Feds may be muzzling scientist over Arctic research

reply to post by pexx421

Im sorry, but only in the US is global warming a "debate". Everywhere else it is accepted,

More than 50% of Russians asked about global warming say they haven't heard much about it, according to a BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Or maybe this from Pravda - shows what Russians are really thinking! (and planning for)

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

english.pravda.ru...

Concern about climate change is much less pervasive in the United States, China and Russia than among other leading nations. Just 44% in the U.S. and Russia, and even fewer in China (30%), consider global warming to be a very serious problem. By comparison, 68% in France, 65% in Japan, 61% in Spain and 60% in Germany say that is the case.
pewresearch.org...

I can tell you that here in the UK - hardly anyone believes it - despite the wall to wall propaganda put out about it by the BBC and others.

Why is it that anyone who doesn't buy into global warming is supposed to be brainwashed by planet killing politicians and their lackies in big business?

Doesn't anyone want to take into account the kind of money these scientists are being paid to do this "research" by people who want to beleive its true?

Stop obsessing about the EVIL oil companies destroying our (not so)fragile earth. Firstly, oil companies have invested far more inalternative fuels and new technologies than any other neohippy group on the planet. economically this makes sense. If you are rich and want to stay rich, you look to whats next rather than just whats working now. And oil companies are not supressing technology for thier benefit. take a look at research done by car companies and hippies alike with regard to alt fuels and fuel efficiency. Both sides here agree... everyone says the same thing but washington. alt fuels and mandated fuel efficiency raise the cost of cars and thier upkeep. Its much more lucrative for car and oil companies to go green than to stay. why dont they do more? you and i can't afford it. as technology gets cheaper it will become a real option but until then we are stuck with what we have

finally, the key pushers of this gw agenda are lib politicians and and their green sector buddies, spending and giving out hundreds of millions of dollars for alternative energy.. For example, a fat cat starts up a wind farm, he buys a few politicians to get permission to build where he wants, throws money at research to make him seem like a good guy, spends as much on a clean burning coal retrofit and we get 2% of the electricity for 3x the cost. but thats not enough for this green fat cat, no no. then his politican buddies throw hundreds of millions into his company on the taxpayers dime so a guy start with a few million winds up with a couple extra zeros on his net worth, you and i foot the bill and he pretends he's saving the world

the green in the green movement is the dollar bill, thats what its really about

that said, i do firmly beleive that over time, we can learn to juggle protecting our environment whilst caring for our own people. but it isn't quick or easy and it isn't going to be born on the back of fearmongering corrupt officials.

finally, our planet is anything but fragile, whatever we do, the scales will be balanced, its the beautiful perfection that is our planet. if we throw nukes at everyone, and cause a nuclear winter (much less likely than you think) many species will die, our plant life will change and the human population will tank. then we will reach equilibrium and begin again. humans might havea limited capacity to change our environmnet, but we cant destroy it, life will surivive, even if we dont.
amen

The truth that is slowly coming out despite all the propaganda to to convince you otherwise is that ...Climate is driving CO2 levels and not vice versa.This has been known and has been covered up for years.
Arctic ice cores show that CO2 levels rise after warm periods absent of any human activity.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Originally posted by theXammux
the data is inconclusive at best, and we can't predict whether or not its going to rain next week. weather, especially global weather is too complex a system to be easily understood given the laughably small time we've been collecting data. anyone who says otherwise is selling somthing

Weather does not equal climate change.


I cannot understand why people get so caught up in al the political run arounds and spend their loves looking for cracks in people's arguments on the matter. The general scientific opinion on global warming is that it is very real. Whether you believe global warming exists, that humans are or are not the cause or whether you are skeptical, isn't it better to be safe now instead of sorry later?

