Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Yeah that sounds just like you and your allies with the ‘science has long been clear’ statement.

YOUR translation says nor proves nothing yet you think it does. Pull the wool over someone else’s eyes as mine are wide open.

You carry on believing the bankers, politicians and the industrialists with a political agenda to bend the science in order to tax us to death due to natural climate change, doing their dirty work for them in promoting their policy and debunking the FACT that the science on all of it is still OPEN. I hope you and Libby have the guts to tell your friends and family when we’re all broke that you were in on it all and complicit in every way. You are only a propagandist for the failing AGW movement that’s all, and a very dismissive and bigoted one at that. Move to Chile or Argentina where fascism thrives, you’d like it.

Why the urgency to deprive the developing nations of sources of energy on which the industrial revolution was founded?

What could be the real reason that the Western developed nations do not want the developing nations to use their abundant coal and gas?

Is it because they have a lot of it meaning cheap and cheerful energy costs?
Is it because due to wages they have low costs in getting it out of the ground?
Is it because they could reroute and export a lot of this surplus energy in gas pipelines or refined fuel or electricity?
Is it because they, in doing so would be able to produce energy at low cost thus revealing the huge profits that the major players in the West make from it?
Tell me why the US has prevented Iran from having an oil refinery even though they are one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of the stuff? Why do they have to export crude oil and then have it returned to them as fuel when it would make logical sense just to build a refinery?
Can you answer any of these questions Mel?

Originally posted by Mez353
Yeah that sounds just like you and your allies with the ‘science has long been clear’ statement.

YOUR translation says nor proves nothing yet you think it does. Pull the wool over someone else’s eyes as mine are wide open.

Yes, it does.

It shows that the scientific discussion is sufficiently clear to act, and that is Edenhofer's position and has long been the case. Any action is necessarily a political issue with economic concerns.

It can't be any other way. Your problem is that you start with some pathetic idea of a political conspiracy and work from that. It's very much like creationist reasoning. Backwards.

The fact that political agreements have so far been so hard to attain shows the notion of some worldwide political conspiracy to be laughable. Even the 'agreement' they came to at Cancun is pathetic. Little more than lip-service. The developed nations understand the economic implications of action - hence why most have been delaying any real action for over a decade now.

You see, the denialatii have long lost the scientific argument. All that remains for them is PR FUD. Now, I'll give them due, they are good at it. Their method has long been honed since the tobacco wars. But don't be so deluded to think there is any real scientific discussion over humans being an important current influence on climate - there isn't.

Jeez, I'd be happy enough if the developed nations just said: "yeah, we see the science and its implications, but economically we just can't afford to do anything". At least we'd have a clear political position instead of the current games.

Originally posted by Mez353
Why the urgency to deprive the developing nations of sources of energy on which the industrial revolution was founded?

Because of the consequences of continuing rapid increases in carbon emissions? And it's not a case of depriving them. Indeed, if you read what Edenhofer is saying, he states that if we set a firm limit on future carbon emissions (say a few hundred Gt), then if we share that equally amongst all nations, we are in effect redistributing wealth. The consequences of this are essentially obvious - an african would have the same allocation of carbon as a Brit. Considering you understand that (cheap) energy is highly related to industrialisation, the effects are obvious.

You might have wanted to ask why the deniers were so keen to scuttle the Kyoto agreement, which allowed the developing nations to increase their carbon use in the short-term allowing them to advance. Their whining was about how countries like India and China were allowed to continue using fossil fuels and that they should be restricted as well.

I understand that there are real issues in suggesting that we, as developed nations, are entitled to excessively use and emit carbon, while telling developing nations to not do so. It's hypocritical.

Indeed, this is half the political discussion at the moment. How do we reduce not only climate impacts on developing nations, but also the economic impacts?

These are interesting issues. Moreso than the BS science denial from people like yourself.

reply to post by melatonin


Worth repeating:

Jeez, I'd be happy enough if the developed nations just said: "yeah, we see the science and its implications, but economically we just can't afford to do anything". At least we'd have a clear political position instead of the current games.

...and that's the real problem isn't it - we're booked into an economic system and nobody thinks we can afford a transition. At least not without political extinction.

