Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[CDNBear]

And if Glaciers didn't recede, we wouldn't be living where we do...;-)

Guess what....?

Phil Jones Exonerated

That really isn't exoneration. I don't mean to split hairs, but they just stated it was common practice, and that his methods and results mimicked those of other institutions.

That just tells me they're all corrupt.

 

[Avro]

Yep, science is just a big joke.:lol:

I'll take the word of science over whatever the hell the skeptic industry and politicians are peddling.

But hey, if you doubt the science then talk to Tonn about it.;-)

 

[CDNBear]

Yep, science is just a big joke.:lol:

Sometimes, it is.

I'll take the word of science over whatever the hell the skeptic industry and politicians are peddling.

Why? They have just as much to loose as the other.

But hey, if you doubt the science then talk to Tonn about it.;-)

I have, I have read every single piece he has ever written, on two different sites no less. I don't doubt the science Avro, I do believe we are seeing a change in climate. I feel it, I see it first hand. Avro, I spend a considerable amount of time surrounded by nature. I really didn't even need a scientist to tell me things are going on and/or wrong. Where I disagree, is in the hype, hyperbole and political BS from both sides and how we should approach it. When I see questionable ethics, whether someone can justify it or not, I have to question the whole of the process.

Just as you formulated questions due to the contents of that video the other day. Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[Avro]

Sometimes, it is.

Why? They have just as much to loose as the other.

I have, I have read every single piece he has ever written, on two different sites no less. I don't doubt the science Avro, I do believe we are seeing a change in climate. I feel it, I see it first hand. Avro, I spend a considerable amount of time surrounded by nature. I really didn't even need a scientist to tell me things are going on and/or wrong. Where I disagree, is in the hype, hyperbole and political BS from both sides and how we should approach it. When I see questionable ethics, whether someone can justify it or not, I have to question the whole of the process.

Just as you formulated questions due to the contents of that video the other day. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Of course and if you check any of my posts on this subject regarding the approach to AGW I agree as do many of the posters who believe in the science collected over the past 30 years.

Take a close look at the skeptic industry the same way you would any politician, science does not work in the same way.....it's the politics that has made it look that way.

The media and blogsphere has turned it into a right/left issue...it's not...it's a scientific issue and should be dealt in that manner.

A scientist can come up with the craziest crap on earth and think it's true until his peers get a hold of it.....in this case 90% concur. This wasn't a simple little study, thousands of studies over many years all peer reviewed....I can show you all the papers if you like....I have posted them here.

Or...better yet...talk to Tonn or a real climate scientist.

I did, a well known one as well, a colleague of my sister.

If you believe that a cabal of scientists and lefties have conspired to take over the world through AGW...I can't help you brother.;-)

 

[CDNBear]

Of course and if you check any of my posts on this subject regarding the approach to AGW I agree as do many of the posters who believe in the science collected over the past 30 years.

Take a close look at the skeptic industry the same way you would any politician, science does not work in the same way.....it's the politics that has made it look that way.

The "skeptic industry" is compiled of "scientists" too.

The media and blogsphere has turned it into a right/left issue...it's not...it's a scientific issue and should be dealt in that manner.

Again, I really don't disagree that there is a change in our climate.

A scientist can come up with the craziest crap on earth and think it's true until his peers get a hold of it.....in this case 90% concur.

Not to belabour the point, but at one point in time, science believed that the world was flat, with a consensus of 99.999999%.

This wasn't a simple little study, thousands of studies over many years all peer reviewed....I can show you all the papers if you like....I have posted them here.

Again, I already acknowledge a change in the climate.

Or...better yet...talk to Tonn or a real climate scientist.

Like I said, I have read everything he has ever posted on the subject.

I did, a well known one as well, a colleague of my sister.

I just paid attention to the environment itself. It really isn't hard to see or feel that there's something going on.

If you believe that a cabal of scientists and lefties have conspired to take over the world through AGW...I can't help you brother.;-)

I do not have tinfoil thoughts of new world orders unfolding under the guise of saving the planet. I am however fully aware that money makes the world turn, and people will ***** themselves and their principals to get more of it. I'm just ot under the delusion that is only being done by the "skeptics".

 

[Avro]

The "skeptic industry" is compiled of "scientists" too.

True, but try and find one that is a climatologist and one that has a peer reviewed paper.

Again, I really don't disagree that there is a change in our climate

.

....yes go on.

Not to belabour the point, but at one point in time, science believed that the world was flat, with a consensus of 99.999999%.
Again, I already acknowledge a change in the climate.

....yes, moot, but go on.

Like I said, I have read everything he has ever posted on the subject.

Good, ever debate him?

I just paid attention to the environment itself. It really isn't hard to see or feel that there's something going on.

....yes, go on.

I do not have tinfoil thoughts of new world orders unfolding under the guise of saving the planet. I am however fully aware that money makes the world turn, and people will ***** themselves and their principals to get more of it. I'm just ot under the delusion that is only being done by the "skeptics".

Okay....ever challenge a skeptic on this site before?

You continue to say that change is occurring but don't acknowledge that it is AGW.

The skeptic industry is like the lawyers for OJ.....and they are succeeding in confusing the jury.