Originally posted by theXammux
ay i don't understand something here. twice a year some global warming scientist gets busted for obviously making something up and still it must be true? manbearpig anyone?

scientists at the ipcc were called corrupt when a few of their members were busted for falsifying data. but luckily they were cleared of any wrongdoing... by the ipcc????

spend 6 months, take a look at the data as a whole, the evidence really isnt there! the real issue here is there are no real controls on what scientists are aloud to claim as fact. peer-reviewed never meant much but now its totally meaningless. if you're pro gw publish an article in "stupid humans killed our planet weekly" if you're anti gw? try "to hell with hippies monthly"

at this point the question one must ask isn't IF someone has been brainwashed on this front but WHICH SIDE did the brainwashing. the data is inconclusive at best, and we can't predict whether or not its going to rain next week. weather, especially global weather is too complex a system to be easily understood given the laughably small time we've been collecting data. anyone who says otherwise is selling somthing

You're absolutely fully of it and you need to provide proof of your claims. WHO was "busted" for falsifying data and WHAT was that data?

Peer-review is just as strong as it ever was, I don't know where you get these fabricated ideas.

The data is NOT inconclusive as far as global warming existing nor of the majority of it being anthropogenic. It is as conclusive as science can get, period. We cannot predict the WEATHER very accurately... but that's METEOROLOGY, NOT CLIMATOLOGY. Climatology is actually FAR MORE accurate and (if you did ANY homework) centers around studying LONG-TERM climate trends and NOT local weather. Seriously, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Climatologists and atmospheric physicists actually know quite a bit about our atmosphere and climates, you can sit there and pretend they're clueless all you want, but I dare you to speak to an actual Climatologist and say that, you'd quickly discover your own arrogant foolishness in the face of real science.

Originally posted by Dionisius
AGW has quite obviously been bs for a while now and heres a little bit more proof for y'all

AGW aka ManBearPig

That article is a proven FRAUD and the writer is an ignorant OPINION-WRITER and a mouthpiece for big business. How can you not see that?

The CRU emails were taken EXTREMELY out of context, cherry-picked, and misinterpreted. Various independent analyses of the emails concluded that there was NO wrongdoing, NO hiding of data, and that the ONLY thing a couple of the scientists could be accused of is slight sloppiness and an aversion to FOIA requests (from corrupt deniers). HARDLY damning for AGW... when you analyze the facts, it's actually more damning to deniers who, once again, are shown to promote lies, propaganda, and false exaggerations than the truth.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by malcr
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

This is the very odd thing isn't it. Anyone doing some research uncovers a watering down of the global warming evidence to fit in with the weak willed behaviour of politicians bending to the pressure of big money. You would think people, especially those here on ATS would have alarm bells ringing in their ears no matter what their original belief was.

The level of global warming is being covered up not the other way round.

Absolutely.

If anything, the IPCC reports were too conservative in their predictions. In fact, the field of Climatology is NOT divided on the question of whether AGW exists... they're all way beyond agreement that it does; they're also way beyond agreement that its consequences will be significantly dire. However, the REAL divide within Climatology is between scientists who believe consequences of AGW will be pretty bad and those who believe they'll be hellish.
Alarm bells indeed!

Total BS, this consensus they speak of does not exist. The lines are drawn along funding for research. The "97% agree" stat that the alarmists keep pushing is bogus, it was an online survey that only about 100 were allowed to vote on.

You're being played like a fiddle.

The consensus is real, get over it and stop being a willful fool. You SERIOUSLY think that scientists are corrupted by FUNDING?? THE SCIENTISTS NEED FUNDING TO CONTINUE THEIR RESEARCH, RESEARCH FUNDING IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IT'S THE BAREST ESSENTIAL TO RESEARCH ITSELF.

Here is the truth:
articles.cnn.com...

And guess what... the very FEW climatologists who deny AGW have been proven to have LINKS TO FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES AND RELATED THINK-TANKS. Red-flags abound in the realm of denial...

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Review the facts, not emotional opinions.

See above. ...There's even a Fox News bit for you.