Jeez, I'd be happy enough if the developed nations just said: "yeah, we see the science and its implications, but economically we just can't afford to do anything". At least we'd have a clear political position instead of the current games.

Well I nearly choked, something you said that I agree with.

So open discussion and commitment to what you believe in is pathetic is it?

You are some man for one man Mel, I’ll give you that.

Italy is also fascist but too close, go to Argentina.

Originally posted by Mez353

Jeez, I'd be happy enough if the developed nations just said: "yeah, we see the science and its implications, but economically we just can't afford to do anything". At least we'd have a clear political position instead of the current games.

Well I nearly choked, something you said that I agree with.

So open discussion and commitment to what you believe in is pathetic is it?

I don't think you understand where I come from - I'm quite able to separate the science and the politics/economics. The science only implies certain outcomes. What we do with that information is a different issue. It's much like the smoking issue - I smoke, I also know the science shows it's a health risk - but I don't deny the science in a pathetic effort to bolster my ability to smoke. I am well informed about the science and accept the risks.

Of course, I'd suggest we'd be silly to ignore the science and that some sort of action is required. And I think the deniers know the same - hence why they attack the science, but their ideological petticoat is often clear enough to see. Because once the science is accepted, the urge to act is pretty clear. The aim is to cloud the science and reduce the ability of people to be informed clearly by the science. This is exactly what the tobacco. companies did - people were refused the ability to make clear informed choices about their health and slain on the alter of the corporate $.

But the science and politics are actually two distinct issues.

One might want to say that science can sometimes be influenced by politics blah blah. Yeah, sometimes. A quick perusal showing the association of most denier/contrarian 'experts' (like Lindzen, Spencer, Ball, Michaels etc) with right-wing industry-funded libertarian think-tanks does support the position that sometimes this is an issue.

I do understand. I understand that every sweeping statement you make is unilateral and one sided, for instance your last sentence takes a dig at ‘denier ‘experts’’ but does not attempt to admit that the pro AGW are in any way politically driven or associated. And I was just starting to appreciate your rational sense.

Originally posted by Mez353
I do understand. I understand that every sweeping statement you make is unilateral and one sided, for instance your last sentence takes a dig at ‘denier ‘experts’’ but does not attempt to admit that the pro AGW are in any way politically driven or associated. And I was just starting to appreciate your rational sense.

If they so clearly and explicitly were as a group, then I'd admit it.

Instead of just claiming that the pro-AGW scientists are politically-driven, show it to be so. Show that across the world this is the case - the hundreds of scientists working in this domain are part of some massive political conspiracy to fleece the plebs. Show it to be so throughout the 150 year history of the science that underpins the current knowledge.

The contrarian 'experts' are well-known to be associated with such organisations. Indeed, Spencer was out in Cancun funded by CFACT, along with Monckton.

(Cancun, Mexico) CFACT, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, will feature two prominent experts on climate science and policy at COP 16, the UN conference on climate change which convenes next week in Cancun.

Lord Christopher Monckton will be in Cancun December 1 – 10.
Dr. Roy Spencer will be in Cancun December 6 – 10.
Both will be available (allowing for travel) for radio and media interviews before, during and after Cancun.

I'll ignore the sad attempt to label Monckton an expert, lol. Fake experts are one of the features of denialism, by the way.

I don’t know what 150 years of science you refer to but I am aware that the science has not been undertaken to culminate in this garbage. I showed the assessment on the fraudulent use of data, in particular the less than honest siting of thermometers etc. Why do that if not for some gain? Or was it just to win an argument? Or is it that funding will cease if the obligatory statement about man made global warming is not included in the study? Even the Aussie who was a consultant for his country admitted as much, how high level they thought they all were, acting on our behalf for the greater good, until he realised it was a complete sham and there was no evidence whatsoever linking man to global warming.

Yeah you can say what you like about sensationalist Monckton but your statement ‘Fake experts are one of the features of denialism, by the way’ is just sad.
How Big Brother Is Using the National Parks and Other Agencies to Promote His Climate Religion Using Your Tax Dollars
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info...

The EU Connection in Climate Research
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info...

Enviro-Taliban? Is Europe Proposing to Criminalise Scepticism?
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info...

