Climate change - a retard’s perspective

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. The Internet Member

    I guess this event was cancelled. I hope it gets rescheduled.

    Skeptics in the Pub!

    Friday, January 17th - 7:00pm
    at the Fox and Fiddle,
    27 Wellesley St. E., Toronto

    Dan Weaver will be speaking to us about Canadian government obstruction of science, and the efforts of Evidence for Democracy to combat it. As most of you are aware, science in Canada has been struggling lately, especially if you are working for the federal government. Many scientists have complained of being muzzled, and needing to jump through numerous hoops before they are allowed to talk to the press or the public. These scientists are conducting research that is supposedly done to benefit Canadians, and is paid for by your tax dollars, but access to the information discovered is increasingly difficult.

    Evidence for Democracy is an organisation composed of Canadian scientists, and among their goals are restoring public access, and allowing scientists to communicate their findings without censorship.

    Dan Weaver is a PhD candidate in atmospheric physics at the University of Toronto. His work primarily revolves around measurements taken at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) on Ellesmere Island, near Eureka, Nunavut.

    People say these new rules limiting what scientists can say followed lobbying of the Harper government by our friends, Koch Industries. No Ruler will say this happened because the government is almost as evil as psychiatry. If we just got rid of the government and allowed Koch Industries to menace scientists directly, things would be better.
  2. Asheera Member

    From the research papers. Why are you asking a question that five minutes with google could solve, a marathon session on an online research paper database could solve, and that another poster has provided voluminous information about....? The willful ignorance act from you on this point has gotten old.
    You do know that a similar survey has been done to show that there isn't a consensus for evolution? You do know that a similar survey has been done to show that there isn't a consensus linking smoking to cancer? You do know that the entire reason for using such a tactic as this is to avoid the inconvenient fact that 99%+ of all research papers support the position you want to reject?

    Small note about the survey Forbes references - I would qualify as a signatory if I lived in the US. About 7 seconds of googling on grad numbers found this:‎
    So in 2011-2012 about 3,250,000 people graduated who would qualify as a signatory, meaning that the 31,000 represents less than 1% of people who graduated in a single year.

    Genuine question - do you often link to sources with claims that are as misleading as this? Do you even investigate your own sources before spreading what I can only describe as deliberate misinformation?
    TI never linked to the surveys in the article, and instead has been linking to summations of the research papers (remember the research, the bit that should be the important part?). Mistake or outright lie on your part....?

    Have you tried reading research papers that discuss the research? I hear that reading the research is quite useful if you want to find out what the research is. Just a thought.
    Uncertainty isn't necessarily a bad thing. Linking to misleading and inaccurate articles, forwarding misleading and inaccurate talking points and generally avoiding any discussion of the research is, however, quite a bad thing.
    You have the right to make misleading and inaccurate claims - others reserve the right to point out such.


    A futile attempt to get back to the science perhaps, but here goes. There are some fascinating research papers out there that are well worth reading. Consider this one:
    This was conducted in response to IPCC2007 which had noted that climate warming hadn't been detected in Antarctica and also noted the paucity of observational record. This paper was a more detailed examination of the limited datasets, and in particular compared these datasets with what would be expected if such trends where due solely internal variability and natural forcings - and there was evidence to suggest the trend is attributable to anthropogenic causes.

    Let me recount the process here. IPCC2007 was a summation of the research at the time. Climate researchers have been investigating that research, looking in more detail at any gaps highlighted and generally advancing the state of knowledge. That's how scientific research is supposed to operate, and as the research papers continue to further explore the body of evidence becomes clearer and clearer. No wonder, when faced with thousands of such research papers, folks like No Ruler are avoiding such.....
    • Like Like x 2
  3. The Internet Member

    I have been thinking about your concern for my angries. Actually, I’m more scared than angry. Or it is hard to separate the two.

    I’m scared because the misrepresentation of the scientific evidence concerning global warming is remarkable in its success and longevity. And the muzzled scientists in Canada! This is unprecedented, is it not?

    Like I said, I’m not smart enough to read all the science concerning the atmosphere. But I am smart enough to ask, what is the evidence in the literature for or against human CO2 production being a big deal in this? And I am smart enough to understand thousands of published peer reviewed papers on one side versus a couple dozen on the other, mostly by people connected to ideological think tanks. Any retard could see the difference with that.

