Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by mc_squared

 

On the one side you have something like 97-98% of a scientific consensus. There are a numerous university studies and surveys that have verified this number.

nzclimatescience.net

You think because somebody can start a website and call themselves "the climate science coalition" that makes them legitimate experts now? That 97-98% consensus I quoted comes from academic studies - like this one - that were done on real climate scientists, aka people who have actively published peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

This website you link to is run by some guy named Dr. Vincent Gray. Look what I find when I google him:

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

Source

Meanwhile here's the best part - read the next line:

Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.

So right back at ya. Wow what a surprise - yet another global warming skeptic "scientist" who is actually tied to the fossil fuel industry. -->

...now where's jdub to come tell me this is just an ad-hominem attack. *yawn*

reply to post by XPLodER


Same deal with this guy. If I only had a dollar for every self-professed AGW expert on the internet who has no actual background in climate science. This David Evans has a PhD in Electrical Engineering - what the heck does that have to do with climatology? So what if he worked as a "consultant" for the Australian Greenhouse Office - based on his background it sounds obvious he was probably involved in some technical role that had nothing to do with the actual "evidence". But now he's probably just another fame-seeking contrarian trying to embellish his resume to spout off about his ideological opinion just like every other fake poser in this fake debate.

Please show me the peer-reviewed papers he has written on climate science. And by peer-reviewed I mean just that: published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some blog post or some article he wrote for some bull**** "Climate Coalition" or something.

You guys do understand that if I'm right about this disinformation campaign - this is exactly how they would conduct it right? Show me some proof of a legitimate debate in the scientific community, not on the god-damned internet.

reply to post by mc_squared

Meanwhile the Wegman Report was FILLED to the brim with flaws. Not only did it repeat many of the very same memes listed above - do you even know what they plagiarized? Obviously you don't because you haven't read it, you're just making up your own deluded version of events like a typical too-scared-to-face-the-facts denier.

They plagiarized a pro-AGW paper by Dr. Raymond Bradley. But then they just went and cherry-picked pieces of it and twisted it around to look like it had reached the opposite conclusions of what it actually did.

Sadly, you echo the claims but fail to cite the substance. Reliance upon a computer scientist/blogger like John Mashey is as misplaced as any criticism you have for the skeptics. Here we are 5 years after the "Wegman report," three years after the Mashey hatchet job, and you are just now getting around to trying to breathe life into a long-dead horse?

Mashey and his blogger cohort have been criticized just as deeply as have the Wegman team, but neither makes nor breaks the obvious facts: the AGW faithful depend for their very survival upon flawed and skewed "analyses" of proxy guesses about paleoclimate that cannot be reproduced or confirmed; in addition, the AGW doctrine requires a devotion to an "us v. them" mentality that brooks no quarter to anyone who chooses to break ranks and point to the glaring gaps in data and modeling.

When the faith requires that you rely and agree upon interpretations of ambiguous data, and that you endorse predictive models that do not predict, you have little left to look to for support except for the "conensus" fallacy.

As with almost all other AGW advocates, you seem to forget that even if such a consensus exists, a consensus can still be wrong.

jw

reply to post by mc_squared

That 97-98% consensus I quoted comes from academic studies - like this one - that were done on real climate scientists, aka people who have actively published peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

Actually, it doesn't. The report upon which this is based has been compeltely discredited for its selection criteria as well as its analysis. What it boils down to, roughly, is a small group of published authors who believe that the climate is warming and that man is the primary cause. The remainder of the population adhere to varying degrees to one or more variances of the core tenets, but nowhere near the fabled 97% agree with the myth.

Some agree that the climate is warming; others agree that man affects the climate to one degree or another. By adding together all the positive responses, the "97% consensus" is clearly neither a consensus on the core proposition nor even an endorsement of its milder constituents.

If you do not know this, then you are parroting propaganda. If you do know this (which is more likely), you are deliberately foisting more pro-AGW falsehoods to bootstrap you own beliefs into doctrine.

Even such diehard AGW prophets as Phil Jones acknowledge that there is no such consensus.
Q & A with Dr. Phil Jones

Originally posted by mc_squared
Let me include the sub headline for anyone that skipped the snippet and wants to go straight to more unwarranted bashing of climate scientists:

Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.

