Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[AnnaG]

Now don't get your knickers in a knot, dear. As I stated above, I have no problem with the joke. In fact, I'll go farther, I appreciate them. I've posted a few myself.

Congratulations.
BTW, when someone challenges my honesty, I don't take it lightly. Perhaps you may think honesty is over-rated but I don't.

You're stretching this out a bit far. You told me to check out Walter's posts if I wanted to know if your comment was correct. That's not how it's done and I said so. If you don't want to bother backing up your statement, just say so, and that's OK too.

waaaahh

There you go! That wasn't so hard now, was it? (In response I would suggest that the global warming myth is the anthropogenic cause, not the warming itself. But I can't speak for Walter.)

:roll:

 

[Slim Chance]

What facts would those be, the nonsense being generated by psuedo-scientists like Singer being funded by companies like Exxon/Mobile or the real science that's been accumulated for decades on the link between human activity and climate change.

.. Ahhh - It all very clear now. You will be the judge of the "approved" scientific thought and representatives. You should've said that from the beginning.

As a side note, Exxon, Syncrude and all the majors also fund many eco-interests (incl Suzuki)... Interesting that I am not aware of a single example of a major, mainstream greenie group that is actually spends one dime of their own on R&D AND is producing results... Gat an explanation for this or is it the eevviilll oil companies conspiring to prevent any such results from being generated.

I can't do any better than Avro and the massive amount of RESEARCH that he's cited.

Cited? You mean cut 'n paste without any clue as to the contents of the papers (the fraudulent sources notwithstanding)

Denial by the tobacco industry has claimed millions of lives, denial by the fossil fuel industry could potentially claim billions, there's nothing funny about this situation.

Above represents the absolute most ridiculuous, unsubstantiated and blind comment I've possibly ever heard.

 

[AnnaG]

Disseminate, distract, confuse and accuse: these are the tried and true methods to discredit and/or obscure the scientific consensus on any situation that could potentially hurt the bottom line of major economics concern in recent history.

The fact is the peer reviewed research on climate change is virtually unanimous, human activity is having a global effect on the climate which is being forced to a higher average temperature. The case against climate change is being made almost exclusively in the mainstream media which is much less subject to scientific rigor and much easier to influence through economic pressure.

That's pretty much what I've noticed. I've also noticed that there are a lot of people who would disagree with the majority of scientists simply because it has been known to happen that the majority can be wrong, not because the scientists' interpretation of the data is wrong. Like saying, "Oh, most scientists say it's this way, so the truth must be the other way because most people thought Galileo was off his nut."

 

[Slim Chance]

Anna... How do you (and Cobalt Kid) respond to the possibility that the peer review process (on the GW issue) was manipulated to minimize the exposure of non-supportive AGW researchers... How about the contention that the IPCC/UN recently reversed their positions of the Himalayan glacier research/statements and the Amazon rainforest data in that the original position ensured total peer review and later it is uncovered that there was no peer review process applied to either position?

 

[AnnaG]

Anna... How do you (and Cobalt Kid) respond to the possibility that the peer review process (on the GW issue) was manipulated to minimize the exposure of non-supportive AGW researchers...

I don't know. If you ask me how I respond to it, I would say "shyte happens" and that the ones that fudged results should have their findings investigated. That doesn't mean there should be a witch hunt and every scientist is suspect.

How about the contention that the IPCC/UN recently reversed their positions of the Himalayan glacier research/statements and the Amazon rainforest data in that the original position ensured total peer review and later it is uncovered that there was no peer review process applied to either position?

Again, if you ask me how I would respond, I'd say, "So what? Scientific findings flipflop a lot. For one reason, sscience may postulate a theory on certain evidence. Some period of time later new evidence surfaces that cause the original postulation to be amended, thrown out, or whatever."
Climate science is relatively new and climate does not stay static. It changes and so does what we learn from it. What doesn't seem to change is the idiocies that politics, religion, and partisanship throw into the matter.