Senator Barrasso: Why Won’t Congressional Democrats Permit Science Oversight Hearings? (PJM Exclusive)
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info...

Global warming hotheads freeze out science’s sceptics
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info...

nah, no agenda no political association.

reply to post by Mez353



So, in sum, rather than providing what I requested you just regurgitate the same old memes. That's cool. Didn't expect anything more.

Lets take the few I mentioned above:

Roy Spencer is associated with:

Greening Earth Society
Source: "The Greening Continues"

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Station Bio - Spencer

Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute website 4/04

George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Source: Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "Call to Faith"

Dick Lindzen is associated with:

Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Source: Annapolis Center website 3/04

Cato Institute
Source: Cato Institute website 4/04

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Bio Lindzen

George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)

Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Tim Ball is associated with:

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Station Press release on ACIA

Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

International Climate Science Coalition
Source: ICSC list of who's who

Pat Michaels is associated with:

Cato Institute
Source: Cato Institute website 4/04

Independent Commission on Environmental Education
Source: CLEAR d-base

American Council on Science and Health
Source: ACSH website 4/04

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Source: CLEAR d-base

American Policy Center
Source: CLEAR d-base

Consumer Alert
Source: Consumer Alert Website

George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Webpage (2006)

CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Source: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CFACT Website 5/03

Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Source: Weidenbaum Center website 4/04

Heritage Foundation
Source: Heritage Foundation "Policy Experts" website

Cooler Heads Coalition
Source: Cooler Heads Coalition website 5/04

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Station Bio - Michaels

World Climate Report
Source: World Climate Report website

Greening Earth Society
Source: "The Greening Continues"

Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Source:

CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Source: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CFACT Website 5/06

American Spectator Foundation
Source: Columnists for The American Spectator

Western Fuels
Source: Gelpspan, "The Heat is On,"

Greening Earth Society
Source: Gelpspan, "The Heat is On,"

Competitive Enterprise Institute
Source: CEI Website (2006)

Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Pat "Mr 40%" Michaels gets around. Bit of a oilwhore. Was fun to see him eviscerated by Santer at the recent congressional committee. You remind me of Michaels - easily shown to be mostly wrong and misleading.

Spend some time on ExxonSecrets to grasp the reach the denial machine.

So, again, summarising where we've just been. You post an article by Edenhofer, an IPCC associated economist. He accepts the science is clear for action and outlines the issues which are under discussion at Cancun. That this conference isn't really a climate conference per se. It's a bunch of politicians discussing the political and economic issues. As I noted, once the basic science is taken as sufficiently clear there's nothing left to do but to discuss politics. Indeed, it's not like a bunch of political beasties are even the right people to be discussing the scientific issues.

The IPCC are currently organising for the next scientific step: preparing the 5th assessment report which will outline the most recent state of the science and aims to be completed by 2013.

Catch ya around. Cheers.

reply to post by The_Liberator


You mean human pollution is 10000 times worse than previously expected.

This isn't global warming, more like humans producing waste faster than it can be contained.

Pollution is the word, definitely.

reply to post by melatonin


One sided nonsense.
epw.senate.gov...
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'

AGW = no agenda huh?
www.examiner.com...
Why is the United States State Department playing a role in this effort of participating and policing the Copenhagen Accord when the science that is at the core of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)/Climate Change has been exposed as being based on fraud?

www.qando.net...
Of course readers here are familiar with the arguments (and the fact that the Met office admitted to serious problems with its temperature data used as a base for previous projections) and the fact that skeptics seem to be winning the day.

www.examiner.com...
Observations poke finger of reality In the eye of global warming protectionistsThis week, the United Nations concludes a two-week meeting in Bonn, Germany on environmental climate and Global Warming issues looking for a binding agreement on greenhouse gases.Progress toward reaching a comprehensive global climate deal among industrial nations ... read this as a Cap & Trade money gathering scheme ... has been elusive to craft ever since information was revealed that statistical information upon which climate projections were based was tainted and fraudulently crafted by scientists working...