You're way too far indoctrinated by the IPCC for anything I say to change your opinion.

Read the resignation letter Hal Lewis sent to the APS. Read Judith Curry's blog (a woman Al Gore called brilliant).

It will be a slow process, but you will see the cracks if you look for them.



The other part of the debate (see definition of debate, something that has never existed in the alarmist movement) is that even the scientists who buy into AGW say that there is very little we can do about it. CO2 is a trace gas, and the amount man puts out is a trace of a trace. By the IPCC's own estimates, if the whole world adopted Kyoto the effect on global temps would be .1degrees reduction at best.

So they want us to completely redo the distribution of energy globally, spend trillions on alternative subsidized energy, and keep the 3rd world in the 3rd world to save .1 degrees. It's lunacy.

Look at the felons at the CRU. Even they admit that there has been no warming since 1998, it's getting colder, which is why they had to "hide the decline".

Search "hide the Decline" on youtube, it's done by Minnesotans for Global Warming. It's mostly for fun but it does a good job of showing what Climategate was all about. It also shows the corrected "hockey stick" graph the IPCC used for 4 years after it was discredited. This one has the Medieval Warm Period in it, something climate scientists want us to forget.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Here's some info on your boy, Hal Lewis:
www.sourcewatch.org...

Oh and what's LUNACY is allowing the insanity that is current fossil fuel use to continue. We're facing economic collapses, profiteering, hijacking of governments by big business, and TOTAL ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE, and in very considerable part due to fossil fuels. You're a lunatic if you think we can CONTINUE what we're doing without unacceptable consequences.

Oh and the "felons" at the CRU? Once again, despite the hype/exaggerations propagated by deniers, the reality bears out that the CRU emails were FAR from damning and the scientists were guilty of ZERO wrongdoing.

NOBODY has said that the world stopped warming in 1998, that bit of propaganda is one of the most common and most debunked myths of global warming deniers. Warming did NOT stop in 1998, in fact, we've already broken the 1998 record a couple times for hottest year on record, the last decade was the hottest on record, and warming actually accelerated FASTER THAN PREDICTED... all while solar irradiance has decreased. Your BS bag holds no water.

As for "hiding the decline" that was a cherry-picked exaggeration. The hockey-stick was also proven largely ACCURATE with only minor additions of data to create a more fine-tuned picture of the hockey-stick. The medieval warm period was NOT global, it was regional and scientists even hesitate to call it the MWP.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK:

Originally posted by theXammux
Why is it that anyone who doesn't buy into global warming is supposed to be brainwashed by planet killing politicians and their lackies in big business?

Doesn't anyone want to take into account the kind of money these scientists are being paid to do this "research" by people who want to beleive its true?

Stop obsessing about the EVIL oil companies destroying our (not so)fragile earth. Firstly, oil companies have invested far more inalternative fuels and new technologies than any other neohippy group on the planet. economically this makes sense. If you are rich and want to stay rich, you look to whats next rather than just whats working now. And oil companies are not supressing technology for thier benefit. take a look at research done by car companies and hippies alike with regard to alt fuels and fuel efficiency. Both sides here agree... everyone says the same thing but washington. alt fuels and mandated fuel efficiency raise the cost of cars and thier upkeep. Its much more lucrative for car and oil companies to go green than to stay. why dont they do more? you and i can't afford it. as technology gets cheaper it will become a real option but until then we are stuck with what we have

finally, the key pushers of this gw agenda are lib politicians and and their green sector buddies, spending and giving out hundreds of millions of dollars for alternative energy.. For example, a fat cat starts up a wind farm, he buys a few politicians to get permission to build where he wants, throws money at research to make him seem like a good guy, spends as much on a clean burning coal retrofit and we get 2% of the electricity for 3x the cost. but thats not enough for this green fat cat, no no. then his politican buddies throw hundreds of millions into his company on the taxpayers dime so a guy start with a few million winds up with a couple extra zeros on his net worth, you and i foot the bill and he pretends he's saving the world

the green in the green movement is the dollar bill, thats what its really about

that said, i do firmly beleive that over time, we can learn to juggle protecting our environment whilst caring for our own people. but it isn't quick or easy and it isn't going to be born on the back of fearmongering corrupt officials.

