EPA buries report negating climate crisis

oh for crying out loud, one cool winter does not negate global warming. If it goes on for ten years, then we can talk. Stop grasping at straws.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There are "hundreds" actually. And the first time the AGW group published a list, MOST of the people on it weren't climatologists and, well, MOST didn't know they had signed onto the list.

Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? Or are you relying on your faith in AGW to debunk any opposition to your movement?

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There are NOT climatologists, that are peer reviewed, on the record saying there is no Global Warming.

No S*%t. Thats not how science works. You don't write a paper that proves a theory cannot be true and get it peer reviewed. First, that theory needs to be proven true. Which it hasn't. Far from it. The debate is only over if you've got your head buried in the sand, or you've got vested interests in AGW being a reality. If you think the IPCC reports are peer-reviewed scientific literature, you're seriously mistaken. But don't take my word for it. Ask some IPCC Expert Panel Reviewers

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

This is from Chris Landsea's open letter to the community here. And he is certainly not the only member of the IPCC to leave due to the focus on politics, as opposed to science within the IPCC.

Here is a link to Dr Vincent Gray's (who is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception) letter to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. In it, he states:

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

Also Nils-Axel Mörner, regarding sea level change

A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

Source

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Nope. Sorry. You bought a scam. You might as well light up a cigarette because its the same scam all over again. The jury is still out on whether cigarettes cause cancer.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Originally posted by nixie_nox
oh for crying out loud, one cool winter does not negate global warming. If it goes on for ten years, then we can talk. Stop grasping at straws.

For the record, it hasn't just been one cold winter. After the 1998 peak due to el nino, global temperature levels have been on a donward trend since 2002.
You can see a graph of up to date readings from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite here

One could postulate that this is because of the current solar minimum. But then some would say that the sun has no influence on our climate, and it is in fact polar ice meliting cooling temperatures.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Some of the cooling we are getting in the past 10 years (which is just a slight trend from the hottest 50 years in recorded human history, that peaked), might be because ice is melting off the North and South poles and sliding into the ocean. So as it melts, it removes some of the heat.

First off, it is debatable whether the late 20th century was warmer than the medieval warm period. Different data sets show it was, some say it wasn't.
Secondly, where did you get a theory like that?? Is that ignoring the fact that sea ice levels were recently at the same level as when records began in 1979? Or the fact that the Antarctic has gained ice?

Or is that just relying on pure faith again?

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Nope. Sorry. You bought a scam. You might as well light up a cigarette because its the same scam all over again. The jury is still out on whether cigarettes cause cancer.

Not only the same scam all over agian...the same people running the scam..

en.wikipedia.org...

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon.

The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive.

Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus.

As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

Philip Morris established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) in conjunction with the APCO public relations firm as part of a plan to combat proposed regulation of secondhand smoke: "Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a 'grassroots' movement—one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight 'overregulation'.

It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one 'unfounded fear' among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones." Within ten years, the group was also receiving funds from Exxon:

TASSC, the ‘coalition’ created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place.

Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil, to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.

A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
First off, it is debatable whether the late 20th century was warmer than the medieval warm period. Different data sets show it was, some say it wasn't.
Secondly, where did you get a theory like that?? Is that ignoring the fact that sea ice levels were recently at the same level as when records began in 1979? Or the fact that the Antarctic has gained ice?

Leaving aside the argument the MWP was manmade, supose it was warmer than the current warm period. But the current warm period was still warmer than it would have been without human activity?

Does that mean we don't worry about it? Does it mean we deny human activity - like burning a rain forest the size of the USA - can have any effect on weather or climate?

A flood basalt eruption will have 1000 times more impact than anything human activity might have. Does that therefore mean we don't worry about our impacts? If a meteor can wipe out 1,000,000 species, who cares that humans can wipe out 10,000 species? If a nuclear bomb can kill 10,000 people then does t mean a nail bomb killing 10 people is okay? Does it doesn't matter. Especially if we still have out ipods. Which are far more important than 10,000 other species we've never even heard of?


What are the long term disadvantages of reducing C02 emissions? Death? Destruction? Or a cleaner planet, cheaper bills, more diversity of life and less guilt? Note: long term. Would you be willing to invest in the future? Or is the now more important?