    Science belongs to all of us. It’s our best trier of fact concerning the natural world. We cannot allow powerful people to distort scientific information. We need that info in order to make informed choices.

    The people hammering us with false memes will use the disinformation social network they’ve built to distort other important issues. So I want to understand who these people are and how they created this Truman Show.

    Robert Jastrow, an atomic era cold warrior, marks a beginning of the propaganda effort to minimize global warming concerns. Jastrow also fronted the pro-SDI public campaign. So I think some faction of military intelligence is involved.

    The global warming disinformation project might be unique in that the US’ traditional enemies, Russia and China, are with them rather than against them on this one.
  4. You are trying to use your standards of justice and morality to understand those who have none. You are running around in circles and wasting your precious time.
  5. The Internet Member

    No, I’m not doing that. I’m raising awareness of the big disinformation effort going on concerning global warming. I want people to have good info, not craptastic info, so they can make informed decisions.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. PandaDaddy Member

    Interesting conversation, may I get my feet wet... First off it is good to note that Science is never conducted by consensus, and it is usually the outliers (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin to name just a few) who in the end are proven to be on the right side of the debate. The issue with climate change is first Science knows very little about it, one only has to look at historical accuracies with their local weather personalities for evidence. Second is we only have around 100 years worth of accurate weather records, and those cover very few places on the globe until recently.

    I am a "man made" global warming agnostic, apathetic agnostic if I am being completely honest. Mostly because of what is pasted below.... After reading please point out each of the Ice ages listed below that my neighbors SUV help to defrost? I like a good debate lets see what happens...

    There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.[32][33]
    Rocks from the earliest well established ice age, called the Huronian, formed around 2.4 to 2.1 Ga (billion years) ago during the early Proterozoic Eon. Several hundreds of km of the Huronian Supergroup are exposed 10–100 km north of the north shore of Lake Huron extending from near Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury, northeast of Lake Huron, with giant layers of now-lithified till beds, dropstones, varves, outwash, and scoured basement rocks. Correlative Huronian deposits have been found near Marquette, Michigan, and correlation has been made with Paleoproterozic glacial deposits from Western Australia.
    The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[34] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[35] It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial.
    The Andean-Saharan occurred from 460 to 420 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period.
    The evolution of land plants at the onset of the Devonian period caused a long term increase in planetary oxygen levels and reduction of CO2 levels, which resulted in the Karoo Ice Age. It is named after the glacial tills found in the Karoo region of South Africa, where evidence for this ice age was first clearly identified. There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 360 to 260 million years ago in South Africa during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods. Correlatives are known from Argentina, also in the center of the ancient supercontinent Gondwanaland.
    Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last several million years.
    The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.
  7. The Internet Member

    Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin summarized the evidence available. So they was doin it rite, just like the IPCC.

    You, in contrast, are spreading confusion by pretending that a consensus of the published scientific evidence is the same thing as an opinion poll. You are doing things wrong.

    Also, you failed to read this thread. That is one of your other failures.
  8. PandaDaddy Member

    Would this be the same panel that has been revising their projected temperature increases every year to lower and lower figures? Or would this be the same group that picks snow days for all of their meetings? Here is a small and not complete list of Scientists who have various levels of concern about the consensus...

    I read the thread, like I stated just getting my feet wet to start...

    Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

    Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
    Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

    Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
    Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

    Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
    Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

    Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
  9. You don’t grasp the concept of published peer reviewed evidence. A list of names is not evidence. It is a talking point from the disinformation factory.
  10. PandaDaddy Member

    The full paper (peer reviewed) and petition may be found there as well as a list of 31k or so signers.... Please note a lack of papers would not be a sign of a position with no scientific value or merit, just a lack of funding... However each of the scientists listed above does have peer reviewed work calling into question aspects of global warming or climate change, one would just have to click their names in the list, but I must have assumed members of this community understood hyperlinks...
  11. 1% of working scientists in most any field turn cranky. So in a field with tens of thousands of scientists, it's easy to find several hundred cranks.

    The same trick of creating a list of names gets used by creationists.
  12. You are still talking about people rather than evidence.
  13. PandaDaddy Member

    Did you actually click any links or just dismiss the posts out of hand? The research is there, the abstract summary and it's reviewers are there. I would suggest spending a minute and navigating there as I did not just listed names...