There.

That part is for everyone who just wants to repeat the same old meme about how man-made global warming is a hoax because all the scientists are frauds and the government is in on it and whatever -

This was a FEDERALLY FUNDED report CHALLENGING the scientific consensus and it turned out to be the FRAUD.

I have already been following this story for some time now on this thread, and this is all part of a much bigger conspiracy that I've been posting about for years now (see related threads section). There is a massive disinformation campaign being waged mainly by oil companies and radical neocons to cover up just how badly they are ****ing up this planet in the name of profit.

By far the main target of their campaign has been the scientific consensus - and yes, make no mistake, there IS one - that climate change is real, that it's mostly caused by man, and that it's a HUGE problem.

The way they've been conducting this campaign is by generating fake scandals like "Climategate", or by scaring the crap out of everyone about a carbon tax - when instead people should be discussing what a price on carbon actually means. HINT: forcing the market to switch to clean renewable technologies like solar - you know, those same exact technologies that TPTB have been trying to suppress for decades.

Most of all though these hucksters have been selling their propaganda by injecting the public debate with all sorts of false myths about the science - myths like "all the planets in the solar system are warming up", or "climate is always changing, therefore we have no responsibility for what is happening right now".

These myths are all debunked on highly respectable sources like
www.skepticalscience.com

Yet people constantly choose to ignore that and read the websites that are peddling them instead. And then they come to places like ATS and repeat those myths ad nauseum, thus making them internet fact - because everybody says it, so it must be true.

Anyway, whatever. I know from enough experience that most people around here are just going to continue ignoring all this information or throw stones at it, because it's more important to blindly defend your ideologies and your ego rather than deny ignorance.

For those people I say - enjoy your cognitive dissonance, not to mention being a pawn in the game to send this planet quite literally straight to hell.

For anyone actually interested in denial of said ignorance, and investigating REAL conspiracies based on substance rather than tinfoil and ironic propaganda - I would encourage looking further into the extra links I left to go with this post.

There is plenty legitimate debate to be had here.

But anyone replying with more useless diatribes about "yr brainwashed because climategate and carbon taxes and teh guvrment - it's a conspiracyyy: ALL THE PLANETS ARE WARMING UP lollol" will be ignored - but thanks for proving my point anyway

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 16-5-2011 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)

wow, looks like the crazy warmers are out in force today. No one is buying your global warming BS, so don't get too happy about your desire for global communism.

P.S
Skeptical Science has long been of a Skeptical character for a Skeptically long period of time. Everyone knows leftist's are pathological liars.

The REAL problem is deforestation and industrial pollutants other than CO2. As well as some over fishing in some areas. But the big ones is toxic run off and deforestation. Both of which can be solved easily if you Marxist liars get out of the way and let real conservationist's do their thing.

reply to post by mc_squared

Wow what a surprise - yet another global warming skeptic "scientist" who is actually tied to the fossil fuel industry. -->

What you mean like Al Gore who made his money from Occidental Petroleum

Oh and maybe you should look at some of the other Scientists backing this "Website"

The inaugural founders of the coalition were:

Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer Jr, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (now deceased).

Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

Professor David J. Bellamy OBE an English botanist, author, broadcaster and environmental campaigner, who originally trained as a botanist at Durham University, where he later held the post of senior lecturer in botany until 1982, and still holds the post of Honorary Professor for Adult and Continuing Education.

Dr Len Walker Associated disciplines: Also foundation members of the Coalition are such people as: Owen McShane, director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, who is convenor of the Coalition’s establishment committee.

Dr Bryce Wilkinson, founder of Capital Economics, a one time Treasury official and Harvard Fellow, current president of the Law and Economics Association of New Zealand.

Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power systems, now a power industry consultant.

Prof. Denis Dutton, associate professor of philosophy, University of Canterbury

Professor David Henderson, former Head of Department of Economic & Statistics of OECD, now Visiting Professor at Westminster University School of Business, London.

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP, inaugural CEO Wine Institute of New Zealand 1976-91, editor industry magazine, “New Zealand WineGrower” since 1997; national co-ordinator of Bluegreens, 1998-2003.

Advisers:

Dr Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland.

Dr John Maunder, of Tauranga, former president of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 22 years with the New Zealand Meteorological Service (including 5 years as Assistant Director).

