Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Walter]

Lawrence Solomon: New Zealand’s Climategate –Act II

• Comments
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Digg
• Buzz
• Email

Lawrence Solomon October 9, 2010 – 1:26 am
Last November, I reported on accusations from New Zealand that a government agency called NIWA — New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research – had cooked the books on global warming. According to global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, the country’s temperatures had not climbed over the last century, as graphs produced by the agency claimed. Based on the actual raw data for the last century, New Zealand’s temperature has been steady over that same period.
The skeptics took the agency to court to demonstrate that it had cooked the books. Their Statement of Claim, filed on behalf of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, asked the High Court to determine that the New Zealand Temperature Record was invalid and to stop NIWA from providing this invalid data to any governmental authority that might use it to set policy. In this way, the plaintiffs hoped to prevent New Zealand from setting a global warming policy on the basis of flawed science.
Last month, NIWA filed its own Statement of Defence, and it was startling. Yes, NIWA declared, it did publish temperature data called the New Zealand Temperature Record, or NZTR as it was widely known, but it was not required to do so by law.
“There is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand Temperature Record;” the Statement of Defence went on, the temperature record merely being “an informal description for a collection of different streams of climate information.”
Next question: Should the New Zealand government base its official climate change policy on an informal, unofficial data set?





Read more: Lawrence Solomon: New Zealand’s Climategate ?Act II | FP Comment | Financial Post​

 

[captain morgan]

The end is not nigh



Finally, common sense on global warming​

B ritain's Royal Society, one of the most venerable science academies, has amended its idiots' guide to global warming. Officially titled Climate Change, A Summary of the Science, the 19-page layman's document is a refreshing departure from the strident, doom-and-gloom message that has characterized most scientific statements on global warming, which have been parroted by the Al Gores of the world thusly: humans are to blame, sea levels will rise and the end of the world is fast approaching.
Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted melting glaciers causing a rise in sea levels, putting coastal cities and island nations at peril. While the society says sea levels will rise, it also states the following:


"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."


The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring, but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states.
With the society now on record that human activity is a "potential" cause of global warming, we wonder if the Alberta government's $2 billion investment in the unproven technology of carbon capture needs a rethink. The society indicates such measures are necessary. With human activity likely the "dominant cause" of global warming, and the effects of carbon demonstrably profound, it warns the risks are great enough to proceed with climate mitigation strategies even in "the absence of perfect knowledge."


We hope this ushers in an era of balance to a polarized debate. Science for too long has been engaged in climate activism. Skeptics, too, have been strident in their protestations.


Alarmism has the potential to result in egg on one's face. Witness the return of salmon to the North Pacific. Not long ago, Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation were warning of the collapse of salmon stocks as a result of farming methods. Wild salmon are now so plentiful they are practically jumping into boats.




​

 

[petros]

With the society now on record that human activity is a "potential" cause of global warming, we wonder if the Alberta government's $2 billion investment in the unproven technology of carbon capture needs a rethink.

Carbon capture is another scam on the tax payers and consumer's nickle just like ethanol, bio-diesel, clean coal, wind, hydro etc etc etc.

 

[Avro]

The end is not nigh​

Finally, common sense on global warming​

​

B ritain's Royal Society, one of the most venerable science academies, has amended its idiots' guide to global warming. Officially titled Climate Change, A Summary of the Science, the 19-page layman's document is a refreshing departure from the strident, doom-and-gloom message that has characterized most scientific statements on global warming, which have been parroted by the Al Gores of the world thusly: humans are to blame, sea levels will rise and the end of the world is fast approaching.
Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted melting glaciers causing a rise in sea levels, putting coastal cities and island nations at peril. While the society says sea levels will rise, it also states the following:​

"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe." ​

The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring, but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states.
With the society now on record that human activity is a "potential" cause of global warming, we wonder if the Alberta government's $2 billion investment in the unproven technology of carbon capture needs a rethink. The society indicates such measures are necessary. With human activity likely the "dominant cause" of global warming, and the effects of carbon demonstrably profound, it warns the risks are great enough to proceed with climate mitigation strategies even in "the absence of perfect knowledge."​

We hope this ushers in an era of balance to a polarized debate. Science for too long has been engaged in climate activism. Skeptics, too, have been strident in their protestations.​

Alarmism has the potential to result in egg on one's face. Witness the return of salmon to the North Pacific. Not long ago, Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation were warning of the collapse of salmon stocks as a result of farming methods. Wild salmon are now so plentiful they are practically jumping into boats.​

I did something crazy and actually read the report.