 

[Slim Chance]

I don't know. If you ask me how I respond to it, I would say "shyte happens" and that the ones that fudged results should have their findings investigated. That doesn't mean there should be a witch hunt and every scientist is suspect.

The ideal represented relates to the possibility that the entire peer review process (in terms of the AGW debate) are tainted... It is not the individual scientists that are in question, it is the context of the entire debate... IF the allegations surrounding peer review are suspect, then the opportunity for any form of meaningful debate is forfeit.

Again, if you ask me how I would respond, I'd say, "So what? Scientific findings flipflop a lot. For one reason, sscience may postulate a theory on certain evidence. Some period of time later new evidence surfaces that cause the original postulation to be amended, thrown out, or whatever."
Climate science is relatively new and climate does not stay static. It changes and so does what we learn from it. What doesn't seem to change is the idiocies that politics, religion, and partisanship throw into the matter.

Then, how is it possibly to attach any significance to the strength of any research or theories if flip-flopping is the norm. The entire process is undermined if the expectations are so low.

 

[AnnaG]

The ideal represented relates to the possibility that the entire peer review process (in terms of the AGW debate) are tainted... It is not the individual scientists that are in question, it is the context of the entire debate... IF the allegations surrounding peer review are suspect, then the opportunity for any form of meaningful debate is forfeit.

Opinion. Just because Anglia screwed around and the others ignored it doesn't mean the others are just as screwy.
If aboriginals have dark hair, does that mean that all dark-haired people are aboriginals?

Then, how is it possibly to attach any significance to the strength of any research or theories if flip-flopping is the norm. The entire process is undermined if the expectations are so low.

It's you who said it was the norm, not me. All I said was that it happens frequently. Are you suggesting that even though new evidence comes along that may alter a scientific finding, we should stick to the old finding and ignore the new evidence?

 

[Slim Chance]

Opinion. Just because Anglia screwed around and the others ignored it doesn't mean the others are just as screwy.

The CRU at East Anglia was one of the primary research facilities that heavily (if not exclusively) influenced the IPCC and UN on this issue... This group represents ground zero in the peer review process for the GW debate - if their process is corrupted, then the entire fabric is affected.

It's you who said it was the norm, not me. All I said was that it happens frequently. Are you suggesting that even though new evidence comes along that may alter a scientific finding, we should stick to the old finding and ignore the new evidence?

If peer review is not the norm and research efforts are plagued with endless reversals, then there is no debate. If this is the case, then why attach any significance to this "abnormal" process at all?

In terms of the scientific finding example you mention; It is important to mention that I was very careful to identify AGW as the specific debate. With regard to the point you make, those findings occur on all planes on this debate and if East Anglia was deliberately obstructing the peer review process/access to research that was not parallel to their beliefs, then we don't really do not have access to all of the new research - we have access only to the point of view that they want supported.

 

[AnnaG]

The CRU at East Anglia was one of the primary research facilities that heavily (if not exclusively) influenced the IPCC and UN on this issue... This group represents ground zero in the peer review process for the GW debate - if their process is corrupted, then the entire fabric is affected.

... or would it just be the IPCC and UN?

If peer review is not the norm and research efforts are plagued with endless reversals, then there is no debate. If this is the case, then why attach any significance to this "abnormal" process at all?

wow That's not a very good spin. It is you that mentioned the term "norm", not me. All I said was that scientists are frequently modifying postulations.

In terms of the scientific finding example you mention; It is important to mention that I was very careful to identify AGW as the specific debate. With regard to the point you make, those findings occur on all planes on this debate and if East Anglia was deliberately obstructing the peer review process/access to research that was not parallel to their beliefs, then we don't really do not have access to all of the new research - we have access only to the point of view that they want supported.

You think this continues even after they've been found out? It sounds to me like paranoia has set in.

 

[AnnaG]

Personally I think the scam about global warming is a myth. The only scam is all the political hoopla that followed.
I'm patient. I can wait for decades to see that warming is a reality and whether we had a hand in it. Currently it looks to me as if we did have a hand in the warming.