The interesting thing is that most deniers ignore sceptics like Roger Pielke Sn - because he tells the inconvenient truth: the IPCC are wrong. But we are still causing global warming. And we're not even looking at the causes ......

reply to post by Essan

So you agree that the IPCC are wrong. Yet the IPCC reports are the ones being used by governments to introduce legislation!!

The IPCC based their conclusions on dodgy science which in no way proves CO2 causes any warming at all. In fact, natural variations can addequately account for recent climate changes. Yet with current legislation, we will be taxed purely because of GHG emmisions. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that!!

That means our taxes will be going towards a solution that will NOT work. I don't know how many more times I have to tell you. I KNOW we are having effects on our environment. But a carbon tax WONT fix that. I agree that we are having an impact, but the current "solutions" to the so called "climate change crisis" won't effect those problems. Foresters can pay (with the de-valued carbon credits) a hydro-electric company for the right to deforest large areas, while the hydro-electric is not using carbon, they've just sequestered a large forest, which could arguably have more effect than the CO2 saved. See what I mean?

It also means that developing countries will not have access to cheap energy, which is required to raise living standards. They will have to pay more for expensive technologies. It would be great if we lived in a perfect world with access to clean green energy, but currently we do not.

The carbon trading economy is the elite bankers wet dream. Just another commodity for the elite to gain further control and power, while doing little to curb climate change. That's why the elite are pushing for this legislation. That's why I think there is a problem

Originally posted by maybereal11
A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

Are you saying that this automatically makes all science refuting AGW invalid?

Does this mean that we can also automatically discount any information from an individual or organization that has vested interests in AGW being a reality? Such as the UN and the IPCC, Al Gore (anyone with half a brain would already realise this man is a fraud), James Hansen, any carbon trading sheme, WWF, Greenpeace and any other so called "green" organization?

The money being thrown round by people with vested inrerests in AGW would far, far exceed any oil companies marketing.

And what makes you think oil companies are so worried about AGW? They can pay their carbon credits and pass the cost onto consumers, and noone would be justified in complaining about sky rocketing oil prices, because the green religion would smote you. Currently there is no real viable alternative to oil, so they've still got plenty of profit left. And of course, they would have seen this coming. They know our dependance on oil is not forever, and have invested in things such as bio-fuel. Is AGW really such a bad thing for oil companies?

Sure I agree that if we could reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, it would be very beneficial for the environment. But that's not what AGW is about.

It's about money. And control.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

Originally posted by nixie_nox
oh for crying out loud, one cool winter does not negate global warming. If it goes on for ten years, then we can talk. Stop grasping at straws.

Oh for crying outloud, just because there have been several years that were warm it doesn't mean mankind was behind it. More so when it is a fact that the Sun's overall activity had been at the highest during those years than at any time in the past 1,000 years.... Stop grasping at straws....

Originally posted by Essan

Leaving aside the argument the MWP was manmade, supose it was warmer than the current warm period.

The claims of the Global Warming club become more hilarious by the day.... Now the MWP was manmade too?.......

Originally posted by Essan
But the current warm period was still warmer than it would have been without human activity?

Maybe if some people stopped farting then we would have been in a cooler climate. So people, please stop farting. I MEAN IT!!!

Originally posted by Essan
Does that mean we don't worry about it? Does it mean we deny human activity - like burning a rain forest the size of the USA - can have any effect on weather or climate?

Why are you still using your computer? Why did you even buy a computer. Why not go live in a cave if you want? The rest of the world, and more so those who want to make it in third world countries want to be in peace, thank you.

BTW, why don't you demand for China, India, Russia, and several other countries which are siding with China and Russia to stop their polluting the oceans with toxic chemicals? Not to mention that more countries are sigin with China, and Russia in saying they won't accept a CO2 emission cap..

Originally posted by Essan
Especially if we still have out ipods. Which are far more important than 10,000 other species we've never even heard of?

You make these inane statements and you are still using a computer?.... Humm....