    Using an argument from authority logical fallacy to dismiss something that you don't even bother to look at is just poor debate, same with ad hominem attacks on authorities you seem to disagree with...but apparently never looked at thier credentials or work. This is just sad trollish behavior I expected more.
  14. Pro-Tip: Look at EVIDENCE, not outliers, to determine the right side of a debate.
    You've mistaken weather for climate, which should disqualify you from further debate until you clearly understand the difference between the two concepts. Weather refers to the conditions at a specific time. Climate refers to the average conditions you can expect, from season to season and year to year.

    Pro-tip: Paleoclimatology is a science, which both sides of the debate have acknowledged as valid for determining prehistoric climates. The study you've linked in a later post uses paleoclimatology to make its points in an attempt to undermine anthropogenic global warming.
  15. Asheera Member

    With the exception of Galileo, each of those proponents was in agreement with the other 'scientists' (so far as such existed in antiquity) of their time. Newton provided an explanation for already known phenomena, and such was the precision of his model and how successful it unified previously discrete ideas it was accepted immediately. Most of Darwin's ideas were neither new nor particularly novel, with many of the concepts already being explored (eg: Lamark). What Darwin did do was provide the mechanism for how change could occur, all the bits were already there. Copernicus had no scientific debate/disagreement with his peers whatsoever, and those peers were encouraging him to stop delaying his publishing.

    Opposition to Galileo was solely on religious grounds, and even though he is only one you could your claim to be true about there were serious mitigating circumstances.

    To attempt using these historical figures as some sort of response to 'consensus' is disingenuous and ill informed.
    There is so much wrong with this single sentence it is difficult to know quite where to be being.

    Firstly, science knows a fuck load. Are you familiar with how Hansen and his team factored in the impact of volcanism into one of their climatic models on the hope that should sufficient volcanism occur (which it did) it would a allow powerful crosscheck on theory regarding climate sensitivity (which the model succeeded in doing)? Are you familiar with the methods of attributing radiative forcings and how each factor's contribution to forcing is calculated? Are you familiar with how observational data can be statistically correlated with known anthroprogenic impact? Stating science knows little about something while being apparently ignorant as to what it does know is very questionable.

    Secondly, climate and weather are two very different things. Climate is the long term trend averaged over prolonged periods of time over large areas, while weather is local area short term phenomena. A good analogy would be how chemistry is about the macro picture and the averaging out of quantum effects, while quantum mechanics is the localised short-period stuff. That you appear ignorant of this difference is staggering from someone who would state science knows little about this.
    The dendrochronological record is pretty good, and given that trees are in most places on the globe it has massive coverage. There are plenty of additional proxies too, such as ice cores, varves, stalactites/stalactites, etc. which have cross check compatibility, so assuming only 100 years of records are available is a serious error on your part.
    I think you are a scientifically-illiterate talking-point-peddling disinformation mechant who knows fuck all about climate change science, as evidenced by your scientifically-illiterate talking-point-peddling disinformation posting.

    One of the frustrating things about scientific topics is that it takes ten seconds to post bollocks while that bollocks can take many minutes to explain and debunk. The above is an excellent example of this. Consider the length of response needed compared to the thoughtless nature of the above 'question'.

    Firstly, there are tons of research papers devoted to each of the particular ice ages exploring causes, feedback loops, chemical composition that existed at the time, etc. If you were anyway genuine about this topic you'd have read up on those and learned how the knowledge of past ice ages forms part of climate science - and also part of the reason why the research consensus has high confidence that current warming is anthroprogenic.

    Secondly, each of the cycles mentioned occurred on geological timescales. The current warming trend, and how it will increase based on more atmospheric CO2 and well-known basic chemistry on heat trapping, is pretty extreme in terms of speed. Knowledge of the speed of temperature swings in the past alone raises red flags about currently observed trends.

    Thirdly, for each of the cycles several feedback loops are now well understood and have relevance to understand current trends. CO2 increasing the temperature initially and leading to more water vapour (a more potent greenhouse gas) which increases the temperature even more and so on. The impact of a swing of even a few degrees globally would have disastrous consequences. The knowledge of past helps illuminate the future on these issues.
    But the IPCC don't actually do the majority of the research, their main job is to summarise the existing research. Trying to paint the IPCC in a conspiratorial light such as this is pointless given that the hundreds of research papers their work is based on still exist, and would continue to exist regardless of whatever the IPCC does. Your comment exemplifies your complete lack of understanding of the IPCC process or how science works, and I suspect attacking the IPCC is a tactic to avoiding having to deal with the research.