finally, our planet is anything but fragile, whatever we do, the scales will be balanced, its the beautiful perfection that is our planet. if we throw nukes at everyone, and cause a nuclear winter (much less likely than you think) many species will die, our plant life will change and the human population will tank. then we will reach equilibrium and begin again. humans might havea limited capacity to change our environmnet, but we cant destroy it, life will surivive, even if we dont.
amen

You're so hopelessly naive, it's not even funny.

Originally posted by auraelium
The truth that is slowly coming out despite all the propaganda to to convince you otherwise is that ...Climate is driving CO2 levels and not vice versa.This has been known and has been covered up for years.
Arctic ice cores show that CO2 levels rise after warm periods absent of any human activity.

wattsupwiththat.com...

^WRONG^


Here's the facts on the temp leading carbon:

reply to post by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Review the facts, not emotional opinions.

See above. ...There's even a Fox News bit for you.

You're way too far indoctrinated by the IPCC for anything I say to change your opinion.

Erm. What's my opinion?

reply to post by NoHierarchy


As I said, you have drank way too much of the Kool Aid for anything we show you to have any effect.

I'll leave you with my standard challenge.

Find me a scientific study that proves AGW, no computer models, and all data sets must be public and published to verify the findings, and I will concede your point.

Good luck, as I'm confident this will be the last exchange we have.

Real science is conducted out in the open, Climate Science is conducted behind closed doors.

reply to post by tkwasny

is there ever any hope of pure science based on absolutes (which there are few of but do exist). Is there any hope of ever removing the emotional fires from too early conclusions based on fear and funding based agendas? I say impossible.

The whole "debate" is manipulated - mostly because the truth is too scary. BTW - absolutes are hard to find in systems analysis, especially when the relevant triggering/influencing factors range from the universal to local, astro to particle.

There are some points that could be made but one main one is why the hey isnt everyone out planting trees?
The fact remains its the trees which could suck up the co2 as well as provide a viable industrial source of raw materials and energy too.
Cellulose is a majorly versatile thing.
The whole common sense aproach has been lost on the people.
basic basic things like planting trees could really make a differentce...
Throwing steel wool into the oceans by the boat load would help too.....
all kinds of basic things would make a real change.

I have just bumped 4 or 5 threads regarding this topic...

read for yourself... you might find the info interesting!

okay, this whole debate (if it could be called that) is laughably out of hand. the pure and simple truth is that this debate is as dogmatic at all the other foolish debates going on. r vs. d. christ vs. e.e. omnivore vs. vegan socialist vs. surivivalist, budget, health care, gay marriage, the poor, clean water, fuel efficiency, and so on

but none of these adress the real problem, we have a neoaristocracy fighting each other for our money and our beliefs, drowning radio and t.v. in polarized nonsense. why do we succumb to this? ego. pure and simple. as we have watched throughout history, again and again, its this human lust for self righteousness that allows us to be pitted against each other time and again. no one is ACTUALLY going to win this debate because whatever you beleive is engrained dogma. data is only relevant or real if it supports your hypothesis, everyone else is lying of course, but you, you must be just so much smarter than everyone else! after all, cnn or fox news told you so.
until we, as a race, get over ourselves, and concede to being only human, and put aside what we DESIRE to be true we cannot collect the facts necessary to FIND the truth.
so really, who cares if we destroy our planet, or get hit by an asteroid, enslaved by aliens, attacked by zombie goats... you,we, us are doomed to repeat our failure until we become humble, and actually willing to learn

i do know that this will fall on deaf ears, or be used just as ammunition to attack your fellow man for not agreeing with you, but you won't get the real answers to the important questions until you can work out the little ones as a team

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

As I said, you have drank way too much of the Kool Aid for anything we show you to have any effect.