www.examiner.com...
Fraudulent 'Nature Geoscience' study paper on Sea Levels is pulled On what the authors cite as having a lack of confidence in the data they used to reach the conclusion that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century, authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark pull a study paper published in the journal, Nature Geoscience.All of this effort to correct the factual record is additional evidence that the Scientific Method was never a consideration as it relates to the agenda that changes in the Earth's climate are directly related to human...

www.examiner.com...
Obama Administration diverts CIA resources to AGW ScientistsActing CIA Director, Leon Panetta, has directed the CIA to share data collection assets, time, and classified information with about 60 select scientists. The National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation’s fleet of spy satellites, is providing much of the data.Former Vice President Al Gore is credited with helping restart the collaboration by urging Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to convince the CIA and others it was time to bring Medea (Measurements of Earth Data...

www.examiner.com...
Climategate data shaping "Modus Operandi" seen in more organizations The rogue tactics of once respected climate scientists have now been uncovered in another British institution. Data from Russian weather stations from the mid-1930's on was "cherry-picked" and only about 25% of the data was used to substantiate a theory of AGW (human-activity triggered global warming) in order to qualify for more grants and recognition from the UN effort for climate studies ... the IPCC.On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the...

www.examiner.com...
Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, the new “Flat Earth” society? (Video Link Added) Last week, a hacker revealed that a group of powerful, government-backed European scientists are controlling the results of developing global warming theory, and preventing clear debate or the development of opposing scientific evidence to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It appears that certain more objective scientists run the risk --- if they present solid evidence contrary to the popular global warming theories --- realize they run the risk of being made objects of ridicule and marginalized in efforts to gain monies from Governments for research projects designed to discover facts ... that lead to the truth.

Still think there's no agenda? Course you do you're in on it.
Although, unlike you some have changed their mind!
www.brutallyhonest.org...

I randomly picked scientists who had their names listed in the IPCC report located at:

www.ipcc.ch...

I was able to locate approximately 1/3 who now have publicly stated or published articles that they do not believe in Man Made Global Warming or have signed the following petition.

www.petitionproject.org...

I wonder how many scientists listed in the IPCC report would add their names to the petition if they were simply mailed the petition?




Enjoy this image, it's you talking to me.

NOTE TO ALL READERS OF THIS THREAD

Scholars have written volumes explaining the techniques and methodology of propagandists for hundreds of years. To propagandize, one need only read a how-to manual to learn the concepts of an effectively run propaganda campaign. Propaganda techniques include appealing to fear, appealing to authority, name-calling, transference, bandwagoning, obtaining disapproval, over simplification, utilizing virtue words, employing faulty logic and more. AGW proponents utilize all of these methods to further their goals.

In the early stages of AGW propaganda, global warming fears dominated public consciousness. Later, beginning in 1998, the Earth began to cool while atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE continued to rise in complete contradiction to the theory. As a result, the phraseology of AGW alarmists became "climate change" so that any variation in the Earth’s climate could then be attributed to human activities.

AGW propagandists do not rely solely on fear to influence the masses however; an appeal to authority is a common technique. By invoking the infallible name of science, advocates can point to others who have advanced degrees and use scientific jargon to impress and beguile the masses. Because the average citizen does not have the time or resources to conduct her own study of the warming phenomenon, she is forced to rely on the opinions of those scientific authorities. Who on their own can readily cite hard numbers and create computer models to evaluate and project the future? Appealing to authority alleviates the average citizen of this academic burden.

Authoritative sources employ several other types of propaganda techniques, many of which overlap.
Name-calling is usually reserved for politically minded individuals and those audiences predisposed to agree with the one presenting the message. Words such as “right wing” or “ultra conservative” contain such a built-in prejudice, that when an author utilizes them to describe an opponent of AGW, the same prejudices are transferred to that individual- regardless of the opponent’s political leanings. Name-calling will often be invoked attacking the person, rather than the idea being presented. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate researcher became frustrated during a conference on Global Warming when challenged by Colorado State University's William Gray, one of the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters and said that Dr. Gray is not a credible scientist, “Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more".

MORE HERE: intelligentessays.blogspot.com...

SOUND FAMILIAR ANYONE?

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by melatonin

 

One sided nonsense.
epw.senate.gov...

And so you refer to the website which was run by Jim Inhofe and Marc Morano.