    As someone who follows the IPCC reports, and eagerly awaited the latest, I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that temperature projections have been lowered. For fuck sake the latest report summarises all the projections made in past reports and compared them all to the observed temperature recorded in the intervening years and found the observations fell within the projections. Why would IPCC lower their projections when those projections were accurate????? Have you actually read the report and noted that the historical projections were compared with observations??????
    And where is the research from those scientists showing and of the research papers referenced by IPCC are in error? Without any evidence what's the point? There are historians who personally question the holocaust, biologists who question evolution, etc. But a personal opinion without evidence is pointless. That you would copy&paste such a list, rather than a coherent set of argumentation and supporting evidence on the science, is extremely telling.
    I already dealt with this petition in this post:’s-perspective.116383/page-6#post-2411390

    But I'll go further and look at the peer reviewed paper. My first question is why, if this was a paper concerning climate change, was it published in a medical journal (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) rather a journal that dealt with climate or a related field???? While digging into the journal I found these in their later editions: "The Affordable Care Act Destroys Privacy", "What Is Social Security (for People under 50 Only)?", "Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents", "The Sovietization of American Medicine: Notes from the Front Lines", "Does Medicare Have the Constitutional
    Authority to Conscript Physicians?", etc.

    Seems that I cannot trust this publication to verify the science, so I'll have to do that myself. There quite a lot of elementary errors here, and some are clear deception on the part of the author.

    - "It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1". It's odd that the author would rely on the various papers that tracked the historical trends while ignoring that the same papers also describe the various forcings present - and the author conveniently ignores the addition of recent CO2 forcing and how historic forcings have been ruled out in the present.

    - There is a serious problem is in how the author uses hydrocarbons as his 1940 cut-off point when analysing glacier retreat. But coal use, and the whole industrial revolution, happened well before that and pumped loads of CO2 into the why has the author ignored this??? A billion tonnes of coal had been burned by 1860 (according to this source), so I can only conclude the author has been deliberately misleading here. The hydrocarbon tactic seems to be a deliberate ploy to ensure the graph wouldn't correlation (which it does if you factor in coal, as can be done by graphing CO2 content against warming).

    - Why is the author comparing arctic air temperature with solar activity...??? Why not compare global temperatures (the measure of heat in the system) when that is the issue climate science is looking at??? Taking a localised system rather than a global trend doesn't make a lot of sense here, and even less when the same hydrocarbon sleight of hand is performed.

    - "While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3." But figures 2 and 3 don't have a CO2 component (how can they when they are ignoring coal, deforestation, etc.), so claiming the figures show CO2 doing anything is simply wrong.

    - "Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the principal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago". Even if this was granted as a premise, it actually doesn't help the author's case since he has ignored the CO2 and its continuing future impact.

    - Why has the author noted increasing and decreasing trends as if it has some relevance? Natural variability is an expected and understood part of climate science - the important part for the discussion is the long term trend which the author seems to miss.

    - "Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18)." If you are reading this claim and don't see the issue then I can forgive you as you are not a climate scientist. But for a climate scientist to make a cock-up this big is scary. Gravity has the well known inverse square law, and similar exists for radiation and temperature. Solar activity correlates to the forth root of temperature increase, so for the earth to vary .2% in temperature would require a 21% increase in solar activity - or 100 times more than the author realises. The citation is to "Climate and hydrographic variability in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool during the last millennium", but I can't find any evidence the paper in question made the same cock-up the current author does.

    - "This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18)." The reference to particulate blocking makes little sense here, and is just bizarre when you consider the constant escalation of such since coal burning took off.

    - "The U.S. temperature trend is so slight that, were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it." But we're talking about millions of metric tonnes of atmosphere (not to mention the oceans, but we'll ignore that here), so even a small increase in temperature represents a massive increase of energy within the climate system. Either the author doesn't comprehend the impact just a few degrees of temperature increase would have or is intentionally misrepresenting it.

    I could go no, but I hope the above serve to illustrate the shit nature of the science in the paper. Some of these mistakes would be embarrassing to a first-year undergrad studying the topic, and to see them in a paper being touted as challenging the climate change consensus is a glaring indictment of the scientific bankruptcy of those 'challenging' that consensus.

