Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

Does anyone still believe in "climate change" being man-made? How about the Flat Earth theory?
Well if you do let me know I have some prime beach side property on the Gulf Of Mexico to sell ya!
The facts are that scientists are lying about sea levels rising. FACT!

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by Scoriada


Of course, the AGW advocates have no problem letting groups who stand to benefit from their programs dictate the contents of their "studies" and "science."

Just last week it was disclosed that a highly-publicized IPCC report lauding "green energy" was actually largely the product of Greepeace:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is facing claims that it allowed a Greenpeace campaigner to have undue influence over the content of a new report on renewable energy

Conflict of interest claimed for IPCC energy report

These are only the most recent examples of AGW advocacy written by and for those who support their views and policies. It is an adjunct to the MSM apathy to anything cotradicting or criticizing the AGW conventional wisdom.

Greenpeace International has also opposed effective CO2 mitigation methods that detract from the funding of like-minded organizations and programs, and do so at fractions of the costs and near-zero risks.

Carbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.
A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace


This, after the Kyoyo Protocol spefically endorsed reforestation and anti-deforestation programs in its carbon market schemes.

The idea of REDD was first brought to the table during the Kyoto protocol negotiations in 1997 which first recognised the important role that forests could play in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation.

www.forestsclimatechange.org...

The obvious value of forest management to mitigation of CO2, contrary to Greenpeace's objections, is becoming ever more clear.
Rising forest density offsets climate change

Leave it those most likely to benefit from the AGW orthodxy to endorse "solutions" from which they benefit, and oppose those from which they receive none.

jw

Originally posted by Scoriada
Does anyone still believe in "climate change" being man-made?

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

So let's see.. are we supposed to believe these 200,000+ Scientists and hundreds of International Science Institutes and Acadamies who agree that Global Warming is man-made:

en.wikipedia.org...

or the Lawyer 'James M. Taylor' of the Heartland Institute - part of the Koch Industries/Exxon/BP Climate Denial Front Group?

Follow the money- that's all it takes.

www.greenpeace.org...
www.exxonsecrets.org...
www2.sunysuffolk.edu...

reply to post by Stratus9


Part of the problem with your hypothetical is relying upon "wikipedia" as a source.

Another part of the problem with your hypothetical is this:

For climate scientists to make positive inroads in policy regarding a problem we know is only going to get worse - pollution and climate change - they need to police the actions of a few in their circle, most notably the very loud.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has existed for over two decades now - they are not new to politics and this is not gotcha journalism from WikiLeaks; they have also already been implicated by an independent commission created by the United Nations for their use of 'gray' literature published as data and for ignoring commentary on what studies it uses in reports.

Who lets scientists assess their own study and decide whether or not the study is accurate?

If Exxon scientists were writing skewed reports which got published in the mainstream news, would we let that go unchallenged? Especially if their version was the most optimistic of 163 others and contained a glaring flaw like that 2 billion more people would require less energy, so fossil fuels would mean less emissions then?

If not, climate scientists shouldn't continue to let the IPCC damage their reputations this way.

Should Greenpeace Be Writing IPCC Reports?

And, yet another is assuming that a "consensus" always correct.

Finally, despite youtr derision, the substance of Taylor's report is correct - US "scientists" DID add a "fudge factor" to increase sea-level rise!

Criticize the messenger all you want to; the message is the truth.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by Stratus9


Follow the money? You mean the $100,000,000,000 annually called for last year to support the AGW faith?

Here's what your money buys you:

Conflict of interest claimed for IPCC energy report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is facing claims that it allowed a Greenpeace campaigner to have undue influence over the content of a new report on renewable energy

www.newscientist.com...

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by jdub297


Called for by whom? Where's the link? AGW?

Actually I am referring to the 600 Million BP alone has paid these past 4 years for global warming denial Pr.
Reason? Four Words: Tobacco- Harm- Lawsuits.

Just think of all the lawsuits that will be filed against the Carbon fuels industry for lost crops, floods, deaths from heat waves, deaths or destruction from major storm events, etc.

THAT is why the Carbon fuels industry has spent billions on the denial machine. So why are you so interested in protecting them? Unless you are part of them or paid by them?