Dr Willem de Lange, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, The University of Waikato .

And if you read some of the articles, you will see they are from all over the Globe from other scientists.

reply to post by jdub297


From reading your words it's so stinkin obvious to me you just run straight to the denier blogs to get all your rebuttals spoon fed to you on this stuff don't you?

What it boils down to, roughly, is a small group of published authors who believe that the climate is warming and that man is the primary cause. The remainder of the population adhere to varying degrees to one or more variances of the core tenets, but nowhere near the fabled 97% agree with the myth.

Some agree that the climate is warming; others agree that man affects the climate to one degree or another. By adding together all the positive responses, the "97% consensus" is clearly neither a consensus on the core proposition nor even an endorsement of its milder constituents.

The nonsense above is laced with the sort of delusional spin I expect from Anthony Watts or Stephen Milloy or - let me guess - judging by your devotion to all things conservative, I'd put you down as a Marc Morano man, climatedepot.com amiright? It's funny how you didn't leave a link for any of that...


Anyway, instead of just giving yourself away by regurgitating these shills' "interpretations" of the report - why don't you try something crazy like reading the actual paper yourself. Here let me get you started:

Materials and Methods

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC.

Doesn't sound like there's a lot of ambiguity there, but just to make sure - try reading the next line:

We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century

So yeah, what a load of horsecrap you just tried to get away with. Does 1,372 sound like a small group? Do "signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing" sound like they were just vague "positive responses"? Give me a break. It's funny too because the 97.5% figure is EXACTLY the same number the 2009 Doran et al study got, and they sent out surveys DIRECTLY to the scientists and had them EXPLICITLY answer this question:

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

So you know what - you want to keep picking at this scab, go right ahead. I'll gladly make a case out of you being the exact sort of puppet for denier propaganda I was referring to in the OP. You just made one heck of a good impression right there. What else have ya got? Are all the planets in the solar system warming up? Are fossil fuel emissions irrelevent because CO2 is the air we breathe, and it's good for plants, and volcanoes fart it out, and water vapor is the most important GHG anyway??

Or maybe you want to entertain me with more political bull about how everything, except your own untainted perspective of course, is a bunch of political bull...

reply to post by ken10


Yeah, a number of names on that list like Bob Carter and Chris de Freitas are notorious contrarians who have all sorts of dirty associations with right-wing "free-market" lobby groups, not to mention de Freitas was the guy at the center of another famous peer-review scandal, much like the one in the OP - the Soon and Baliunas controversy.

Meanwhile I wonder how many peer-reviewed papers on climate science any of these people have published:

Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power systems, now a power industry consultant.

Prof. Denis Dutton, associate professor of philosophy, University of Canterbury

Professor David Henderson, former Head of Department of Economic & Statistics of OECD, now Visiting Professor at Westminster University School of Business, London.

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP, inaugural CEO Wine Institute of New Zealand 1976-91, editor industry magazine, “New Zealand WineGrower” since 1997; national co-ordinator of Bluegreens, 1998-2003.

Wow, these guys all sound like very legitimate climate experts - and not at all like ideologues whose political philosophies are probably threatened by what a low carbon economy represents.


You and jdub should get together and rant to each other about how all the science of the IPCC is just political theatre, but of course the skeptics and all the people feeding you these baseless accusations are just unbiased, squeaky clean purveyors of truth and justice for all I'm sure...

reply to post by korathin

so don't get too happy about your desire for global communism.

...
Everyone knows leftist's are pathological liars.

...
Both of which can be solved easily if you Marxist liars


(blah blah blah socialism, blah blah blah nanny state)

I love how so far in this thread I've implicitly laid out a stereotype of your typical global warming skeptic - as a right-wing ideologue who has no interest in real science, but instead gets all their information from other right-wing ideologues, who consistently lie and distort the scientific evidence to push their own dishonest agenda.

And what do I get in response to this stereotype? A bunch of replies completely reinforcing it.

Once again guys - thanks for continuing to prove my point. This is just too easy...

reply to post by mc_squared


Well how about you put up your credentials so we can see how qualified in climatology you are, and who your sponsors are....Because it seems you are hell-bent on pushing your opinion on this subject as if you were the only person to have all the answers.......And do you know how that makes you look.