    Each of those scientists does not have peer reviewed work on this topic, much less presenting evidence challenging the current consensus. Per the petition instructions I qualify to be a signatory - would putting my name on it magically make a peer-reviewed paper by me appear from thin air?

    Claiming that each of those listed has published evidence of the type you describe is a flat-out lie, and perfectly illustrates the lack of honesty you are bringing to this 'debate'.
    I probably waste far far too much time on scientifically illiterate copy&paste merchants such as yourself. That you expect people to click and view your links when your own comments show you haven't even glanced at any IPCC stuff (which you supposedly have a problem with) is staggeringly hypocritical. That you have so fucking little understanding of what the IPCC are, what they do and how they operate (collating the existing scientific research), but yet feel as if you can lay criticism at them, is a joke. That you would hold a petition that five minutes on the google machine can cast doubt on is one thing, but that you would also hold up a 'peer reviewed paper' so chock full of errors and sleight-of-hand is just damning.

    The saddest thing about such scientifically illiterate copy&paste merchants is that when nailed on certain specific points (such as the 'peer reviewed research paper' that is a fucking joke) there is never any acceptance of mistake or correction of error. You'd won't admit you know fuck all about the IPCC, you won't admit that you know fuck all about climate science nor even its basic tenets or foundational chemistry, you won't admit that you don't have a fucking clue about the 'peer reviewed research paper' you held up. No, all you will do is proceed to post the next set of copy&pasted shit that you don't understand and likely haven't read, will develop amnesia on how wrong your earlier posts are, and generally engage in 'gallop Gishing' - because that's the only thing you scientifically illiterate copy&paste bullshit merchants can do.

    And so more of time gets wasted. Rinse. Repeat.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Asheera Member

    Did you notice how the very paper they cited, relying on paleoclimate, disproves them? Like as if they never read the paper or spent five minutes actually thinking about this stuff?
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Incredulicide Member

    This looks like the right place to drop this:
    An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

    by Jim Salinger, Honorary Research Associate in Climate Science, School of Environment at University of Auckland

    A recent headline – Failed doubters trust leaves taxpayers six-figure loss – marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly-funded climate denial, harassment of scientists and tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand.
    It’s likely to be a familiar story to my scientist colleagues in Australia, the UK, USA and elsewhere around the world.
    But if you’re not a scientist, and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears finally to be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.
    From number crunching to controversy

    In 1981 as part of my PhD work, I produced a seven-station New Zealand temperature series, known as 7SS, to monitor historic temperature trends and variations from Auckland to as far south as Dunedin in southern New Zealand.
    A decade later, in 1991-92 while at the NZ Meteorological Service, I revised the 7SS using a new homogenisation approach to make New Zealand’s temperature records more accurate, such as adjusting for when temperature gauges were moved to new sites.
    fs9j5gfb-1390183067.jpg The Kelburn Cable Car trundles up into the hills of Wellington. Shutterstock/
    Click to enlarge
    For example, in 1928 Wellington’s temperature gauge was relocated from an inner suburb near sea level up into the hills at Kelburn, where - due to its higher, cooler location - it recorded much cooler temperatures for the city than before.
    With statistical analysis, we could work out how much Wellington’s temperature has really gone up or down since the city’s temperature records began back in 1862, and how much of that change was simply due to the gauge being moved uphill. (You can read more about re-examining NZ temperatures here.)
    So far, so uncontroversial.
    But then in 2008, while working for a NZ government-owned research organisation, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), we updated the 7SS. And we found that at those seven stations across the country, from Auckland down to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.
    Soon after that, things started to get heated.
    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, linked to a global climate change denial group, the International Climate Science Coalition, began to question the adjustments I had made to the 7SS.
    And rather than ever contacting me to ask for an explanation of the science, as I’ve tried to briefly cover above, the Coalition appeared determined to find a conspiracy.
    “Shonky” claims

