to be criminals for being non-believers of one or another so-called settled topic in science, just like people back in the dark ages?

a reply to: yuppa

Pot..... Kettle called he said youre black.
According to data available now they are not. China,india,and other non caucasian looking nations who are developing are increasing the usage. Australia isnt a 3rd world country,or communist.

China Climate Response: Overall, China's response is rated as MEDIUM (the same as the US).

China is implementing significant policies to address climate change, most recently aiming to restrict coal consumption. The CAT assesses that under a scenario with currently implemented policies, Chinese CO2 emissions are likely to peak around 2025, or shortly after, partly due to important restrictions on coal consumption in the period from now until 2020, as well as other polices.
...
Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 plans. The announcement that China will peak its CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions in the period after 2030, as most projections foresee increasing emissions for decades after that. As the target consists of changes in the energy mix, additional energy efficiency measures reducing the absolute energy use could decrease emissions even further.

China Climate Response: Overall India's response is rated 'MEDIUM' (same as the USA and China)

India has pledged to reduce its GDP emissions intensity by 20–25% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels. We estimate this target to be in line with currently implemented policies. Under the assumption of a 6.4% annual GDP growth, we rate this pledge ”medium”.
...
On the federal level, India has implemented two major renewable energy-related policies. The 'Strategic Plan for New and Renewable Energy' provides a broader framework. The 'National Solar Mission', launched in 2010, contains capacity targets for solar energy. The original targets of the mission were 10 GW by 2017 and 20 GW by 2022 (MNRE, 2010). Cumulative installed solar power capacity in India reached 3 GW by the end of 2014 (MNRE, 2014a). In November 2014, the government announced plans to increase its solar capacity to 100 GW installed capacity by 2022. India confirmed this scaling-up of the national solar mission during the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP-20) in Lima, December 2014 (UNFCCC, 2014). By the end of 2014 the Government of India had approved plans for 25 Solar Parks and Ultra Mega Solar Power Projects, with a combined capacity of over 20 GW, to be developed in the coming five years (MNRE, 2014b).

In the first half of 2015, targets for other renewable energy sources where increased as well. India currently targets a cumulative installed capacity of 175 GW by 2022. This target consists of 100 GW solar, 60 GW wind 10 GW biomass and 5 GW small scale hydro (MNRE, 2015).

I can see the falsified data why cant you?

I don't know. Perhaps you are hallucinating, because since you are obviously a trained scientist, with a specialty in climate science and access to all that data, and still can't see beyond the ideological blinders that the anti-science propaganda has drummed into you, there aren't too many more explanations.

I don't mean that as an insult in any way, but you asked. How else do you explain it when people see things that are not there? Of course you are free to form an (informed!) opinion about what that data means, but facts are facts. That leaves hallucination as the only explanation I can come up with.

The models are incorrect,and just going off of satellite data alone and relying on predicting weather patterns is stupid.

A good example of models that they use is the Average "weatherman" on TV. How often are they wrong? over half the time most of the time.

Oh, well that just destroyed you credibility as a climate scientist then. When was the last time someone explained the difference between climate and weather to you? Were you paying attention? And Climate models are completely different from weather models. They use different inputs, and are designed for different outputs. Equating the two is like equating a car with a book on the history of automotive engineering.

Wow so Science knows it all huh?

Of course not. When that happens (which means never, of course) it ceases to be science and becomes scripture.

This is about money not science, and those people in the governments pockets

You are 100% right on that one, I always knew we could find something to agree on. And those people are the Koch Brothers and the other fossil fuel barrons that want to maximize the $$$ they extract from the Government: $5.8 trillion dollars in subsidies a year, every year. They don't want any body getting between them and that pile of money.

who are apparently above reproach to the relgion of SCIENCE! 97 percent of a small group is not all scientist btw. SMells liek a fake number too.

This last part makes no sense. 97 percent of all scientists is of course not all scientists - 3% of all scientists are not included in that 97% of all scientists. This is hardly an earth shattering argument - it is 4th grade arithmetic.

Source

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.
...
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

Now there is 100% for you.

This is where the 97% figure comes from (quoting from the same article as above):

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

For more info: The Consensus Project

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

With science, you can always look between any two points you might consider, and find another point there ... ad infinitum!

So, you never heard of quantum physics then?

If you tell someone "the science is settled", you are in essence telling them to shut up and to just stop looking at the world anymore....

Sorry that is incorrect. When you say "the science is settled" you are saying that scientists have have reached a consensus about something and stopped arguing about it and are citing each other on the subject in their papers. Please see the discussion of 'consensus' in my previous post.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: rnaa

About that campaign promise...he mad e it first time around as well and he had both houses...and if you cant get somethiing with both houses done you are a stupid president.

And if you can't recognize that a political party contains a wider variety of views and many axes to grind, you are a stupid political analyst. The USA does not have a Westminster system where the Party leadership can dictate the vote of its members.

Way to insult a member there buddy. Ill report it later after this. I wasnt talking about you so why take offense to me saying Obama i s stupid? Obama got health care passed right? surely that was harder than climate scienc legislation right?
Political analylist on both sides were baffled at his in ability to get anything else passed when the dems had the majoritys.

ANd Im not even gonna gratify your second post with a response. Except this. Im right and thi s is about money. Settling science is what you do when you are to lazy or afraid to continue on because to do so would screw up your findings. Its liek when steven hawkings black hole theory was considered settled,and we all know how that ended up.

a reply to: rnaa

I agree that quantum physics is strange. I have heard of that ... and cannot claim to understand it very well personally. I have tried! But true what you infer -- there are points in quantum physics without anything between them. Ouch! But you can still imagine a point between them

About the consensus, that is also true. But consensus still isn't quite settled ... it is more like a 'pause' until some new discovery could potentially turn the consensus upside down.

I was not trying to argue vs your posts per se. Respect.

But I don't like any trend such as the OP has mentioned here to sanction someone for choosing not to go along with 'settled science'.

You still cannot know if the science is really settled, unless someone somewhere continues to have a skeptical view, even if they are continually disproven. Skeptics are good for the world. Skeptics are great for science.

Criminalizing skeptics seems like a bad trend to me.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

On the contrary, I have asked you to speak your mind twice. I can only assume you are now exercising your right not to incriminate yourself. You have that right, but your silence testifies against you.

In what way have I not spoken ?
In what way am I incriminating myself, exactly ?

You, however, are the EXACT opposite of your motto

Good luck

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

a reply to: rnaa

No, RSS data is not "cherry picked"

www.drroyspencer.com...

It is quite consistent

Look up figure 6 in particular

The biggest problem is that RSS data cannot be "adjusted" as ground data is.

Jail Dr Spencer, right ?

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: rnaa

No, RSS data is not "cherry picked"

www.drroyspencer.com...

It is quite consistent

Look up figure 6 in particular

The biggest problem is that RSS data cannot be "adjusted" as ground data is.

Jail Dr Spencer, right ?

LMGTFY:

www.forbes.com...

This commentary does a great job of explaining what is meant by "cherry-picking" in this context.