If you truly feel you have all the answers, then get in touch with the NZ climate sciences people and convince them that they are wrong, And let us know how it goes.

Getting stroppy on a forum such as this just because some people are still sceptical about this subject does you no favours. The fact is that Governments are going about this the wrong way, I mean if i were a leader and thought AGW was real and a very big problem, I would be looking to legalise Hemp with ALL its green benefits and throwing bucket loads of money into Thorium and Fusion reactors that are Allegedly now a real option asap. Imposing Carbon taxes (As some have said) will lead to an unfair trading in the Global market WITHOUT reducing the amount of CO2 produced.

When there is a consensus within the scientific community backed up with sound solutions from governments then i may take this subject more seriously, But at the moment this is crying out Scam.......Sorry.

reply to post by ken10


You don't get it - this is a conspiracy site, and I'm not trying to sell you on anything - I'm just trying to draw your attention to the other side of this conspiracy.

BE skeptical by all means - decide for yourself whether AGW is real or not. BUT stop looking at this issue soooo one-sidedly, because when you do that - you're just getting played by all the scammers on the other side of the agenda, and you're not being a skeptic but a denier.

I agree that most governments and politicians are total wanks when it comes to dealing with this - but that doesn't make the actual problem any less real. In fact it just makes it that much more urgent and important that everyday people like us figure out exactly what's really going on.

But most people don't do that, they just subscribe to the easiest and laziest answers out there - the ones that allow them to just blame someone else, and thus absolve all responsibility from themselves. That's why so many people around here remain total sheep - no matter how "awake" they think they are - because they still don't actually do anything about it.


Look at it from a complete conspiracy perspective: you think the world's ever going to change for the better if we all just sit around like sheep bitching about the government and the powers that be? What's that going to accomplish? You think they're magically gonna go "you know what? you sheep are right!" and have a sudden change of heart??

These crooks are very comfortable with things the way they are, because people are already complete slaves to their system - so why would they want to overhaul it?

The global warming issue, for all of it's problems, also represents an opportunity for people to really change the world around them for the better. And by that I mean just that - the people, not the worthless government. But that's provided we all get on the same page and start talking about it in the right way, instead of being distracted and divided over this completely manufactured controversy that's actually being used to stop us from figuring it out.

Even if AGW was a hoax - there are plenty of ways you could use that hoax against them:

- A low carbon economy would mean we're not dependent on all these finite resources and contrived scarcities they use to control us.
- Encouraging people to be mindful of their carbon footprint is synonymous with making them aware of how their zombie-like consumption is what's feeding the elitist beast in the first place.
- Hemp is a great solution to some of these issues, so think about how you could use the AGW problem as a platform to promote it.

There are tons and tons of deeper levels to this issue than just screaming about cap and trade. The politics are a scam, but stop getting blinded by the politics and try to see the bigger picture. That's all I'm saying, really.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Let me include the sub headline for anyone that skipped the snippet and wants to go straight to more unwarranted bashing of climate scientists:

Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.

There.

That part is for everyone who just wants to repeat the same old meme about how man-made global warming is a hoax because all the scientists are frauds and the government is in on it and whatever -

This was a FEDERALLY FUNDED report CHALLENGING the scientific consensus and it turned out to be the FRAUD.

I have already been following this story for some time now on this thread, and this is all part of a much bigger conspiracy that I've been posting about for years now (see related threads section). There is a massive disinformation campaign being waged mainly by oil companies and radical neocons to cover up just how badly they are ****ing up this planet in the name of profit.

By far the main target of their campaign has been the scientific consensus - and yes, make no mistake, there IS one - that climate change is real, that it's mostly caused by man, and that it's a HUGE problem.

The way they've been conducting this campaign is by generating fake scandals like "Climategate", or by scaring the crap out of everyone about a carbon tax - when instead people should be discussing what a price on carbon actually means. HINT: forcing the market to switch to clean renewable technologies like solar - you know, those same exact technologies that TPTB have been trying to suppress for decades.

Most of all though these hucksters have been selling their propaganda by injecting the public debate with all sorts of false myths about the science - myths like "all the planets in the solar system are warming up", or "climate is always changing, therefore we have no responsibility for what is happening right now".

