Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

Where are these 900 papers contesting man made global warming? Going through the list starting in the "Anthropogenic" section (seeing as the previous section is non-pertinent):

1. "Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present and future. Physical Geography" by W. Soon who works at the "Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory" (funded by Exxon) and receives personal funding from Exxon Mobile. He has received over $1M in funding from oil companies (www.guardian.co.uk...).
   
   
2. "On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?"
   George V. Chilingarian works for the oil industry (source). Furthermore, the paper has been rebutted here.
   
   
3. "The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches"
   David Legates was asked to step down from his role as Delaware State Climatologist due to his close ties to Willie Soon. He was speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, a conference that received over $40 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations such as Koch Foundations and Scaife Foundations source and source
   
   
4. "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"
   Not even a published paper.
   

Now I don't care for the global warming debate but this really is a sever case of intellectual dishonesty. "900" papers refuting AGW? Of which all but one were funded by the oil industry, and the one that wasn't hadn't even been peer reviewed and published? Reading between the lines, it's quite clear who has the agenda here. Considering you were the one who used this "list" to try and refute AGW, you have unwittingly become a propaganda cat's paw for the oil industry.

reply to post by john_bmth


Um - yet another warmist lie de-bunked

In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research.

He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions; 1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil? 2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work? 3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source? 4. Please include any additional comment on the article, Their responses follow,............................www.populartechnology.net...

eg.

Christy: "The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a "Marshall Institute expert". I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection - hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman."

Douglass: "I have no research funds from the fossil fuel industry or any governmental body."



Lindzen: "I have never received any compensation from the Annapolis Center. I briefly served on the board as a favor to Harrison Schmitt. Since they never asked me to do anything, I resigned."

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Um - yet another warmist lie de-bunked

How can i be a "warmist" when I've already stated I couldn't give two hoots about the debate? I will, however, challend dishonesty and distortion of the facts be those who have a clear agenda.

Anyway, your source is a blog which had absolutely nothing to do with the papers and authors I mentioned. Care to provide a proper source to counter my points?

Willie Soon is funded by fossil business interests (source).

George V. Chilingarian does work for the oil industry (source) and his paper was rebutted here.

David Legates does have close ties with Willie Soon (source) and was the speaker at the oil industry funded Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (source).

"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" was not peer reviewed or published.

So again, instead of palming me off to some blog and dismissing my points as "warmist" or whatever the heck you want to pigeon hole the facts into, how about you actually rebut the points I've made?

Originally posted by shadowland8
^ Disinfo agents at their finest once again. It's always so interesting that these pro GW people start to get very angry and...erratic in situations where they realise that they're cornered and the info against them is strong. Very predictable. Always happens, they try and vilify and just get into this fit of rage. Nice try, but you won't stop us. Soon the truth will be shown to all.

They are Anti-capitalists.

The Global Warming Hoax was just another tool to attack capitalism.
Since that is the case, lets just skip to the end and have an adult conversation about
Capitalism -vs- Socialism.

The Global Warming ClimateGate emails have revealed the disgusting truth.

The Marxists have already moved on to Tool 2.0 -------- OWS Occupy Wall Street
That one is also failing.

George Soros must be pulling his hair out.

Global Warming Hoax = Failure OWS= Failure

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Wow are you a comedian or something?

I just laughed at loud at how ridiculous your post was. Do you also write for Natural News or the Weekly World News?

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Your first paper....

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice

This is an article in a popular science magazine.. It is not a scientific paper and please tell me how this is disproving AGW....

reply to post by purplemer


What are you worried about? The next ice age?
The Earth is always warming and cooling.

Get used to it.

Originally posted by jdub297
Oh oh!

Science Journal has just published research from Oregon State, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, University of Oregon, and the ICREA and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Funded by the U.S.A.

It is entitled: "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum."

It can be found here: www.princeton.edu...

It says (in summary):

From a scientific standpoint, there is agreement that increases in atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
The science is not settled as to how much the planet will warm due to a doubling of CO2 as there is not scientific agreement as to how sensitive the planet is to a change in forcing.
If the planet does not amplify a change in forcing the planetary temperature will increase 1.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056%.

The data and analysis in this study significantly reduces the maximum expected temperature for a doubling of CO2.

infofeeder.info...

Which means that even if AGW is true, a CO2 value even 25% higher than the IPCC predicts will only increase temperatures 1.2C.

That is far, far lower than the limit the most ardent AGW advocates say is acceptable.

Which of the AGW advocates here are still going to insist the"science is settled?"

deny ignorance!

jw

I know this is probably asking way too much from someone like you, but could you ever - just once even - try to read the FULL article of something you post - instead of just the summary? (or you know - the Forbes-magazine "interpretation" of the summary).

This statement:

If the planet does not amplify a change in forcing the planetary temperature will increase 1.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056%.

Is absolutely NOT what this paper concluded. The '1.2°C' value for CO2-doubling is a ubiquitous, well-known figure in climate science. It comes from something called the "Idealized Greenhouse Model", which is based on some pretty basic calculations. These equations account for how much global warming a CO2-doubling would represent absent of any feedbacks. (This is what they mean by "If the planet does not amplify a change in forcing").