    The attack on the science was led by then MP for the free market ACT New Zealand party, Rodney Hide, who claimed in the NZ Parliament in February 2010 that:
    NIWA’s raw data for their official temperature graph shows no warming. But NIWA shifted the bulk of the temperature record pre-1950 downwards and the bulk of the data post-1950 upwards to produce a sharply rising trend… NIWA’s entire argument for warming was a result of adjustments to data which can’t be justified or checked. It’s shonky.
    Mr Hide’s attack continued for 18 months, with more than 80 parliamentary questions being put to NIWA between February 2010 and July 2011, all of which required NIWA input for the answers.
    The science minister asked NIWA to re-examine the temperature records, which required several months of science time. In December 2010, the results were in. After the methodology was reviewed and endorsed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, it was found that at the seven stations from Auckland to Dunedin, between 1909 and 2008 there was a warming trend of 0.91°C.
    That is, the same result as before.
    But in the meantime, before NIWA even had had time to produce that report, a new line of attack had been launched.
    Off to court

    In July 2010, a statement of claim against NIWA was filed in the High Court of New Zealand, under the guise of a new charitable trust: the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET). Its trustees were all members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.
    The NZCSET challenged the decision of NIWA to publish the adjusted 7SS, claiming that the “unscientific” methods used created an unrealistic indication of climate warming.
    The Trust ignored the evidence in the Meteorological Service report I first authored, which stated a particular adjustment methodology had been used. The Trust incorrectly claimed this methodology should have been used but wasn’t.
    In July 2011 the Trust produced a document that attempted to reproduce the Meteorological Service adjustments, but failed to, instead making lots of errors.
    On September 7 2012, High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning delivered a 49-page ruling, finding that the NZCSET had not succeeded in any of its challenges against NIWA.
    3sv3jty6-1390266868.jpg The NZ weather wars in the news. The New Zealand Herald
    Click to enlarge
    The judge was particularly critical about retired journalist and NZCSET Trustee Terry Dunleavy’s lack of scientific expertise.
    Justice Venning described some of the Trust’s evidence as tediously lengthy and said “it is particularly unsuited to a satisfactory resolution of a difference of opinion on scientific matters".
    Taxpayers left to foot the bill

    After an appeal that was withdrawn at the last minute, late last year the NZCSET was ordered to pay NIWA NZ$89,000 in costs from the original case, plus further costs from the appeal.
    But just this month, we have learned that the people behind the NZCSET have sent it into liquidation as they cannot afford the fees, leaving the New Zealand taxpayer at a substantial, six-figure loss.
    Commenting on the lost time and money involved with the case, NIWA’s chief executive John Morgan has said that:
    On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust.
    This has been an insidious saga. The Trust aggressively attacked the scientists, instead of engaging with them to understand the technical issues; they ignored evidence that didn’t suit their case; and they regularly misrepresented NIWA statements by taking them out of context.
    Yet their attack has now been repeatedly rejected in Parliament, by scientists, and by the courts.
    The end result of the antics by a few individuals and this Trust is probably going to be a six-figure bill for New Zealanders to pay.
    My former colleagues have had valuable weeks tied up with wasted time in defending these manufactured allegations. That’s time that could have profitably been used investigating further what is happening with our climate.
    But there is a bigger picture here too.
    Merchants of doubt

    Doubt-mongering is an old strategy. It is a strategy that has been pursued before to combat the ideas that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health, and it has been assiduously followed by climate deniers for the past 20 years.
    One of the best known international proponents of such strategies is US think tank, the Heartland Institute.
    4d6rwhyz-1389858850.jpg The first in a planned series of anti-global warming billboards in the US, comparing “climate alarmists” with terrorists and mass murderers. The campaign was canned after a backlash. The Heartland Institute
    Click to enlarge
    Just to be clear: there is no evidence that the Heartland Institute helped fund the NZ court challenge. In 2012, one of the Trustees who brought the action against NIWA said Heartland had not donated anything to the case.
    However, Heartland is known to have been active in NZ in the past, providing funding to the NZ Climate Science Coalition and a related International Coalition, as well as financially backing prominent climate “sceptic” campaigns in Australia.
    dp3ws6g7-1389856528.jpg An extract from a 1999 letter from the Heartland Institute to tobacco company Philip Morris. University of California, San Francisco, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library
    Click to enlarge
    The Heartland Institute also has a long record of working with tobacco companies, as the letter on the right illustrates. (You can read that letter and other industry documents in full here. Meanwhile, Heartland’s reply to critics of its tobacco and fossil fuel campaigns is here.)
    Earlier this month, the news broke that major tobacco companies will finally admit they “deliberately deceived the American public”, in “corrective statements” that would run on prime-time TV, in newspapers and even on cigarette packs.
    It’s taken a 15-year court battle with the US government to reach this point, and it shows that evidence can trump doubt-mongering in the long run.
    A similar day may come for those who actively work to cast doubt on climate science.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. The Internet Member

    Hey I just noticed that David Dees is a global warming denier refusnik.