I'll leave you with my standard challenge.

Find me a scientific study that proves AGW, no computer models, and all data sets must be public and published to verify the findings, and I will concede your point.

Good luck, as I'm confident this will be the last exchange we have.

Real science is conducted out in the open, Climate Science is conducted behind closed doors.

Umm... essentially ALL of the scientific studies regarding global warming bolster the case for AGW. Are you living in some fictitious la-la land??

Climate science is absolutely NOT conducted behind closed doors. You keep convincing me that you're nothing but a liar and a shill.

Originally posted by stirling
There are some points that could be made but one main one is why the hey isnt everyone out planting trees?
The fact remains its the trees which could suck up the co2 as well as provide a viable industrial source of raw materials and energy too.
Cellulose is a majorly versatile thing.
The whole common sense aproach has been lost on the people.
basic basic things like planting trees could really make a differentce...
Throwing steel wool into the oceans by the boat load would help too.....
all kinds of basic things would make a real change.

Planting trees is all well and good...

BUT, we need to stop releasing terratons of CO2 into the atmosphere, period. Anything short of that is a cop-out.

Originally posted by theXammux
okay, this whole debate (if it could be called that) is laughably out of hand. the pure and simple truth is that this debate is as dogmatic at all the other foolish debates going on. r vs. d. christ vs. e.e. omnivore vs. vegan socialist vs. surivivalist, budget, health care, gay marriage, the poor, clean water, fuel efficiency, and so on

but none of these adress the real problem, we have a neoaristocracy fighting each other for our money and our beliefs, drowning radio and t.v. in polarized nonsense. why do we succumb to this? ego. pure and simple. as we have watched throughout history, again and again, its this human lust for self righteousness that allows us to be pitted against each other time and again. no one is ACTUALLY going to win this debate because whatever you beleive is engrained dogma. data is only relevant or real if it supports your hypothesis, everyone else is lying of course, but you, you must be just so much smarter than everyone else! after all, cnn or fox news told you so.
until we, as a race, get over ourselves, and concede to being only human, and put aside what we DESIRE to be true we cannot collect the facts necessary to FIND the truth.
so really, who cares if we destroy our planet, or get hit by an asteroid, enslaved by aliens, attacked by zombie goats... you,we, us are doomed to repeat our failure until we become humble, and actually willing to learn

i do know that this will fall on deaf ears, or be used just as ammunition to attack your fellow man for not agreeing with you, but you won't get the real answers to the important questions until you can work out the little ones as a team

I agree with you to an extent...

But don't hold scientists and those who follow science accountable for the actions of industry groups, corrupt politicians and media talking-heads which turned global warming into a POLITICAL issue; AGW was originally a scientific CONVERSATION which was well-regarded and consensus was reached long ago. Then... when this consensus impacted economic interests, it was falsely turned into a political DEBATE in politics, media, and amongst the public. Just because the issue has been perverted doesn't mean that there isn't truth to be found... the truth is mired in false debate/denial, but the science is very very freaking clear on AGW's existence/threat.

does anyone else find it extreely ironic that we can't even agree whether or not there is a consensus? here I am, on this site, always hoping against hope to witness a few people who can have a rational discussion on any topic. This is so depressing. How, can the human race accomplish anything underr circumstances like this? Why is everyone so sure they know the truth? cnn says so. brilliant. There's thousand and thousand of pages of climate data out there, no one here has read even 1% of it, but both sides are so convinced they MUST know and everyone else is brainwashed. If you can't get over yourself, don't hold anyone else to the same standard. And to think, so many on this site are always searching for those lost answers. I hope, after this, you'll have some idea why some things are kept secret