Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Pertinent thoughts, as you have made, and thanks for your comments,
always appreciated. As per your observations, science that is based on empirical data,
which as time goes on technological advances have, and will continue to
enlighten us. The danger with the AGW belief is they plan to change the earths
atmosphere based upon a contested theory....AGW. That is the biggest concern,
the lessor ones, which are not quite so small are increased carbon tax, and further
pollution in the oceans, with many of these geoengineering experiments.

reply to post by burntheships

The danger with the AGW belief is they plan to change the earths atmosphere based upon a contested theory....AGW. That is the biggest concern, the lessor ones, which are not quite so small are increased carbon tax, and further pollution in the oceans, with many of these geoengineering experiments.

It really is a shame that you don't understand how ironic your statement is. The IPCC stance on geo-engineering is largely negative and the groups pushing geoengineering are the same think tanks pushing science denial. The thing you're most afraid of, you're actively helping along.

17.Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects.

AR4

*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions controls altogether."

*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy than greenhouse gas reductions:
"In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."

*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as substitute for reductions:
"Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for a number of years."

*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.

And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz.

It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible, intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun.

Source

I think the OP pretty much sits in with this:

Deniers on the other hand, refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with their personal beliefs, desires or ideology. People in denial gather reasons and excuses, however flimsy, that allow them to not believe in whatever unwelcome truth they're trying to avoid.

Link

reply to post by intrptr

Scolding, the truth hurts huh?

Two seconds of research would have answered your questions.

Perhaps you were waiting for your mummy to tell you how to use google?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

What is worse is that an experienced ATS member, the OP, actually encouraged and supported your ignorance rather than seek the actual truth.

Global Warming, The Tool Of The West

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming
as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing
full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral
downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use
this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more
conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the
greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.
source article

"This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists"

reply to post by burntheships


Keep supporting the Oil Cartels and their plans to fix what they broke with geo-engineering.

Al Gore as Moses

The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted
on the basis of faith as opposed to hard evidence. Questioning those pronouncements
makes one a sinner. No one denies that the Earth’s temperature changes. Millions of years
ago, much of our planet was covered by ice, at some places up to a mile thick, a period
some scientists call “Snowball Earth.” Today, the Earth is not covered by a mile of ice;
a safe conclusion is that there must have been a bit of global warming. I don’t know the
cause of that warming, but I’d wager everything I own that it was not caused by
coal-fired electric generation plants, incandescent light bulbs and SUVs tooling
up and down the highways. source article

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

reply to post by burntheships

Refresh... The best evidence I have for anything being a propaganda campaign is a quick check of the Main Stream Medias stance on the subject. I am not talkiing about particular coverage of a single event like an out of control wildfire or bridge collapse. I am talking about Media 'campaigns' that are ongoing and one-sided, excluding other view points (except for keeping up appearances sake).

Good examples of this are the gun control stance behind recent rampage shootings, the North Korean "bad presidents" with WMD rhetoric and yes, the climate. As in Global Warming. Where does the media position itself?

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com...

Emphasis added. I am sure that has changed somewhat since this article by the founder of the Weather Channel was written. He is after all a meteorologist unlike news desk talking heads in front of a "green screen".

Even I can tell from such a simple sentence that a campaign is all it is. You know why? Because the media carries it. The penultimate lying bunch of make news that fits their (global) agenda crowd. See the word global? It fits well with all their other global agenda too.

Words like "Globalization" and New World Order. Like a glove baby.

Climate gate is a good descriptive for it.

reply to post by intrptr


The media actually doesn't carry it.

reply to post by intrptr


The mainstream media would never report things untrue, and promote propaganda
would they?

/sarcasm

Very good finds there intrptr...
that the MSM towns the line, is telling.
We already know that the MSM is the Gatekeeper, would could go
a step further and say they they are nearly a state run propaganda outlet.

Considering that the Gubbment spends billions every year on "Climate Change"
reasearch alone, they have to maintain a mass brainwashing of the people
to justify such an outlandish waste of taxpayer funds. Imagine if this entire budget
was spent on true research that would lead to effective ways to reduce pollution,
and promote real energy solutions.

Funny how someone, such a beacon of honesty and integrity, won't look at or respond to facts that contradict her own. I suppose it's more fun to propagate memes, insult people and pretend contradictions don't exist.

Coverage of climate impacts — extreme weather, melting glaciers and Arctic ice, warming temperatures and more —

dominated climate news, accounting for almost one of every three stories written on the topic in 2012.



That is the highest proportion in the five years that the website has been tracking coverage. www.eastbayexpress.com...

The cries of foul seem to come from those who can not tolerate the fact
that the theory of AGW is presented by some media as a two sided debate....

ABC, CBS, and NBC — who the groups say don’t focus enough news coverage
on climate change issues and, ....

when they do cover the issue, portray the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring climate skeptics.

dailycaller.com...

Ad Hominem attacks will not be responded to.

reply to post by burntheships


A two sided debate... exactly.
Kind of refutes claims of propaganda, or is that an ad-hominem attack too?

reply to post by burntheships

I have another. This is just one "presumption" I can make as an observer. There are "yardsticks" to sea level rise. Pier pilings.

Old piers

I mean, if ice melting has been ongoing for some time, shouldn't the water level have risen a little bit? Call it simple, call it what you will. Those pilings been sitting there for decades, some for a hundred years. At just about the same elevation too.

