Climate Change |
|
Havequestions |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 2389
Joined: 2009-06-08
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 03:31 PM The Warmers Strike Back
Stephen Dinan’s Washington Times article “Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics,” (March 5, 2010) tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics. “Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of ‘being treated like political pawns’ and need to fight back…” Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/TheWarmersStrikeBack.htm
Admrich,
Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of ‘being treated like political pawns’ and need to fight back…”
Is that the same NAS that stacked the pannel for the review of the Hockey Stick, and later admitted they “just winged it” when asked about how they had conducted the review?
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davidson |
|
|
Sr. Member
Total Posts: 957
Joined: 2009-07-14
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 02:25 PM
Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty
I’ve posted this before & in light of recent discussions/posts am reposting it.
I am convinced that the ideology of environmentalism, particularly its extreme variant, the global warming alarmism, and its widespread acceptance by politicians, journalists and all kinds of leftist intellectuals is the main threat to freedom and prosperity we are facing today.
The reason is that environmentalism and its most extreme version, global warming alarmism, asks for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion and intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are forced to accept rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel and many other things. Some of us had experienced similar examples of such manipulation with ourselves in the communist era and feel obliged to do everything we can to avoid similar developments in the future.
All carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and wind and solar power subsidies are steps in the wrong direction, leading to a severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no benefit.
There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global warming itself. The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of us.
First, the statistically well-documented increase in global temperature has been until now very small and not bigger than the temperature fluctuations in the last centuries and millennia. Throughout the whole 20th century, with all the problematic data collection and adjustments – it was only 0.74 °C. I am surprised again and again that – because of the power of the environmentalist propaganda – people suppose it was much more.
Second, it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant net global warming in the last twelve to fourteen years. I know that this is not a proof of the impossibility of long-term climate changes but it is a relevant piece of information which should not be ignored or downplayed. New data and new theories are emerging every day and some of them suggest the probability of future cooling, not warming.
Third, the scientific dispute about the causes of the undergoing climate changes is not over, it continues. Despite contrary assertions, there is no scientific consensus about it. What is more and more evident is that CO2 is losing the position of the main culprit and that its potential impact has already been more or less “consumed.” Simple, monocasual theory of functional relationship between CO2 and temperature is evidently untenable. There is absolutely no linearity between CO2 emissions and temperature.
Fourth, the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth. The climate has always been changing and will always be.
I would add, after my recent discussions with CC, that there is also a bigoted moral crusading element, which thinks that its morals are more moral than anyone else’s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davidson |
|
|
Sr. Member
Total Posts: 957
Joined: 2009-07-14
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 02:47 PM Interesting discussion -
Why aren’t climate scientists talking about healthcare reform?
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-19-why-arent-climate-scientists-talking-about-healthcare-reform/
From my apparently well-financed one-eyed perspective I caught this line -
It takes a kind of a top down stimulus from institutions and opinion leaders, starting with the White House and major government agencies.
& then there was this paragraph…
But one area not getting enough attention is the focus on how the faith-based community is responding to climate change; not just religious communities discussing climate change as a moral issue, but also ethics experts at universities discussing the ethical implications of climate impacts. The idea that climate change is one of society’s leading moral and ethical dilemmas is under-communicated. There’s some work on the part of ethicists to try and engage journalists about how to cover these questions substantively. There’s an opportunity for environmental leaders, scientists, and public health leaders to partner with religious leaders
Yep. More moral than moral.
The nearest thing to this sort of trashy thinking is the puritanism of the Reformation, or the Spanish Inquisition - the suppression of alternative views by labelling the proponents as immoral.
Don’t believe me? See Hansen’s remarks about cattle trucks.
|
|
|
|
|
admrich |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1939
Joined: 2009-06-22
|
Environmentalists Are Killing Environmentalism
Climate scientists at the CRU used the IPCC, a political vehicle established by the UN, to provide the false scientific basis for all energy and environmental policies. They created what Essex and McKitrick called the Doctrine of Certainty in their book Taken by Storm. They define this as, “The basic not-to-be-questioned assertions of the Doctrine are:
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Warming has already been observed.