 

[Slim Chance]

Nope... The IPCC/UN are only the mouth piece that relies on the scientific community - this is where East Anglia comes into the picture.

If you want to split hairs on the spin-factor - you were the one that said flip-flop as opposed to modification - there's a world of difference there. In the end, using the word norm or flip flop is irrelevant.

Lastly, it is not likely going on any longer or at least not as badly, however, the foundations of the debate, research, conclusions and especially the recommendations would be strongly impacted as they were based on a corrupted process... Kinda pulls the rug out from under the fundamental position of the IPCC.

 

[AnnaG]

Nope... The IPCC/UN are only the mouth piece that relies on the scientific community - this is where East Anglia comes into the picture.

So because Anglia screwed around means everyone else did, too. I see.

If you want to split hairs on the spin-factor - you were the one that said flip-flop as opposed to modification - there's a world of difference there. In the end, using the word norm or flip flop is irrelevant.

Ok I'm easy. Call it SOP if you want.

Lastly, it is not likely going on any longer or at least not as badly, however, the foundations of the debate, research, conclusions and especially the recommendations would be strongly impacted as they were based on a corrupted process... Kinda pulls the rug out from under the fundamental position of the IPCC.

I hope it isn't going on much longer. If it does, our planet will be a helluva mess. But, I see even China has decided that the present rate of irresponsibility towards our planet needs to change.
And personally, I don't give a crap who said what, who messed with what results, etc. as long as our destructive attitude towards our planet does change. As far as economies go, they fluctuate up and down and life carries on anyway.

 

[Tonington]

Then, how is it possibly to attach any significance to the strength of any research or theories if flip-flopping is the norm. The entire process is undermined if the expectations are so low.

That's easy. The IPCC made errors in it's review process. Admitting errors is not a flip-flop... All such processes, no matter what subject, make errors. The significance comes from others using your results to strengthen the body of knowledge by adding new contributions that your work allowed. In the case of the Himalayan glaciers, it was another scientist who spotted the error. This too is part of the review process. Peer review doesn't end when a journal accepts the submission...or in this case when the bureaucrats from around the world-including the Indian government- approve the IPCC wording.

Also, the Himalayan glacier error isn't a fatal error. It doesn't falsify the work of any others, only the work that cited the erroneous figure. If the radiative effects of greenhouse gases depended on Himalayan glaciers, well then the scientists involved would have a problem. They do not.

 

[ironsides]

Yes, but since this could be a global catastrophe, is "Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’or not?"

 

[Tonington]

Assuming that it is a scam...which is not the kind of assumption that stands after a robust look at the data in question.

 

[ironsides]

Sure has been a cold winter this year.

 

[Cliffy]

Sure has been a cold winter this year.

Warmest winter I have ever experienced. We have had Vancouver weather for the past two months. Almost no snow and what little fell was gone by mid day. Heli skiing is over a month early. Doesn't mean a thing in the over all global picture over the long haul, but I guess like the nay sayers, I could hold it up as proof of GW.

 

[ironsides]

Warmest winter I have ever experienced. We have had Vancouver weather for the past two months. Almost no snow and what little fell was gone by mid day. Heli skiing is over a month early. Doesn't mean a thing in the over all global picture over the long haul, but I guess like the nay sayers, I could hold it up as proof of GW.

There will be a shortage of fresh veggies from Florida this year, strawberries will be a one season crop this year, tomatoes were frozen and corn is 6 weeks behind schedule. I don't blame it at all for global warming or cooling, it is El Nino that is driving the jet stream further south than normal this winter. Thus giving you guys a warmer winter.

 

[Johnnny]

i went to Wendy,s the other day and they only served tomatoes if you asked for them

 

[YukonJack]

Cliffy, it was also the warmest winter on Mars, Jupiter and even on the outer planets.

Lots of people and SUV's there, eh?