Again - this is a well-understood, axiomatic tenet within climate science. If this was the paper's "conclusion" it would be a joke - since this information is already available on places like Wikipedia for example.


In fact, this model - which is based on little more than first-principle math basically - forms the fundamental root for why we absolutely know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that increasing CO2 causes global warming. This is clearly stated in your own source, but I like how you conveniently left out this part when you cherry-picked that quote:

From a scientific standpoint, there is agreement that increases in atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

So moving on, yeah - CO2 causes global warming. Duh.

The question has always simply been how much.

Now the IPCC, which you routinely claim in pretty much every one of your posts is "alarmist", "authoritarian", "exaggerating" (blah blah) explicitly states in their own reports that they're not sure, but that the value is likely somewhere between 2 - 4.5°C, with the most agreed upon number being 3°C:

the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C.

Source: IPCC


So if you had bothered reading the actual paper you linked (instead of jumping to misinformed conclusions as usual), you would have seen that the actual climate sensitivity they arrived at was 2.4°C:

Best-fitting model simulation (ECS2xC = 2.4 K)

Source: your own link (lol)


2.4°C is a little lower than 3°C yes, but still well within the range of the supposedly "alarmist" IPCC, and this is of course only one of many studies that have repeatedly delivered values over and around the 3°C range.


So once again, YOUR OWN SOURCES are contradicting the point you're trying to make - and making you look rather ignorant, and extremely sloppy, considering how much you supposedly champion climate change "skepticism".




Facts. Critical Thinking. Reading Comprehension.

These are all things that separate an actual skeptic from just another hopelessly brainwashed climate denier.


Deny ignorance indeed!

reply to post by mc_squared


Oh, i like the name calling.

That always helps. People who do not agree with you are labeled - deniers-.

It's over. Go eat some turkey.
The ClimateGate emails have revealed the truth. - Deception-

You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


It's not name calling. I fully explained and showed the difference between a skeptic and a denier.



For example - a skeptic does research, provides links to reputable sources, makes sure they read them properly first, and maintains an open mind about uncertainty and being wrong.

A denier knee-jerks to every manufactured "nail in the coffin" scandal, declares "it's over", and 's themselves silly, since they have nothing actually constructive to add to the conversation.

reply to post by mc_squared


Don't be afraid of the Earth warming and cooling.

It's been going on for millions of years.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Thanks genius.

I'll email that obscure little fact to the climate scientists, since I guess it's never dawned on any of them before. I'll be sure to add a lot of 's just to make sure they get the message loud and clear.


You can probably read my email in two years time when someone releases more pointless fluff for the deniers to hoot and holler over.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Thanks genius.

I'll email that obscure little fact to the climate scientists, since I guess it's never dawned on any of them before. I'll be sure to add a lot of

's just to make sure they get the message loud and clear.


You can probably read my email in two years time when someone releases more pointless fluff for the deniers to hoot and holler over.

Just calm down. It will all be over soon.

Peace and tranquility will replace your deception and fear.

Time is on our side.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by purplemer

 

What are you worried about? The next ice age?
The Earth is always warming and cooling.

Get used to it.

Very poor metaphor.. I will try and show you...

What are you worried about?? Being murdered?
People are always getting murdered.

Get used to it

You sure have one bend over and die attitude... If the human race gets wiped out because of AGW. I propose you get the Darwin award...

wow... just wow....

We are all being distracted from the real polluters who are dumping chemicals into waterways, and getting away with it. Simply because we have all been tricked to focus on CO2. So called, "Deniers, and Proponents" alike, we are all focusing on a debate about a non-toxic gas, and they've succeeded at that goal.

What I don't get is we have supposedly smart people here, but they bury their head when the central authority on climate change has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

"Hide the decline" is most obvious, but then also the lack of scientific rigor when allowing people to have access to source data which prevents independent analysis. No one at ipcc is a real scientist, and to say otherwise is utterly offensive to any scientist that takes themselves seriously.

I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. Down is up, and up is down.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Yeah right... NASA study that shows Venus and Mars are experiencing global warming and the sun is to blame. WRONG, DEAD WRONG. This study doesn't exist.

Educate yourself:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Ok I'll see your anti-skeptic site and raise you the original reports on warming on pluto
www.space.com...

and an excerpt of the original article on the mars global warming
www.canada.com...

sorry the original full article on Mars is in russian and I can't find a full copy of it in english.

And here is an article on the nasa findings on gloabal warming on triton
www.scienceagogo.com...

Lastly an article on solar radiation being the primary cause of global warming
www.canada.com...

Originally posted by alonzo730
There is a prophecy in my culture (Kanienkehaka) that when the trees started dying from the top down the end would be near. Trees have been dying from acid rain for quite some time now. The Inuit of the Canadian north are saying all kinds of changes are happening there. Seeing birds that have never come that far north before, they can't make igloos any more when they go hunting. I prefer to believe the people that see it happening first hand. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and say it's not happening. We're all responsible and we have to something about it. Granted, a carbon tax may not be the best way to go about it. How many people on this planet are willing to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily?