3. Humans are causing it.
4. All but a handful of scientists on the fringe believe it.
5. Warming is bad.
6. Action is required immediately.
7. Any action is better than none.
8. Claims of uncertainty only cover the ulterior motives of individuals aiming to stop needed action.
9. Those who defend uncertainty are bad people.
They conclude, “The Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know it is false.” Remember this was written before disclosure of the emails and the many IPCC errors.
But the most devastating proof of the scientific inadequacies of the IPCC Reports is the complete failure of every prediction they have made. They were as wrong on every issue as the Club of Rome Limits to Growth predictions. Ability to predict weather accurately is difficult in 24 hours and virtually impossible beyond 72 hours. AGW proponents claimed weather was different than climate and predictable with a degree of certainty. This is false because climate is an average of the weather. If their claim was correct forecasts in the brief 20 years since their first Report in 1990 would be correct. Every one is wrong. They tried to avoid the problem by switching to a range of scenarios but even the lowest wrong. These are facts Ban Ki Moon and environmental groups can understand. By ignoring them and crying wolf when the wolf is already in the flock undermines the logical and reasonable adoption of environmentalism.
Environmentalists took over environmentalism and preached to everyone how they knew best and only they cared. How dare they? We are all environmentalists. With blind faith they, deceived, misdirected, threatened, destroyed jobs, careers, opportunities and development. Now those who paid the price will be less willing to listen or support genuine environmental concerns.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21134
|
|
|
|
|
admrich |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1939
Joined: 2009-06-22
|
Temperatures rising
In climate-change discussions, two Princeton professors go against the grain
The issue of climate change, or global warming, has become a rallying cry: The Earth’s surface temperatures are rising due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of it produced by human activity. Unless action is taken, and soon, global warming could cause crops to fail and sea levels to rise, leading to widespread social disruptions and endangering many species of life on the planet. President Obama, who has renewed the American commitment to combating this problem, declared at the recent United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen: “Climate change threatens us all.”
That’s one thing scientists agree on, right? Well, not everyone.
http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/03/17/pages/7940/index.xml
|
|
|
|
|
admrich |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1939
Joined: 2009-06-22
|
Global Warming on Trial
In 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton wrote a book of fiction called State of Fear. The plot of the storyline is the exposé of the fraudulent science behind the global warming theory in the middle of a fictitious court case. The book was a bestseller, and in a strange twist of circumstances, it landed Dr. Crichton in front of a Senate committee. Now it seems that life is indeed imitating art.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/global_warming_on_trial.html
|
|
|
|
|
admrich |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1939
Joined: 2009-06-22
|
Scientific Alliance Newsletter – Climate Change: Both Sides Dig In
Where the climate change debate is concerned, the temptation to use military metaphors is sometimes irresistible. Until recently, the vastly superior forces of the IPCC and its allies in the scientific establishment have prevailed against the guerrilla warfare of the sceptics, who have sometimes done localised damage but never threatened the monolith. However, as a series of weaknesses in their campaign have become increasingly public, those who are currently in the scientific mainstream are being forced to conduct a more vigorous defence of their position. But the various groups of dissenting and sceptical irregulars, though they have gained ground, are far from having won the war. Both camps are now digging in for the long haul. Whether there will ever be a decisive victory for one side or the other is doubtful, but for now the battlefield is at least more even.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/03/scientific-alliance-newsletter-climate-change-both-sides-dig-in/?utm_source=feedcom&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+GlacierGate+(Glacier+Gate)
|
|
|
|
|
guess who |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1351
Joined: 2010-02-01
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 03:54 PM Temperatures rising
In climate-change discussions, two Princeton professors go against the grain
The issue of climate change, or global warming, has become a rallying cry: The Earth’s surface temperatures are rising due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of it produced by human activity. Unless action is taken, and soon, global warming could cause crops to fail and sea levels to rise, leading to widespread social disruptions and endangering many species of life on the planet. President Obama, who has renewed the American commitment to combating this problem, declared at the recent United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen: “Climate change threatens us all.”