    Not his best work though.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Anonylemmi Member

    But it's still pretty funny.
  20. White Tara Global Moderator

    Lol U ;)
  21. The Internet Member

    A fellow Dees admirer! I just happened to Google him and really I am overwhelmed with his oeuvre. However I’m having trouble parsing this one:

  22. Anonylemmi Member

    Putin without a shirt. Nothing unusual there.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. The Internet Member

    Interesting article. Explains why some people think I suck Obama’s dick if I say something about climate. Turns out those people are not stupid or crazy, like I was thinking.

    Ugh, don’t read the comments though. The Google Alert army has been there with all the old talking points spamming the Internet.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Asheera Member

    The saddest part to all of the denialism is that most people never get to appreciate some of the quality science that gets done. Consider the ICESat satellite as a cool example:

    Part of ICESat's operations were to accurately map the topology of ice sheets. Accurate data in this field has obvious relevance to climate science, but the interesting part here is the engineering challenge that such a measuring device represents. It was basically an orbiting laser that measured reflection times, and the topology could be calculated from the collected data. When ICESat data was compared with known accurate terrains the margin of error was less than 2cm. Given the calculations required, and that one of the lasers failed pretty much on startup, the fact that such accuracy could be generated from satellite range is pretty fucking cool.

    But it gets even cooler than that. Knowing the top-facing topology is only part of the picture, and it is important for climate science to also know how thick that ice is and how it is distributed. Thicker ice means more mass which means a larger gravitational effect - something that can detected in the ICESat data (see The obvious question to ask is how reliable can these types of gravity calculation be? Some data sources to check against are those provided by submarines (there are other sources, but submarines are cool). Comparing ICESat calculations with submarine transects (see Thinning.pdf) gives a strong correlation that validates the methodology. This allows the ice thickness to be tracked, which provides even more evidence showing climate change.

    It really is a shame that some people won't even read this stuff because it presents a result they do not like. The engineering, raw science and collaboration between international agencies (including submarines) needed to derive the result are absolutely fascinating.
  25. I noticed that he left and didn't come back.
  26. Asheera Member

    There is always time for them to find some new shit to copy&paste. Easier to post shit than to clean it up.

    Posting stuff isn't always a bad thing if the people posting would display at least some indication that they checked it for themselves, rather than simply regurgitation stuff they haven't a clue about.
  27. The Internet Member

    I read that Russia tends to claim global warming is no big deal. So I decided to go looking for articles on global warming in the state paper, Pravda. Yep, they are on it.

    If you want to disinform people and you want the best team on the planet to assist with your propaganda effort, the Russians have the best game going.
    Screen Shot 2014-01-25 at 1.52.23 PM.png

    Warming oceans can release CO2, warming permafrost also. Still, more CO2 in the atmosphere will also cause warming.
  28. The Internet Member

    Excerpt from an interesting blog commentary from about 4 years ago:

    Sounds like Russia is on the road to becoming the anarcho-capitalist example we’ve all been waiting for. Goodbye state; hello corpocracy!

    As the former USSR fell apart, energy companies like Gazprom grew stronger. I think they bought the KGB and use them now to run their marketing division.


    ...In England, the climatologist Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been victimized by criminals who hacked into the CRU computer and posted stolen e-mails on the Internet. Some bloggers even suspect that the criminals are associated with Senator Inhofe since he knew about the hacking so quickly.

    According to news reports, the hacker was using a computer on the East Coast of N. America when he stole the CRU e-mails. First, the hacker tried to post the stolen e-mails on a blog called Real Climate, but when he didn't succeed, the hacker posted the documents on the server in the Russian city of Tomsk. This server is used by the Tomsk State University. According to news reports, the Tomcity server belongs to a Russian Internet security business called Tomcity.

    I had originally assumed that the hackers were Russians, because Tomsk hackers have a reputation for hacking into sites that get under the Kremlin's skin. The viciousness and mendacity of the propaganda campaign on the blogs and in the media also reminded me of Russian propaganda campaigns.