You do realize that there was a point in the recent past when trees grew on greenland and the norse farmed there right? That was when it was named greenland. When things cooled off the climate got colder and the peoples of northern greenland gave up there kiyaks and normal ways and started building igloss and they are the ancestors of the eskimos. It's a cycle, in another 50 -60 years temperatures will be back down lower and eventually we'll have another mini ice age.

reply to post by exile1981


Yes, i read that article from Canada.
-- Sun Causes Climate Change -

The sun causes global warming not the evil humans.
- Manmade CO2 emissions have become religious dogma to many scientists, politicians, activists
& fundraisers.-

Now we have Global Warming Hoax Deniers.


They are denying there is a hoax going on.

It turns out there is a direct relationship between the weather on the sun and the weather
on the Earth.

We will have to put Al Gore in a straitjacket.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by exile1981

 

On the issue of CO2, we (the west) always get the blame for the majority of the CO2. Yet the Chinese have 16 ships that together produce more sulfur and CO2 than all the cars in THE WORLD combined.

And rightly so should we get the blame. Lets look at America and China. The US produces just under 20% of the worlds CO2 and China just over 20%. China has about 1.3 billion people and the US has just over 300 million.
So as you can see there is a very disproportional use of carbon on behalf of the US...

Actually as per 2008 CDIAC report (newest one available) the CO2 emmisions are as follows.

China 7,031,916,000 tones 23.22% of world total
US 5,461,014,00 tones = 18.11% of world total

But thos numbers only include fossil fuels burned in vehicles and power plants and CO2 emitted in the production of cement. (there criteria not mine, no idea why they do it that way)

Of the above numbers 333,000,000 of the US's CO2 comes from cars and trucks (for reference)

The chinese ships where not included in the total produced by China and they produced 690,000,000 tones of CO2.
Also the US total includes CO2 from acidental mine fires but the Chinese mine fires do are not included in there numbers, and according to CDIAC they produced about 330,000,000 tons that way. Lastly lots of rural chinese burn coal in there homes for heat and cooking. and that accounts for another 300,000,000 that wasn't counted in the CDIAC numbers.

So the corrected numbers are 7,031,916,000 + 690,000,000 (16 ships) + 330,000,000 (coal fires) + 300,000,000 (cooking and heating) = 8,351,916,000 tones = 27.5%

I agree they have a lot more population than us but if you look at the per capita amounts it paints a very different story.

US 17.5 tones (metric) per person
Australia 18.9
China 8.3 (but as I proved above the reports are skewed to reduce certain countries emissions)

The top four worst producers are
Quatar 53.5
Trinadad and tobago 37.3
United arab emerits 34.6
Netherlands 31.9


you can look up your countries per capita co2 emmissions here
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by purplemer

Thank you for your reply. I was looking at industry atm, yes. However I am aware that the nature of industry changes over time and so do technological advancements. The advancement of technology gives us problems to our solutions but it also causes more problems. Look at the problems of modern society. How many of them are caused by our advancements in technology.

Humans cannot create new problems, only find new ways of expressing their flaws.

It is not correct to think that technology will continue to come up with the answers to our problems.

Technology offers us more options for our creativity and logic to utilize. It doesn't come up with solutions - people do.

Again we are taking a gamble. This is a technocentric view of the world. Remember it is one idea among others. It does not mean it is the correct course of action.

I've no problem with hippie communes. I simply refuse to be part of one, and will disembowel anyone who attempts to force me into one.

The course of action being taking is being dictated by our present economic model. This is the Achilles heal of our attempts if sustainability.

I have an answer to the problem of sustainability, and will enact it to the best of my ability. Whether or not others do so is entirely at their discretion. People living in an irresponsible manner will eventually have to come to terms with their choices.

I'll put it another way - people deserve the life they live and/or lose and the manner in which they live/lose it based upon their decisions in life. If they can figure out how to make something work, then good on them. If they insist on living some way that obviously cannot work - then they are stupid and deserve whatever ends come to them.

Now, if you want to live the "simple life" - then have at it. I, however, will not be participating - and will continue to seek out more efficient ways of accomplishing age-old tasks, and new devices/materials that require less overhead.

You all can chill out here. I really have no problems with it. I'll be busy figuring out how to manufacture things in space and break the speed of light (as well as other perceived laws of physics). I would just appreciate your understanding in the matter that I have no interest in your proposed solution.

... Speaking of... what is it?

I've read a number of criticisms of the free market and how it pertains to environmental issues and sustainability... and I've seen the obvious flaws in many of their assumptions... but I've never actually seen a real solution on their end. I've seen calls for "simpler life" - but this is never really elaborated upon or shown as much attention/detail as the flawed models they use to predict population growth and resource consumption.

Anyway - I'm not satisfied with a "simple life" - I enjoy learning and experimenting/tinkering far too much. I'm the ass who will discover black powder and tell everyone how they, too, can make loud noises and flying debris of awesome (and then some dick will decide to make people explode...) - and then the whole "simple society" is boned because I couldn't be happy working fields every day and fathering kids.