This is the conclusion...

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are​

likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

Overall a pretty good report and nothing surprising at all.

 

[mentalfloss]

I did something crazy and actually read the report.

This is the conclusion...

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are​

likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

Overall a pretty good report and nothing surprising at all.

Do you have a link to that? That should seal the deal on who to really trust on these forums.

Ah, never mind.. found it:
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Yea, so I can't really trust you morgan, if you're going to deliberately spread lies like this.

 

[petros]

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming.....[/QUOTE]

And then there is the Strong (funded) evidence.

 

[Avro]

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming.....[/QUOTE]

And then there is the Strong (funded) evidence.

Yep, Koch is well known to fund denialism.

 

[captain morgan]

I did something crazy and actually read the report.

This is the conclusion...

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are​

likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

Overall a pretty good report and nothing surprising at all.

What to believe, eh?

"The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring, but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states"

I suppose that if the Royal Society is unable to deliver clarity, it's unreasonable to assume that there is any reason to believe that AGW is any kind of a big driver.

Carbon capture is another scam on the tax payers and consumer's nickle just like ethanol, bio-diesel, clean coal, wind, hydro etc etc etc.

No doubt, but then a again, there's one born every minute.

 

[Avro]

What to believe, eh?

"The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring, but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states"

I suppose that if the Royal Society is unable to deliver clarity, it's unreasonable to assume that there is any reason to believe that AGW is any kind of a big driver.

I never said it was one cause, nor has anyone else here.

Seems though that the source you put up as reasonable agrees there are many negative effects, agrees that C02 is a driver of climate change, that the globe is warming and the leading science on the subject comes form the IPCC.

Glad you are coming around.:lol:

It would be wonderful if you actually read the report instead of listening to the cherry picking from the Calgary Herald which to no surprise dosen't even link the PDF.

 

[captain morgan]

I never said it was one cause, nor has anyone else here.

Seems though that the source you put up as reasonable agrees there are many negative effects, agrees that C02 is a driver of climate change, that the globe is warming and the leading science on the subject comes form the IPCC.

Glad you are coming around.:lol:

It would be wonderful if you actually read the report instead of listening to the cherry picking from the Calgary Herald which to no surprise dosen't even link the PDF.

This report absolutely submarines your position Avro. It includes human activity as a contributor among other natural (ie. non-anthro) causes and actually points to past episodes as part of the logic to prove such.... But I did enjoy your diversion that complaining that the link wasn't present or that the Herald was somehow impacting on the actual contents of the report; it's part of the greenie MO.

take heart though buddy, you'll always have your little sidekick mentalfloss to regale you with youtube videos about the goold 'ole days of AGW.

 

[mentalfloss]

What to believe, eh?

"The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring, but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states"

Huh. Well, I guess that puts this one to bed, lol. I'm not sure why you have such an agenda against this. The fact that you are stooping so low not only to misrepresent this document, but also feign the inability to read is beyond me. Seriously, how much are they paying you to continue getting slapped around like this?

 

[Tonington]

I'm pretty sure if you google Captain Morgan's post, you'll find someone like Lawrence Soloman, or Terrence Corcoran on the other end. In fact let's see who the culprit is...ahh, it's from the Calgary Herald. It's the Herald who is misrepresenting the findings of the Royal Society.

His disinformation had the stink of editorial all over it...