That’s one thing scientists agree on, right? Well, not everyone.
http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/03/17/pages/7940/index.xml
which is of course another contradiction of “the warming is natural”
“its the sun”, “its the coming out of the ice age”
|
|
|
|
|
guess who |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1351
Joined: 2010-02-01
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 03:43 PM Environmentalists Are Killing Environmentalism
Climate scientists at the CRU used the IPCC, a political vehicle established by the UN, to provide the false scientific basis for all energy and environmental policies. They created what Essex and McKitrick called the Doctrine of Certainty in their book Taken by Storm. They define this as, “The basic not-to-be-questioned assertions of the Doctrine are:
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Warming has already been observed.
3. Humans are causing it.
4. All but a handful of scientists on the fringe believe it.
5. Warming is bad.
6. Action is required immediately.
7. Any action is better than none.
8. Claims of uncertainty only cover the ulterior motives of individuals aiming to stop needed action.
9. Those who defend uncertainty are bad people.
They conclude, “The Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know it is false.” Remember this was written before disclosure of the emails and the many IPCC errors.
But the most devastating proof of the scientific inadequacies of the IPCC Reports is the complete failure of every prediction they have made. They were as wrong on every issue as the Club of Rome Limits to Growth predictions. Ability to predict weather accurately is difficult in 24 hours and virtually impossible beyond 72 hours. AGW proponents claimed weather was different than climate and predictable with a degree of certainty. This is false because climate is an average of the weather. If their claim was correct forecasts in the brief 20 years since their first Report in 1990 would be correct. Every one is wrong. They tried to avoid the problem by switching to a range of scenarios but even the lowest wrong. These are facts Ban Ki Moon and environmental groups can understand. By ignoring them and crying wolf when the wolf is already in the flock undermines the logical and reasonable adoption of environmentalism.
Environmentalists took over environmentalism and preached to everyone how they knew best and only they cared. How dare they? We are all environmentalists. With blind faith they, deceived, misdirected, threatened, destroyed jobs, careers, opportunities and development. Now those who paid the price will be less willing to listen or support genuine environmental concerns.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21134
again contradiction of “the warming is natural”
contradiction of admrich earlier post that the warming is tiny .74decC
|
|
|
|
|
guess who |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1351
Joined: 2010-02-01
|
admrich - 21 March 2010 02:25 PM
Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty
I’ve posted this before & in light of recent discussions/posts am reposting it.
I am convinced that the ideology of environmentalism, particularly its extreme variant, the global warming alarmism, and its widespread acceptance by politicians, journalists and all kinds of leftist intellectuals is the main threat to freedom and prosperity we are facing today.
The reason is that environmentalism and its most extreme version, global warming alarmism, asks for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion and intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are forced to accept rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel and many other things. Some of us had experienced similar examples of such manipulation with ourselves in the communist era and feel obliged to do everything we can to avoid similar developments in the future.
All carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and wind and solar power subsidies are steps in the wrong direction, leading to a severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no benefit.
There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global warming itself. The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of us.
First, the statistically well-documented increase in global temperature has been until now very small and not bigger than the temperature fluctuations in the last centuries and millennia. Throughout the whole 20th century, with all the problematic data collection and adjustments – it was only 0.74 °C. I am surprised again and again that – because of the power of the environmentalist propaganda – people suppose it was much more.
Second, it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant net global warming in the last twelve to fourteen years. I know that this is not a proof of the impossibility of long-term climate changes but it is a relevant piece of information which should not be ignored or downplayed. New data and new theories are emerging every day and some of them suggest the probability of future cooling, not warming.
Third, the scientific dispute about the causes of the undergoing climate changes is not over, it continues. Despite contrary assertions, there is no scientific consensus about it. What is more and more evident is that CO2 is losing the position of the main culprit and that its potential impact has already been more or less “consumed.” Simple, monocasual theory of functional relationship between CO2 and temperature is evidently untenable. There is absolutely no linearity between CO2 emissions and temperature.
Fourth, the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth. The climate has always been changing and will always be.