 

[CDNBear]

True, but try and find one that is a climatologist and one that has a peer reviewed paper.

Yes. Shall I post the issues that have arisen in the peer review process, or are you already aware of them and dismiss them as shilling for big oil?

...yes go on.

....yes, moot, but go on.

It's not moot, it is very much pertinent, science of the day was certain that the world was flat, and instead of setting out to prove their science, they used unethical methods to impeach those that disagreed. I've seen this same behaviour from both sides of this equation.

As to "go on". Go on with what? Are you reading into my posts, my observations? Are you looking for something in particular from me?

Good, ever debate him?

Nope, I haven't the faculties, nor the inclination. I enjoy reading his debates and weighing what he presents, to that of his opponents. He makes a strong case and I agree with the bulk of what he posts.

Okay....ever challenge a skeptic on this site before?

Yes, Extrafire, a long time ago, on two sites actually.

You continue to say that change is occurring but don't acknowledge that it is AGW.

Your point? I'm not sold either way. That doesn't mean I am not aware of mans foot print on the planet, or that I do not believe that we are in someway responsible for our present environmental concerns. I am guarded however, because I believe that there are several issues at play here, and that there are even more catalysts for what is happening.

The skeptic industry is like the lawyers for OJ.....and they are succeeding in confusing the jury.

That's subjective. You've picked a side and I can understand your position. Because I see bothsides as an "industry", equally contemptible at this point. I once admired and respected Suzuki, he's forever more a nutter in my books now.

This issue is far larger and more important to be about just picking a side and bashing the other into silence.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The arguments against human generated climate change are as much a fabrication as the arguments against a tobacco cancer link for decades last century, and it's based on pure greed. Some of the same 'scientists'- like Fred Singer- have been hired by Exxon Mobile to just name one company to cloud the issue as much as possible. There is no real scientific debate on the reality of human generated climate change, that's an illusion created by the fossil fuel industry.

The only real debate among genuine scientists is how significant the global climate change will be.

 

[CDNBear]

The arguments against human generated climate change are as much a fabrication as the arguments against a tobacco cancer link for decades last century, and it's based on pure greed.

Of course. But no body on the pro argument side is getting more grant money are they?

Some of the same 'scientists'- like Fred Singer- have been hired by Exxon Mobile to just name one company to cloud the issue as much as possible. There is no real scientific debate on the reality of human generated climate change, that's an illusion created by the fossil fuel industry.

Of course there's no debate, that's because we shouldn't debate it. It should just be accepted without being questioned.

The only real debate among genuine scientists is how significant the global climate change will be.

But of course. Why should it be debated. Whenever one group of scientists come up with proof and they find like minded scientists to agree. That should be the end of it, period. There is no need for debate now. Now we should shut down the refineries, ban cars and end the world as we know it.

Nothing less then full compliance will be tolerated!!!

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Of course. But no body on the pro argument side is getting more grant money are they?

Of course there's no debate, that's because we shouldn't debate it. It should just be accepted without being questioned.

But of course. Why should it be debated. Whenever one group of scientists come up with proof and they find like minded scientists to agree. That should be the end of it, period. There is no need for debate now. Now we should shut down the refineries, ban cars and end the world as we know it.

Nothing less then full compliance will be tolerated!!!

Always questioning the evidence is a key element in science, it's what allows it to move forward. This has allowed certain special interests- like the tobacco and fossil fuel lobby- to hijack the issue for a time. There needs to be debate, but it needs to be based on peer reviewed evidence, not on media spin like the fossil fuel sector relies on almost totally on the climate change issue.

And I'm not claiming we should shut down all CO2 producing industries and activities right away, just begin a necessary transition to sustainable energy sources while we still have a chance to make a difference.

Let's put a surtax on the fossil fuel industries profits to pay for the research and infrastructure needed to make the changes necessary. They're using mostly publicly owned resources to benefiit a relative minority of the population while all of us will be forced to live with the consequences.

 

[Tonington]

The issue of debate is twisted Bear. Somethings are genuinely debatable. Others are not. Debates can still be had on the issues which are not, but it's not productive. It's on this point though that industries and people who would have to clean up their act, or change their business practices, move the Overton window in their favour.

Scientifically, the debate about human caused climate change is solid. As solid as gravity. As solid as cell theory of biology. It's a simple fact that there is no other competing hypothesis with as much support, or as comprehensive in it's explanation of our climate system. These calls of fraud? Conspiracy nonsense. Making mountains out of selected emails serves the purpose of casting doubt where it is unwarranted.

It brings the focus away from genuine debatable points, like how bad will it be and how best to address it policy-wise. Some policy makers are influenced by the nonsense, and so those who are sowing this disinformation have been very successful.

 

[CDNBear]

Always questioning the evidence is a key element in science, it's what allows it to move forward. This has allowed certain special interests- like the tobacco and fossil fuel lobby- to hijack the issue for a time.

And people with a vested and financial interest in the pro industry haven't?

There needs to be debate, but it needs to be based on peer reviewed evidence, not on media spin like the fossil fuel sector relies on almost totally on the climate change issue.