You see, my "theory" holds that if oceans receive more than usual runoff then the increase in pressure overall displaces that much more water underground, into aquifers or sub-ocean caves, whatever. The level of the oceans doesn't change, its the land that does. Water flows. Tectonics accounts for apparent sea level rise because the earths crust in the form of plates grind and push under each other, giving the illusion that sea levels have risen. When really it is the interaction of plate boundaries that pile up mountains or make trenches. Plus oceans gradually wear away coastlines, giving that illusion again.

Now, I am not an eng-ga-near, but I have read a thing or two about it and even though I can't type it the way I am seeing it, that is my tentative conclusion. I am absolutely sure that the GW folk will attack it with relish.

reply to post by burntheships

We already know that the MSM is the Gatekeeper, would could go
a step further and say they they are nearly a state run propaganda outlet.

Actually, I go way further than that. We all know that in the days of WWII the propaganda machines of Japan and Germany (in the guise of "news agencies") lied to their people about everything. Among these lies were the cause for the aggressive wars they waged, the actual extent to which these were fought, the nature of the enemy and in the end, the down playing of lost territory and personnel.

Everything was peachy keen until the surrender. Civilians were deceived all along about every aspect of the era. And that paradigm was exclusive to the country the state apparatus was directed to. Any outside influence or media stories from the "other side" were censored.

I'll give you but one example. My mom was 9 years old in Germany in WWII. She remembers there being a penalty of death to listen to any but state sponsored radio broadcasts. She also remembers the family and others from around her home coming to the house to listen to the Voice of America or whatever they called it. It was the only news broadcast they trusted to get the truth. The German radio was 100% bull****.

When they wanted to know how the war was going they listened to the Allied armed forces radio network on a shortwave set they had hidden. Goebbels be damned.

I know some will say that was different era, and again I say BS. Propaganda, newspapers, and radio are / were just the same. And guess what, so are all the "stories" they feed us. Even now. Especially now. We have TV. And more and more, I hate to say, the internet.

I don't believe anything they say anymore. When I want to ferret the truth I believe the opposite. Whatever they are selling that is the lie. Whatever they harp on over and over that is the disinformation.

reply to post by intrptr


Very interesting that the supposed rising sea water has never materialized.

What did happen instead:

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data – AGAIN

One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature
will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers
being under water. Let’s face it, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now…. just wait.


There is only one problem with this scenario, Mother Nature isn’t being cooperative.
www.omsj.org...

As we have come to learn....the climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that
sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2 feet because of global warming in the 21st
century...

Yes, keep in mind this is just a projection, and they base this on modeling....

Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches
and there has been no rise since 2006.

So...to help the data our.... the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded
Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do,
they fudged the numbers.

Quite the trick I'd say, what are the need for scientists, the traders on Wall Street do this
all day long, and they dont get caught.

reply to post by burntheships




You actually use Pravda as your source. en.wikipedia.org...

Its owned by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.



Talk about an EPIC FAIL OP.

EPIC.

reply to post by burntheships


It's interesting, and very revealing I think, how much of your convictions here seem to all cite back to the same source: op-ed pieces written by James Taylor.

Item #1:

Earlier in this thread you kept trying to push this denier fairytale myth that there's no consensus on global warming in the scientific community. This assertion was based on a blatantly distorted hit piece by Taylor in Forbes.

What Mr. Taylor conveniently neglected to mention however is that he cherry-picked a deliberate sample of geoscientists and engineers who happen to be primarily employed in the Oil & Gas industry. In fact - the whole point of the study he cited was to show how such professional affiliations lead to predominantly biased opinions on AGW that differ greatly from the well established consensus of actual climate scientists.

Here is the study:

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

And here is a very telling summary of their findings IN CONTEXT:



I notice ATS member redtic even warned you about this and suggested you read the comments on that article (it seems everyone reading it other than you instantly recognized what complete BS it was), but you rejected this offer, preferring to "ignore the comments and keep the facts" and "deny ignorance".

Well, you might want to rethink your strategy on that - seeing as how if you had read the comments you would see the authors of the study themselves posted about how much James Taylor was misrepresenting their results:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …”

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.

More info:

James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor

reply to post by burntheships


Item #2:

Now you're trying to claim that sea level rise has "never materialized", and your source on this is yet another token op-ed, which happens to link itself to this article written by who else - James Taylor.

There are, as usual, numerous things wrong with this piece, and the subsequent conclusions you base from it. First off:

Yes, keep in mind this is just a projection, and they base this on modeling....

How is a projection supposed to be based off anything but modeling? If you happen to have one cut from real measurements then I suppose you also have a DeLorean and a flux capacitor...

Yet you seem to be trying to use this redundant non sequitur to imply that all climate change/sea level info is contrived from imaginary models, even though in the very next sentence you go on to point out yourself that:

Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches and there has been no rise since 2006.

So speaking of which - please go ahead and show us this amazing satellite data. Because here is what I'm looking at:



Source

Where is this "no rise since 2006"? And where exactly are the models failing? Because the only place I see them coming up short is in the fact that they're, well, coming up short:

Sea levels are rising 60 per cent faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) central projections, new research suggests.

Sea Levels Rising Faster Than IPCC Projections