NO co2/ temp relationship, contradiction of ” co2 lags temperature”
temp increase has been very small, contradiction of “there has been no temperature increase”
No consensus, contradiction of a global science conspiracy
that HQ bloke is a laugh CC he pulled one of his hockey stick posts and replaced it with something else
|
|
|
|
|
sheepish |
|
|
Sr. Member
Total Posts: 185
Joined: 2009-12-24
|
I’ve posted this in the Climate Change action plan forum tonight
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/end-phase-of-the-climate-wars
this article is written by a New Zealand lawyer; wonderfully succinct and worth sending to all Parliamentarians having regard to the imminence of the ETS bill before the Senate
and for those temperature enthusiasts don’t know if I’ve linked to this site before
here’s someone who has done a fair bit of home work on the ARCS network
http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/air-bases.html
and a reader’s comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog on
18.3.01
Eloi (Reply)
Thu 18 Mar 10 (12:10am) 18/3/10
Installment 3 of the CSIRO+BoM “robust, peer-reviewed” climate report – this time looking at the Reference Climate Station (RCS) Network with the help of Google Earth. The RCS is the BoM’s subset of monitoring stations used for “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” (their words, not mine).
According to the BoM website, the stations are selected for their “location in an area away from large urban centres”. In all probability, this is the set of stations that was used for the CSIRO+BoM work of fiction.
Check it out
|
|
|
|
|
guess who |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1351
Joined: 2010-02-01
|
sheepish - 21 March 2010 06:35 PM I’ve posted this in the Climate Change action plan forum tonight
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/end-phase-of-the-climate-wars
this article is written by a New Zealand lawyer; wonderfully succinct and worth sending to all Parliamentarians having regard to the imminence of the ETS bill before the Senate
and for those temperature enthusiasts don’t know if I’ve linked to this site before
here’s someone who has done a fair bit of home work on the ARCS network
http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/air-bases.html
and a reader’s comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog on
18.3.01
Eloi (Reply)
Thu 18 Mar 10 (12:10am) 18/3/10
Installment 3 of the CSIRO+BoM “robust, peer-reviewed” climate report – this time looking at the Reference Climate Station (RCS) Network with the help of Google Earth. The RCS is the BoM’s subset of monitoring stations used for “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” (their words, not mine).
According to the BoM website, the stations are selected for their “location in an area away from large urban centres”. In all probability, this is the set of stations that was used for the CSIRO+BoM work of fiction.
Check it out
this eloi must be a retard , like the lawyer ,like bolt
all he has proven is that as a casual observer he does not have a clue
|
|
|
|
|
Red Star |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 1197
Joined: 2009-07-13
|
Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal
The multi-billion dollar global warming fraud is truly beginning to crumble, with even vehement man-made climate change advocates like the BBC acknowledging that the credibility of the IPCC is shot.
“The bloggers are all over the UN IPCC 2007 report, the bible of global warming, which predicted all manner of dire outcomes for our planet unless we got a grip on rising temperatures — and it seems to be crumbling in some pretty significant areas,” writes the BBC’s Andrew Neil in an article entitled ‘The dam is cracking‘.
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/newreply/125/
|
|
|
|
|
Havequestions |
|
|
Professional Contributor
Total Posts: 2389
Joined: 2009-06-08
|
sheepish - 21 March 2010 06:35 PM I’ve posted this in the Climate Change action plan forum tonight
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/end-phase-of-the-climate-wars
this article is written by a New Zealand lawyer; wonderfully succinct and worth sending to all Parliamentarians having regard to the imminence of the ETS bill before the Senate
and for those temperature enthusiasts don’t know if I’ve linked to this site before
here’s someone who has done a fair bit of home work on the ARCS network
http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/air-bases.html
and a reader’s comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog on
18.3.01
Eloi (Reply)
Thu 18 Mar 10 (12:10am) 18/3/10
Installment 3 of the CSIRO+BoM “robust, peer-reviewed” climate report – this time looking at the Reference Climate Station (RCS) Network with the help of Google Earth. The RCS is the BoM’s subset of monitoring stations used for “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” (their words, not mine).
According to the BoM website, the stations are selected for their “location in an area away from large urban centres”. In all probability, this is the set of stations that was used for the CSIRO+BoM work of fiction.
Check it out
Sheepish.
Very interesting. It is hard to believe that BOM would not have taken this into account and ‘adjusted’ the readings to correct for the changes in the environment since the stations were originally installed. This small sample is looking pretty bad. This will be interesting to follow as it progresses.
Isn’t it amazing how fast the sceptics are getting onto and revealing the information now (its only a few days since the BOM-CSIRO report was released), Compare with McIntyre’s 7-years to expose the Hockey Stick problems.
|
|
|
|
|