Agreed, and that peer review needs to be transparent.

And I'm not claiming we should shut down all CO2 producing industries and activities right away, just begin a necessary transition to sustainable energy sources while we still have a chance to make a difference.

I agree.

Let's put a surtax on the fossil fuel industries profits to pay for the research and infrastructure needed to make the changes necessary.

Which will be transferred to the customer, as has always been done. Which mostly affect the poor or low income public.

They're using mostly publicly owned resources to benefiit a relative minority of the population while all of us will be forced to live with the consequences.

If either avenue is taken.

 

[CDNBear]

The issue of debate is twisted Bear. Somethings are genuinely debatable. Others are not. Debates can still be had on the issues which are not, but it's not productive. It's on this point though that industries and people who would have to clean up their act, or change their business practices, move the Overton window in their favour.

Makes sense. So I how do I, a laymen, figure out who's moving the window around to much?

Scientifically, the debate about human caused climate change is solid. As solid as gravity. As solid as cell theory of biology. It's a simple fact that there is no other competing hypothesis with as much support, or as comprehensive in it's explanation of our climate system. These calls of fraud? Conspiracy nonsense. Making mountains out of selected emails serves the purpose of casting doubt where it is unwarranted.

But Ton, if I'm how am I supposed to trust these people when I hear words in their speech, that I would understand to be devious in any conversation? Because lets face it, I'm great at finding tracking wild game, laying a bead of stainless, or field striping a C7. I'm not a scientist and I don't understand the bulk of the data thrust upon me. I will admit, I need it laid out for me.

It brings the focus away from genuine debatable points, like how bad will it be and how best to address it policy-wise. Some policy makers are influenced by the nonsense, and so those who are sowing this disinformation have been very successful.

At either end of the spectrum right?

 

[AnnaG]

Of course. But no body on the pro argument side is getting more grant money are they?

Of course there's no debate, that's because we shouldn't debate it. It should just be accepted without being questioned.

But of course. Why should it be debated. Whenever one group of scientists come up with proof and they find like minded scientists to agree. That should be the end of it, period. There is no need for debate now. Now we should shut down the refineries, ban cars and end the world as we know it.

Nothing less then full compliance will be tolerated!!!

lol If people think the size of their pocketbooks will suffer because of some bit of science, they'll almost do ANYTHING to subvert and discredit it including threaten, lie, cheat, deny, etc. Also, on the other hand, as in the case of the pharmacorps, they'll lie, cheat, etc. to promote their science. lol

 

[darkbeaver]

Scientifically, the debate about human caused climate change is solid. As solid as gravity. As solid as cell theory of biology. It's a simple fact that there is no other competing hypothesis with as much support, or as comprehensive in it's explanation of our climate system. These calls of fraud? Conspiracy nonsense.

Of course there is a human element in climate change. However that has not been quantified. Your analogy of a solid gravity theory is at best deceptive but appropriate because no working theory of gravity exists. Political support means next to nothing and scientific establishment support is right down there with the political garbage about the whole affair. Until the electrical nature of climate on this and every other planet asteroid and rock in this solar system is incorporated in climate theory there simply won't be a functional climate science. Now you can post reams of seeming reasonable material to support the present model but I can assure you that they are entirely wrong without consideration of the principal agent of climate change. The planet is not even remotely close to being a closed thermal system operating on radiant effects alone.

 

[Tonington]

Makes sense. So I how do I, a laymen, figure out who's moving the window around to much?

It's not moving the window too much, it's moving it at all. The media is particularly prone to this. They routinely spout the fringe views these days. When the media do this, they effectively take a fringe idea, and move it into the mainstream.

A good indication of this would be telltale signs. These signs include excessive use of these words to describe climate science: leftist, fraud, elite, alarmist, unreliable, conspiracy, etc. Or any argument that begins with: it's happened before, global cooling, no models predict, urban heat island, man's contributions puny compared to nature etc.

These arguments are all bunk.

But Ton, if I'm how am I supposed to trust these people when I hear words in their speech, that I would understand to be devious in any conversation? Because lets face it, I'm great at finding tracking wild game, laying a bead of stainless, or field striping a C7. I'm not a scientist and I don't understand the bulk of the data thrust upon me. I will admit, I need it laid out for me.

Which words? I mean if someone were to parse your emails and take them out of context, I'm sure they could make you look like whatever type of person they want to.

At either end of the spectrum right?

Of course.

 

[EagleSmack]

lol If people think the size of their pocketbooks will suffer because of some bit of science, they'll almost do ANYTHING to subvert and discredit it including threaten, lie, cheat, deny, etc. Also, on the other hand, as in the case of the pharmacorps, they'll lie, cheat, etc. to promote their science. lol

How come Copenhagen was nothing but an attempt to shake down so called Developed Nations?

That's what it was.

 

[Tonington]

Of course there is a human element in climate change. However that has not been quantified.

Net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 Watts per square meter.

 

[darkbeaver]

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance
15 February 2007
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

 

[darkbeaver]

Net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 Watts per square meter.

Sunlight is about 1000 watts per sq meter. , Is .016 of that is significant? The 1.6 is a guess anyway.