One is the republican senator for Okie-dokie (Inhofe), and one of the largest targets of energy donations in american politics. And the other one of the architects of the John Kerry swiftboating, worked with Limbaugh, then Inhofe as his communication dude, and is currently funded by CFACT - the same group who funded Spencer and Monckton's Cancun jaunt.

You can whine about my representation of these think-tanks as right wing and libertarian, but that's what they are. Indeed, the more you post the more you consolidate this position, lol. And it isn't my fault that the vast majority of the contrarian 'experts' are associated with such groups, clearly showing their political petticoats.

Of course, your response is to attempt to smear and misrepresent people who merely point these facts out. Yet we're several posts onwards, and you still haven't shown that most 'pro-AGW' climate scientists are political-driven which you attempted to suggest here:

for instance your last sentence takes a dig at ‘denier ‘experts’’ but does not attempt to admit that the pro AGW are in any way politically driven or associated.

While it's just so easy to do so for denier's talking heads and much of their disinformation.

Laughable.

You see the science is all rather one-sided - much like we see for the evolutionary science domain. Your noise and that of other deniers doesn't negate that fact.

Originally posted by Mez353
MORE HERE: intelligentessays.blogspot.com...
SOUND FAMILIAR ANYONE?

Yeah, it does.

I wonder if someone who poses themselves as writing 'intelligentessays', grasps the inherent irony of posting idiotic tripe?

Just because B chronologically follows A, it does not mean that A causes B. The AGW adherent will claim that the Earth’s temperature is rising and so is the carbon dioxide levels from humans, illogically concluding that this means human carbon dioxide emissions are causing the temperature to raise.

What an maroon. He's trying to pose the argument as post-hoc ergo propter hoc.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore causes warming. The relationship is more than mere correlation. Just another rather ignorant denier. I can see why you like his blogpost.

Ciao.

Claptrap from a novice propagandist based on faulty logic and lack of scientific reasoning.
Yours and Libby's strategic goal is to incorporate as many of these methods into each post so the ordinary bloke accepts the theory as fact. Indulge in your bad science perpetuated by bad models, it just proves what a one sided individual, nay, lovely couple you are. And when we're all broke from taxation and nothing happens, I'll just pop over the channel and take your car, by way of compensation.

So over 31,000 American Scientists have an agenda do they? All of them on the take are they?
www.oism.org...

The Center for Global Food Issues reports that, based on satellite reports, the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CARBON DIOXIDE; and, worldwide vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999- despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses.

Actual experiments have resulted in finds from nearly 800 scientific observations around the world that a doubling of carbon dioxide from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

Center for Global Food Issues, Global Warming Famine or Feast, May 19, 2005. www.cgfi.org...

What an maroon.

Maroon's a colour.
You meant Moron, Moron.

Originally posted by Mez353

What an maroon.

Maroon's a colour.
You meant Moron, Moron.

lol, I guess your exposure to culture is as limited as your exposure to science.

And you call me?

Wonderful.

reply to post by Mez353
Some interesting reflections in your post. If the abuse that the information in your links has attracted from our bottom-dwelling troll is anything to go by, I think it probably has a lot going for it. He must have perceived it to be a credible threat straight away.

Actual experiments have resulted in finds from nearly 800 scientific observations around the world that a doubling of carbon dioxide from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

Agreed. We should expect it to enhance the net-productivity of the biosphere by providing vital nutrition to photosynthetic organisms, and considering that all non-photosynthetic life has to feed (indirectly or directly) on photosynthetic life, including us, then all life on earth would undoubtedly cease without CO2 for photosynthesis. I think more CO2 is exactly want we need to counteract deforestation. And the increased CO2 would not necessarily lead to any ultimate increase in mean global temperature whatsoever in the long-term, in spite of the increased CO2 greenhouse effect, because of the cooling effect from increased cloud-cover resulting from the increased greenhouse effect. Of course Desslar and Spencer are still having their long-winded rebuttal-match about that.

So over 31,000 American Scientists have an agenda do they? All of them on the take are they?

No doubt they are all surreptitiously in cahoots with Big Oil. In any case, you can add one-thousand more scientists to the growing list: www.canadafreepress.com...