 

[captain morgan]

I'm pretty sure if you google Captain Morgan's post, you'll find someone like Lawrence Soloman, or Terrence Corcoran on the other end. In fact let's see who the culprit is...ahh, it's from the Calgary Herald. It's the Herald who is misrepresenting the findings of the Royal Society.

His disinformation had the stink of editorial all over it...

... So, you're saying that the Royal Society didn't publish those words?... As expected, attack and question the voracity of the medium as opposed to accept the very words directly from your messianic leadership.

I can see that this is hard for you to swallow, coming to the realization that you were an unwitting and highly dispensable pawn in this game... Nonetheless, I can see that you and the sidekick will refuse to accept this reality; Sadly, I've seen it too many times when someone is so heavily invested in something that they can't walk away from it due to pride and ego.

Keep telling yourself the lies... It'll help you sleep at night... For a while at least.

 

[Tonington]

... So, you're saying that the Royal Society didn't publish those words?... As expected, attack and question the voracity of the medium as opposed to accept the very words directly from your messianic leadership.

No, I'm saying that your source misrepresented the context when they chose to cherry pick uncertainties, and ignore the conclusions.

Par for the course.

 

[Avro]

This report absolutely submarines your position Avro. It includes human activity as a contributor among other natural (ie. non-anthro) causes and actually points to past episodes as part of the logic to prove such.... But I did enjoy your diversion that complaining that the link wasn't present or that the Herald was somehow impacting on the actual contents of the report; it's part of the greenie MO.

take heart though buddy, you'll always have your little sidekick mentalfloss to regale you with youtube videos about the goold 'ole days of AGW.

Not sure why you think it torpedos my postion when it strengthens it.

Nor do I understand the childish remark about Mentalfloss.

 

[Tonington]

I'm going to do something almost as radical as Mentalfloss, and place the quotations from the Royal Society in context.

"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe." ​

I have no issues with this statement at all. Enhanced melting is poorly understood. The IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise drastically because they don't attempt to estimate the dynamic effects, that to date have been poorly characterized. There's no reason to believe that sea level rise will be linear, when land ice melt is distinctly non-linear.

Greenland:

Antarctic:

This is hardly a point of contention...next.

"There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change,"

No problems with this either. Absolutely true.

Hmm, that's actually all they directly attributed to the report...wonder why they left out the conclusions like those Avro mentioned?

Ahhh, because that would refute the narrative of this trash journalism.
​

 

[petros]

If the proof keeps growing then why the slide?

 

[Walter]

I have no issues with this statement at all. Enhanced melting is poorly understood. The IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise drastically because they don't attempt to estimate the dynamic effects, that to date have been poorly characterized. [/LEFT]

Another mistake by the IPCC.

 

[Tonington]

If the proof keeps growing then why the slide?

Ahh, so you think popularity is a good indicator of truth? That's a special kind of logical fallacy, called Ad populum. Nazism was popular in Germany, doesn't mean it was right. Slavery was popular too, doesn't mean it was right.

The US also happens to lag the world in general knowledge about genetics, evolution, in fact science literacy on the whole is quite bad in the US.

Another mistake by the IPCC.

Yup. But the IPCC errors are still a drop in the bucket compared to the nonsense you've posted here.

 

[captain morgan]

No, I'm saying that your source misrepresented the context when they chose to cherry pick uncertainties, and ignore the conclusions.

Par for the course.

No misrepresentation.... You just don't like the reality

Not sure why you think it torpedos my postion when it strengthens it.

Nor do I understand the childish remark about Mentalfloss.

It undermines the entire theory that curbing emissions will have any form of tangible impact on climate fluctuations... The kind of impact that you guys have been pretending exist

As far as your comment about childish comments is concerned; "physician - heal thyself"... Ask your side-kick buddy if there is a youtube video that will explain it.

Another mistake by the IPCC.

For an organization that demands fact-based, peer reviewed analysis' they sure do make a lot of mistakes.

If the proof keeps growing then why the slide?

Answer: The growth in proof isn't what you'd call an endorsement for the alarmist crowd.