Originally posted by Essan
What are the long term disadvantages of reducing C02 emissions? Death? Destruction? Or a cleaner planet, cheaper bills, more diversity of life and less guilt? Note: long term. Would you be willing to invest in the future? Or is the now more important?

Less green biomass. Which would mean less life. Less CO2 does not make a "clean planet"...

Why don't the Global Warming believers all go away and live in caves and leave the rest of the world in peace? Or are you willing to allow people around the world, and more so in third world countries to die because of your "belief" in your Global Warming religion?...

Originally posted by Essan
The interesting thing is that most deniers ignore sceptics like Roger Pielke Sn - because he tells the inconvenient truth: the IPCC are wrong. But we are still causing global warming. And we're not even looking at the causes ......

The interesting thing is that the believers disagree in a lot of things... I guess that is proof enough that they are all wrong.....



[edit on 5-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


BS, none of the above proves mankid has caused the ongoing Climate Change. Changes happen, it is a fact of life. live with it.

BTW, Ammonia and methane were not in large quatities, if at all except trace gases, for the time periods when life thrived. Except when there were massive volcanic eruptions, but anyway. You really made no point at all to corroborate the lies of the Global Warming hoax.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by maybereal11


Wow...talk about grasping at straws....

Neo-Nazis, and other Nazi groups claim the holocaust never existed... I guess that's also proof that corroborate the AGW hoax?......

[edit on 5-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Essan

I don't suppose you have a geological reference to that?

Oh my, and here i thought you were actually knowledgable about everything that the IPCC, and the scientists you keep believing in blindly, keep saying....

Actually the IPCC says it is 150 billion tonnes. Thanks for making me check it out for ya....

Natural CO2 sources (respiration of animals and plants;
evaporation from the oceans) combined →150 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide each year.
• Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels,
waste incineration, deforestation → 7 billion tonnes/yr.

www.manystrongvoices.org...

You will find it on page 7...

Originally posted by Essan
Although parts of China also had their mildest winter in 150 years

India also had a record hot winter. And over half the USA had average or above average temperatures last winter. So not really that cold.

And there were parts of Earth that were cooler during the times when the AGW believers were yelling and screaming about the warm summers.... Not really that hot....

Not only that, even NASA admitted that most of the warming is stronger in isolated regions far away from cities.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

There goes your claim that we are the cause of the ongoing Climate Change, but keep on believing the lies, and making excuses...

Originally posted by Essan
The idea that we're not yet seeing the effects of cooling from reduced solar activity is in my opinion totally wrong. Whilst the oceans may not have cooled, the land and the atmosphere have. Just as in summer the land and air warm much quicker than the oceans - which then remain warm after the land and air have caught their autumn chills.

Oh boy... so tells us, why is it that the northern regions, like Canada, Wyoming and such are cooler than normal?.....

Originally posted by Essan
But the question remains: why do some people know that one report telling them what they want to hear (co2 has no effect) is right whereas all the others telling them what they do not want to hear is wrong? Maybe their god told them?

There are a lot more than "one report"....but people like you keep trying to shrink the amount of evidence that refutes your faith despite the fact that several dozens of such research has been posted...



[edit on 5-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh my, and here i thought you were actually knowledgable about everything that the IPCC, and the scientists you keep believing in blindly, keep saying....

Well unlike you I'm a sceptic and don't believe the IPCC

And there were parts of Earth that were cooler during the times when the AGW believers were yelling and screaming about the warm summers.... Not really that hot....

Just because AGW believers don't understand the difference between weather and climate doesn't gve you any excuse.

As we both know, a year or even several years of colder/warmer/drier/wetter weather does not prove anything. It's trends over a minimum of 30 years that count.

Not only that, even NASA admitted that most of the warming is stronger in isolated regions far away from cities.

Which suggests it's not UHIs as some deniers have suggested.

Oh boy... so tells us, why is it that the northern regions, like Canada, Wyoming and such are cooler than normal?.....

Perhaps the same reason places like California and Texas are warmer than usual?

Weather.

Not climate.

But if the trend continues, ask me again in 2050.

.... people like you keep trying to shrink the amount of evidence that refutes your faith despite the fact that several dozens of such research has been posted...

I don't believe in a god