These myths are all debunked on highly respectable sources like
www.skepticalscience.com

Yet people constantly choose to ignore that and read the websites that are peddling them instead. And then they come to places like ATS and repeat those myths ad nauseum, thus making them internet fact - because everybody says it, so it must be true.

Anyway, whatever. I know from enough experience that most people around here are just going to continue ignoring all this information or throw stones at it, because it's more important to blindly defend your ideologies and your ego rather than deny ignorance.

For those people I say - enjoy your cognitive dissonance, not to mention being a pawn in the game to send this planet quite literally straight to hell.

For anyone actually interested in denial of said ignorance, and investigating REAL conspiracies based on substance rather than tinfoil and ironic propaganda - I would encourage looking further into the extra links I left to go with this post.

There is plenty legitimate debate to be had here.

But anyone replying with more useless diatribes about "yr brainwashed because climategate and carbon taxes and teh guvrment - it's a conspiracyyy: ALL THE PLANETS ARE WARMING UP lollol" will be ignored - but thanks for proving my point anyway

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 16-5-2011 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)

So, basically your message is 'no disagreement will be tolerated'. Righty ho. Got that.

reply to post by wcitizen


Constructive disagreement - completely tolerated, appreciated even.

Continuous repetition of long debunked memes and brainwashed talking points that only serve to derail this discussion and prove my point - yeah, not so much.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Constructive disagreement - completely tolerated, appreciated even.

Continuous repetition of long debunked memes and brainwashed talking points that only serve to derail this discussion and prove my point - yeah, not so much.

Have a nice day. I hope it's not too cold up there in your ivory tower. Oh no, man made global warming will keep you warm.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by jdub297

 

From reading your words it's so stinkin obvious to me you just run straight to the denier blogs to get all your rebuttals spoon fed to you on this stuff don't you?
...
Or maybe you want to entertain me with more political bull about how everything, except your own untainted perspective of course, is a bunch of political bull.

Speaking of "political bull:"

For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
...

But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal ," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

Schellnhuber ought to know. bHe is the father of the two-degree target.

"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.

www.spiegel.de...

OK. So your prophet,Phil Jones, admits there is no consemsus.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Schellnhuber admits the magical 2C is a political myth.

What's next?

The Himalayan glaciers won't be gone by 2035?
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown( The IPCC has yet to explain how someone with no expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.)

Ooops!

What about disappearing polar ice? Clearly no one was making that up, right?

Global warming grant-monger and alarmist Steven Schneider claimed the west Antarctic ice sheet could melt before the year 2000 and inundate American coastlines with up to 25 feet of sea level rise.
1979 NCAR Forecast : Sea Level May Rise 15-25 Feet Before The Year 2000

Ooops!
An aberration?
What about the likewise federally-funded AGW sponge Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, who predicted the complete loss of polar ice in 2008?
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer

Ooops!

Is there a "consensus," you might ask?

Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.

www.dailymail.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.independent.co.uk...[ /url]
(As it turns out, the Arctic Ocean contained 1.65 million square miles of sea ice at its 2008 minimum.)

Ooops!

Well, at least they got the cessation of the Gulf Stream and Atlantic Gyre right, didn't they?
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Oh no!

And, of course, there's the infamous CRU's David Viner's 2000 observation "snow is a thing of the past" that most Britons debunked for themsives over the last couple of years.
www.independent.co.uk...

This would be laughable except that it is parroted by the American political hack AGW priests such as R. F. K., Jr.
www.latimes.com...

Anyone who contends that "climate science," the IPCC or the National Academies of Science are not political tools for policy makers is delusional or a shill.

MIT atmospheric physicist (and member of the National Academies) Richard Lindzen says that(Ralph) Cicerone, as president of the Academies, feels that “regardless of the evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide. Nothing could better epitomize the notion of science in the service of politics – something that, unfortunately, has characterized so-called climate science.”

blogs.forbes.com...

If AGW is the wave of the future, why are there such defections from the "brotherhood?"

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
...
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Climate models go cold" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.dailymail.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.independent.co.uk...[ /url]
(As it turns out, the Arctic Ocean contained 1.65 million square miles of sea ice at its 2008 minimum.)

Ooops!

Well, at least they got the cessation of the Gulf Stream and Atlantic Gyre right, didn't they?
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Oh no!

And, of course, there's the infamous CRU's David Viner's 2000 observation "snow is a thing of the past" that most Britons debunked for themsives over the last couple of years.
www.independent.co.uk...

This would be laughable except that it is parroted by the American political hack AGW priests such as R. F. K., Jr.
www.latimes.com...

Anyone who contends that "climate science," the IPCC or the National Academies of Science are not political tools for policy makers is delusional or a shill.

MIT atmospheric physicist (and member of the National Academies) Richard Lindzen says that(Ralph) Cicerone, as president of the Academies, feels that “regardless of the evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide. Nothing could better epitomize the notion of science in the service of politics – something that, unfortunately, has characterized so-called climate science.”

blogs.forbes.com...

If AGW is the wave of the future, why are there such defections from the "brotherhood?"

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
...
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

[url=http://www.opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/]Climate models go cold

[url=http://www.hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/]Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
(David Evans was with the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2010. He has six university degrees, including an E.E. PhD from Stanford University.)

If there is any doubt about the political nature of the AGW hysteria, MIT's Lindzen makes it clear:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
...
The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages.

Richard Lindzen: AGW movement driven by money, power and dubious science


Lindzen sums up the real crux of the matter in his conclusion:

Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

You can call me all the names you want. Your "science" is phony and you should know better.
When money and politics rule your "science," it is no lnger science, but doctrine.

You don't have a theory, you have an agenda, and it is misbegotten.

jw

Until politicians and watermelon environmentalists (ie green on the outside and red on the inside) take positive steps to expose suppressed alternative energy that has been denied from the general public for decades which could indeed be used to 'help save the planet', instead of proposing carbon taxes and other draconian measures, I will continue to sit here as the temperature plummets, shivering in disbelief.

reply to post by mc_squared


federalllly sabotaged you mean

without the carbon tax scheme designed by Ken Lay of Enron the US economy is fried
so they did this for that reason
to facilitate the theft of the last little bit of america america has
and to put a tax on breathing which americas competitors will never have to labor under

this will give the craprations that just OFFSHORED all the good american jobs to countries that will get a by on the rules
the last little impetus to screw america into the ground

designed by KEN LAY OF ENRONg
shout intended

pay up dear

reply to post by jdub297


Geeez, where do I even start with this latest mess of a post.

Do you understand what they mean by "political goal"? Obviously you don't. You're either incredibly lazy and don't actually read the articles you post, or you haven't figured out yet I'm not just some moron who's going to take your cherry-picked, out of context blurbs without looking at the full text myself.

He's not saying 2°C of warming is a politicized myth - he's saying 2°C is the target they have set for politicians, i.e. the cap at which they should strive to LIMIT anthropogenic warming TO.

This is clearly pointed out in the first paragraph of your own article.

Since that doesn't seem to be clear to you then look here - that article is directly from the National Academy of Sciences and written by Schellnhuber himself, not some journalist picking out juicy soundbites to sell stories.

READ CAREFULLY:

a direct scientific way to gauge the political target of limiting global mean temperature (GMT) rise to less than 2°C

See the word "target"? Then look at what he adds further down:

Our planet is already committed to anthropogenic warming in the range of 1.4–4.3°C, where 2.4°C is the most likely amount.

Plus a little after that:

Thus, the likelihood of global warming even beyond the 2.4°C margin in the 21st century is frustratingly high.

This is exactly your problem. You live in a total denier bubble where you pick and choose exactly what you want to hear and how you want to hear it. This is how YOU are getting played. Too lazy to read the damn article yourself, you just rely on someone else to spoon feed you the soundbites you want. Then you have the audacity to come to ATS and use this kinda crap to lecture others on how supposedly brainwashed and manipulated by the media they are?

It's unreal -

I just showed you two peer-reviewed papers that both identified a 97.5% consensus amongst legitimate climate scientists on AGW, and you think you can refute that with yet another out of context blurb from some BBC interview with ONE scientist. This is just more evidence of your cherry-picking double standard anyway, because in other posts you will gladly rant about what an untrustworthy liar Phil Jones apparently is - but now all of a sudden when it suits you, he's your star witness for the defense? What a joke - the very first thing he even says in response to that question is:

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason.

There is nothing in his words after that even says he believes there is no consensus on AGW. He merely states that there are still plenty of uncertainties left to debate within.

So go look again at what I just quoted Schellnhuber as saying above. Remember this?

Our planet is already committed to anthropogenic warming in the range of 1.4–4.3°C

You see that? "in the range of" 1.4-4.3°C. That's a big range. THAT'S your uncertainty, i.e. whether it's going to be bad, or whether it's going to be much worse. That's the question scientists are still debating. So yeah congratulations! I guess you can have that one - no, the debate isn't over. Happy now?



Meanwhile there is so much more horribly formatted hypocrisy in the rest of your post I can barely keep up.

You can call me all the names you want. Your "science" is phony and you should know better.
When money and politics rule your "science," it is no lnger science, but doctrine.

You don't have a theory, you have an agenda, and it is misbegotten.

And you don't have the first clue on what the theory or the science even is. You know how I know? You highlighted this:

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood.

LOLwut? Based on a guess about moist air??

The fact that you felt compelled to not only quote this, but put it in bold really says more than enough about your total ignorance on anything to do with the actual science.

The author of this article - David Evans (who we've already established in this thread is NOT a climate scientist by the way) is simply regurgitating the classic denialist meme that "there's no tropospheric hotspot". This meme has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the science of AGW is actually based on (i.e. radiative physics). Furthermore, not only has it been debunked many times anyway, it's actually one of the absolute dumbest denier talking points out there to begin with.

That's because if it actually were true, it would mean anthropogenic warming is even WORSE than we think. The "moist air" that Evans is referring to is the moist adiabatic lapse rate of water vapor. It relates to how much heat energy gets transferred away from the surface and up into the atmosphere, i.e. out towards space.

This makes it a NEGATIVE feedback for CO2 warming. That means it's supposed to dampen the effect, not amplify it. Evans gets this completely backwards in the article, not surprisingly since he's just another fake contrarian pretending to be an expert. But people like you automatically sponge up what he's saying simply because you like what he's saying - nevermind what the actual facts are.

So yeah, you carry on trying to lecture me on what constitutes "phony science" lol.



But if you're gonna bring this back to political agendas - try avoiding looking like a total hypocrite for the umpteenth time by posting articles and statements by well known hack "skeptics" like Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen.

I already linked to a thread in the OP that shows Michaels on record admitting he is largely funded by the oil industry. Lindzen meanwhile has 20+ years of history shilling out his expert skeptical opinion on behalf of organizations like Western Fuels Association and OPEC. I have explicitly proven this before on ATS in posts like this one.


So like I said - keep picking at the scab jdub. All you're doing with your sloppy rebuttals is exposing more and more how much YOU are the one being indoctrinated by phony science and political propaganda. You clearly don't even know what the actual science is or says, so instead you just rely on oil industry shills and other right wing ideologues to translate it for you. These people are completely lying to you and then using you to spread that disinformation for them, and the proof is right there in your OWN pudding.

Furthermore if you understood anything about the real politics and the real agendas behind this debate you would easily see why they're lying to you:

Because -

Dealing with AGW requires an entirely new economic model built around platforms of balance, conservation, social responsibility and renewable energy abundance.

Those sort of ideals directly clash with the PTB model of controlling finite resources, manufacturing scarcity, promoting excess overconsumption, and using all that to turn people into mindless wage slaves who now fuel the complete Ponzi scheme we used to call capitalism.

All the so-called "conservative" voices preaching to you these denialist memes are just the rich ***holes who have gotten themselves very rich off this pyramid scheme, so now they're fighting every last inch to protect it while they can. They don't give a lick about your freedom, or whatever ideological value you seem to be holding up so high you can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

So the only way you're ever going to get it is if you just suck it up and take your own ideological blinders off. Otherwise go right ahead, keep twisting all the evidence into whatever it is you want it to be and living in the bubble and lying to yourself. Just stop trying to slip this sort of delusional nonsense past people like me - because you're really not gonna like what you find out.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the solution to MMGW is to pay more. It doesn't matter what, so long as we pay more.

* Pay more for energy
* Pay more for fuel
* Pay carbon taxes

Gees people - wake up and realize it is a money-making SCAM.