    Now it seems that the hackers might have been Canadians or American denialists who seem to have a common cause with the powerful energy interests that rule Russia these days. Russia's President Medvedev is the former Chariman of the Board of Russia's giant natural gas and oil company Gazprom, and many former KGB officials hold important posts in Gazprom, which is half-owned by the Russian government and half owned by stockholders. Gazprom owns a lot of the media in Russia, too.

    Senator Inhofe gets some of his junk science about global warming from the Russian scientist Andrei Kapitsa and from the Russian economist Andrei Illarionov, who used to be associated with Gazprom.

    Andrei Illarionov has an institute in Russia called the Institute for Economic Analysis. He also is associated with the Libertarian Cato Institute. I don't like the Libertarians because they talk a lot about free enterprise and liberty, but they never seem to notice that powerful businesses can also destroy liberty and opportunities for smaller companies if they take over the government. One of the most noxious Libertarians is the ignorant U.K. blogger-denialist James Delingpole, who slanders and attacks anyone who questions the denialists' junk science. James Delingpole reminds me a lot of the professional slanderers in the Soviet and Russian media.

    In Russia, powerful "natural monopolies" like Gazprom, which are staffed by former KGB officers, rule Russia. That's not freedom. That's a police state.

    In America, we broke up some of these monopolies many decades ago because they exercised a stranglehold on the economy and had too much power. I think that was a good thing.

    The Libertarians talk about liberty and free enterprise, but I don't believe them. Libertarians criticize big government, but they never seem to worry what would happen to our liberties and to our free enterprise system if we had a weak government controlled by large unregulated monopolies. I think that's why the Russian government/Gazprom likes the Libertarians.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonylemmi Member

    • Like Like x 1
  30. We fucking own the world now, We Dutch are going to cash in big

  31. hasnulife Member

    Just when you thought Oil barons and Venture capitalists had the rape of the planet down cold , they run into another string of bad PR and have to get creative. Given their near infinite resources to hire the brightest minds available they launch a campaign to move the paradigm of fossil fuels. "Clean burning energy" is a term often heard and it refers to Methane deposits also known as natural gas. There is more great news! The United States has an immense supply of the stuff , over 1.5 trillion cubic feet.

    We've all heard about frakking and shale gas and the harm it has caused to ground water in certain regions in the United States. Just as with global warming many dollars are spent to combat evidence of this and fight off a negative perception of the practice. Members of the republican party are disinclined to believe anything scientific tree huggers warn of in general, so it is not difficult to create an opposition base against action to stop the practice. Yet somehow the public perception of methane burning clean stays intact. That's old news though , this is where it really gets interesting.

    At a certain point in our story along comes a spider. The web of enticement in the form of off shore deposits that dwarf the estimates of continental ones. Something called Methane Hydrate , which is essentially a methane molecule enclosed by water molocules and left in solid form. Retrieving this often results in raw methane being released through the surface and into the atmosphere. Big deal right? same thing happens when I let one rip and blame it on the dog. Yet for all the hell people have raised about carbon emissions contributing to the greenhouse gas effect, methane is roughly 20 times more potent at trapping heat in our atmosphere than carbon.

    There is one thing about methane hydrate that is rather interesting, it's actually a time bomb surrounding every continent waiting to be set off. I give you the work of smart peoples "The runaway greenhouse effect"

    Basically at a certain point in temperature increase the greenhouse gas effect no longer requires us to nurture it's growth with pollution. With all the extra water vapor and methane being released into the atmosphere from polar icecaps melting we could relatively soon reach a point where the oceans temperature becomes warm enough to begin melting the layer of permafrost and methane hydrate could be released into the atmosphere on LARGE scales as a result. Check and mate

    Global warming is a very subtle gradual change, so much so that big oil and coal have managed to keep public outcry about it to a minimum. Yet at a certain tipping point the process becomes irreversible and makes leaps and bounds.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. DeathHamster Member
    Love the comments, hate the retard.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  33. meep meep Member

  34. Sekee Member

  35. Hugh Bris Member

    from the article
    from wikipedia:
    I love it when reporters don't do their fracking homework..

    Fossil fuel will be here until a viable alternative is developed.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. [IMG]

    Stupid cunt is stupid.

    God help us if she gets anywhere near a senate seat. Might even think about buy'n a big fuck off gun. If those brain-dead,fuck-wit,republican assholes take power... We're all fucking doomed. It'll be every man for himself.
  37. The Moth Member

  38. Disambiguation Global Moderator

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins