Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

This is probably the most DAMMING thing I found. It clearly shows that they wan to CITE papers that support AGW and ignore everything else. Is that the PERFECTLY correct scientific thing to do? No. But is it reasonable to expect such fact-fitting from a defensive and embattled organization being pummeled by well-financed and profitable opposition using pseudo-science and cheri-picking ANY report that might disagree with a simple AGW message? Sure.

There's a problem with all of your reasoning.

You're missing the big picture. This has not been done with simply climate models - it has been done with the data used to construct these models. Weather stations that have been sitting in the same place for a hundred years and are well away from localized heat sources and urbanization have shown no indication of any consistent trend in the temperature, if not a slight cooling on the average. These stations get ignored, and data from stations sitting next to heat exchangers or sun-warmed concrete structures is used, instead. When this is criticized, these scientists claim the are, somehow, able to "correct" for these effects - which is a line of male bovine feces.

There is very little funding that goes into research against global warming or propaganda against it. Many people with functioning brain cells are simply calling it for what it is - a marketing tactic.

All U.S. Military bases are to go to 100% solar lighting by 2014. This makes being in the solar panel business quite lucrative, as defense contracts are often taken advantage of. On top of this, "service technicians" with minimal training get paid $60 per hour to go around and check the meters on these devices - a job a trained monkey could do (and then alert a real technician to any problems). Contractors will end up servicing the on-base infrastructure as opposed to the military's own personnel, who are often more than adequately trained to handle those jobs.

It's like a politician trying to get elected on a platform that is nuanced and brilliant -- but of course, if they don't DUMB IT DOWN for use in a debate, they will lose the election and have to explain; "Well, I was for the Bill before I was Against it." It's too much to ask of the Media and Public at large to

No, no it's not.

The simple message is this: "We need to be developing more efficient ways of doing things, and replacing processes requiring non-renewable resources with ones that utilize renewable resources as time and practicality allow."

That message makes sense, and you have to be quite the unique individual to be against it.

The problem isn't that the climate changes. The problem is practices that needlessly waste energy or expose the environment to byproducts.

Let's be honest, if you were to simply cease all human activity on this planet, the climate would not suddenly "go back to normal" - because there is no normal. We cannot dictate what normal is on this planet.

But nothing sells quite like fear. How else do you get people to buy poorly designed, premature solutions? Photovoltaic cells are still quite premature, as are the methods of storing the excess energy they can generate. Ethanol production turns out to actually use more gasoline producing it than it offsets. Recycling plastics and paper also tends to be not nearly as beneficial of a process as we are led to believe.

There's room for a lot of improvement in those methods and technologies - which is why you are seeing rather slow uptake.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


The Anthropogenic Global Warming doctrine bears uncanny resemblances the apocalyptic religous movements in western culture. It threatens doom for all mankind unless states and their political organs force large scale changes to the way people live their lives to conform to a more “pure” existence.

The compliant (dependent?) media and so-called experts throw the term “science” around haphazardly, especially regarding the AGW proposition. The evidence for human-influenced climate change is subjective ("proxies," anyone?) data on weather patterns and human development.

Until we can create in lab conditions a perfect replica of Earth’s atmosphere (incorporating all cosmic influences as well), the insistence that man changes the climate is an article of faith, not scientific fact.

The current state of the climate argument assumes that we know everything there is to know about the atmosphere. To scientifically prove that X causes Y requires a control and variable experiment measured empirically, and not assumptions that two sets of measurements imply causality.

Once upon a time, the Ptolemaic Universe and blood-letting were "settled science."
But that is nothing compared to today, with experimentation at global proportions and trial-by-fire putting the well-being of everyone, willing or not, at risk. Neither markets, politics, nor religion is far seeing, and perhaps worst of all is science hopelessly entangled with any or all of them.

Open the CRU/East Anglia files, eliminate the use of subjective "proxies," and let scientists around the world see how they can model or measure what is going on. This should be no secret. As long as it is, skepticism should be welcomed, rather than vilified.

jw

Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree!


A sure sign that the real agenda is not as stated is the complete absence of any cost/benefit analysis of CO2 emission cuts - nor any discussion of the considerable plus side to a warmer, CO2 rich atmosphere.

Christopher Monckton has analyzed the Canadian regulatory action on “Coal Emissions” and finds that, as usual, legislators are choosing the most expensive option possible with other people’s money. Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, it would still cost one-eighteenth as much to just do nothing, suck it and see, and pay for all the theoretical damage that could ensue.


Like so many other Western Nations, there is not even the pretense that the legislation makes sense judged by any numerical outcome, yet Canadian citizens may have to pay thousands in tithe to witchdoctors and carpetbaggers in a futile attempt to change the weather. It’s as if the highest echelons of Western leadership are stone-age innumerate.

joannenova.com.au... campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29


www.cato.org...

Why do you deniers keep pretending you're "winning"??

Every single one of your points is constantly debunked, yet you keep bringing your prized turds back into debates.

You are loathsome creatures, believing what you want to believe rather than what is true.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Why do you deniers keep pretending you're "winning"??

The same reason you seem to think you've won, apparently.

Every single one of your points is constantly debunked, yet you keep bringing your prized turds back into debates.

Really?

Hang on.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Differences in average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures between proximate stations are as large as 1.6 and 3.8 °C, respectively. In addition, it is found that the difference in average extreme monthly minimum temperatures can be as high as 3.6 °C between nearby stations, largely owing to the differences in instrument exposures. Likewise, the difference in monthly extreme maximum temperatures between neighboring stations are as large as 2.4 °C. This investigation finds similar differences in the diurnal temperature range (DTR).

Basically - the temperature data is unreliable because of stupid # like this:

gallery.surfacestations.org...

Since I can't seem to upload files for whatever reason, that will have to suffice.

Basically - that little round doohickey in the upper center of the picture is the temperature sensor for one of the stations used to calculate the effects of climate change.

Notice, it is conveniently located above the roof of a building, situated over many electrical meters, and has several heat exchangers within ten meters (not to mention all of the RF sources and the roof-top heat vent).

You're going to tell me that scientists have figured out how to account for the manner in which the data is skewed by that? No - they haven't - the ones who developed that formula have, likely, never laid eyes on that station (or many of the others highlighted by surfacestations.org as being... pathetically sub-standard).

Here's another example:

www.norcalblogs.com...

This is classic:

www.norcalblogs.com...

Hmm... wonder why that station is saying it's hot as balls?

This one is just #ing epic:

www.surfacestations.org...

- Hmm...Where did they get the MiG-15?

You are loathsome creatures, believing what you want to believe rather than what is true.

Just doing what we do when we do what we do.

Climategate "scandal" summed up in one awesomely pithy cartoon:


(Full Image)






BONUS - Peter Hadfield weighs in - and pwns the denial-bots (as usual):

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by mc_squared

 

MC, you are correct that my post was absolutely wrong by jumping from the link to the actual paper, to a source on the un-forced standard, then using my "Aha" statement.

It was late where I was and I just wanted to get my post in and go to bed. I failed to read it after I posted, and the result was unintelligible gibberish.

Thank you for calling it to my attention.

Well, I'm glad you're at least willing to acknowledge the boo-boo this time, but I have no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore...


First off - the whole question of the science "being settled" or not. There are in fact two seperate questions here:


1. Does anthropogenic CO2 cause global warming? The answer to this is an unequivocal 'yes', and you yourself pointed it out, albeit "accidentally", because "it was late", and you apparently forgot to cherry-pick edit that part out or something -

Because, again, that's precisely what the 1.2 C figure you mentioned is: a first principles mathematical proof of CO2-induced warming - and the science on it is absolutely settled, unless you want to re-write the laws of physics themselves now too?

This is why all the constant denier babble about "all the planets warming up", or "climate change is just a natural cycle" is nothing but off-topic, oil-funded propaganda - because it's got zero to do with the straight up physics that tell us why man-made global warming must be happening right now...


2. How much warming can we actually expect? This depends on climate sensitivity and feedbacks, and NO it is absolutely not settled. But here's the thing: NOBODY, particularly on the so-called "alarmist" side, has EVER said that it was.



This is why I infer that you get all your info from (clearly biased) 3rd party sources. Because you keep repeating this totally wrong, politically motivated chant over and over again (while hypocritically trying to accuse everyone else of religious demagoguery of course).

You constantly make this absurd claim about the IPCC, when all you have to do is read their own report to see otherwise.

The 2° - 4.5°C uncertainty range is based on a highly comprehensive list of peer-reviewed studies, while the 3°C figure is where most of them are centered. I love how you're trying to claim they're "cherry-picked" though, while your own cherry-picked skeptical paper still falls within this range anyway. Nevertheless, there are in fact many people out there who consider the IPCC figures highly conservative, and I could easily show you a plethora of papers with much higher results like this:


Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (2010)

Our work argues that the equilibrium climate change associated with an increase of CO2 is likely to be significantly larger than has traditionally been estimated.

(30-50% greater)

Compensation between Model Feedbacks and Curtailment of Climate Sensitivity. Huybers, 2010 (1.9°-8.0°C)

Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Hegerl et al, 2006 (1.5°-6.2°C)

Constraining Climate Sensitivity from the Seasonal Cycle in Surface Temperature. Knutti et al, 2005 (1.5°-6.5°C)

An atmosphere–ocean time series model of global climate change. Stern, 2005 (4.4°C)

The 100 000-Yr Cycle in Tropical SST, Greenhouse Forcing, and Climate Sensitivity. Lea, 2004 (4.4°–5.6°C)

Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations. Forest et al, 2002 (1.4°-7.7°C)


And this just came in off the presses yesterday -

NSIDC scientist contributes to report predicting huge carbon releases from thawing permafrost

Their collective estimate is that the amount of carbon released by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times greater than reported in several recent modeling studies.

reply to post by jdub297


Also, as for your claim that the Schmittner study mitigates all the supposed "fear-mongering" above. Here's what's funny about that:

First off nevermind the fact that you constantly demonize climate scientists for using models, and yet this one is just based on another model. It's ok, as long as it fits your own bias, right? Apparently, according to you - this model is better because it uses "world-wide data" (as if others never have). It's funny though because the paper itself seems to betray your sublime confidence in their methodology:

Our uncertainty analysis is not complete and does not explicitly consider uncertainties in
radiative forcing due to ice sheet extent or different vegetation distributions. Our limited model
ensemble does not scan the full parameter range, neglecting, for example, possible variations in
shortwave radiation due to clouds. Non-linear cloud feedbacks in different complex models
make the relation between LGM and 2×CO2 derived climate sensitivity more ambiguous than
apparent in our simplified model ensemble (27). More work, in which these and other
uncertainties are considered, will be required for a more complete assessment.

Meanwhile here's what the authors themselves have to say:

I do not claim we have demonstrated that climate sensitivities larger than 3 K are implausible, even though we calculate a low probability for them, because our study has important limitations.

It remains to be seen whether this temperature data is consistent with everything else we know about that period of time (its climate, its vegetation, the size of its ice sheets, etc.). I am less confident that our narrow uncertainty range really does exclude climate sensitivities above 3 °C.

...
But my absolute favorite thing is this:


You're using this paper - which predicts a median 2.3°C climate sensitivity - as apparent proof that the IPCC and mainstream climate scientists are "fear-mongering" about future warming and its effects. You might want to note however that this study was based on a (controversial) temperature reconstruction of the Last Glacial Maximum at around -2 to -3 °C (see figure 2 in the paper).

We don't know exactly how cold the last ice age was globally, but most estimates have it more like -5 to -6 °C. What we do know however is that, whatever the global average temperature was, it was drastic enough to leave ice sheets covering the majority of Europe, North America, etc.

So basically this paper is saying that we can now expect the same sort of change, except in the opposite direction.

And you think this is supposed to refute the alleged fear-mongering??



So I stand by what I says - pull your head out of the hyperbolic, spin-laced, right-wing, fear-based (yeah, that's right) tabloids that distort the science every chance they get and just read the actual science.

Deny ignorance!

reply to post by mc_squared

This is why all the constant denier babble about "all the planets warming up", or "climate change is just a natural cycle" is nothing but off-topic, oil-funded propaganda - because it's got zero to do with the straight up physics that tell us why man-made global warming must be happening right now...

Sorry, pal. Human carbon emissions pale in comparison to what exists naturally.

Now, if you want me to point out... we build large concrete slabs that soak up the sun's energy and radiate it back out into the atmosphere. We also have neat devices that take the heat inside of a building and transfer it to the outside air (with some extra heat because of entropic losses).

We also, quite literally, take energy that has been stored up in chemical bonds throughout history and release it.

So, yes, we -must- be warming the planet up.

The argument that it is to any appreciable amount, and that our added emission of carbon dioxide is capable of trapping enough heat to cause a substantial difference, is bollocks.

Nice try, though.

This is why I infer that you get all your info from (clearly biased) 3rd party sources. Because you keep repeating this totally wrong, politically motivated chant over and over again (while hypocritically trying to accuse everyone else of religious demagoguery of course).

What are you talking about? The industries receiving the most government funding and investment by third-parties have been in the "renewable" energy sector.

All U.S. Military bases are to be running their lighting off of solar power by 2014. Missouri passed a law a few years ago requiring 10% of all residential power to be supplied by renewable sources by 2015, if I remember correctly (it may have been closer to 2020 - I voted against it).

Also, the areas of research receiving the greatest amount of funding sit in climate research.

But, what does this all boil down to?

You come and argue for the propaganda of alarmism. "Humans are going to kill the polar bears!"

At the end of the day, engineers like myself come up with the solutions to your problems. They are the same things we would develop, anyway, without all of your nonsense. But, since it's a crisis, I'll lay claim to your first born in exchange for technology necessary to save the day. A fair trade, in my opinion. It's not like you'd be able to teach the kid anything useful, anyway.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Why do you deniers keep pretending you're "winning"??

Every single one of your points is constantly debunked, yet you keep bringing your prized turds back into debates.

You are loathsome creatures, believing what you want to believe rather than what is true.

The more that the underlying data are looked at, the clearer it becomes that the science is neither settled nor the subject of any real "consensus."

It also hasn't hurt that the public increasingly is aware that the AGW priesthood's catastrophic claims aren't panning out.
Sea levels declined in 2010, rather than drowning island nations as claimed.
The melting of Mount Kilimanjaro's snow cap was proven unrelated to global warming, contrary to claims.
There are fewer, not more, devastating hurricanes.
Temperatures at best have remained level for more than a decade, despite historic increases in CO2 emissions.

You, and the AGW faithful, have no idea "what is true," excepyt for your own credulity.

Montreal failed.
Kyoto failed.
EU/UK carbon trading schemes failed.
Copenhagen failed.
Acapulco failed.

And now, as nations ride out a rough economy, they are becoming more reluctant to cut their own economic throats and throw money at unproductive uses.

deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by purplemer
Following your reasoning, one nation has the right to detriment my biosphere to a point it cannot recover. You are correct but I find that hard to swallow. We are all it this together and we live in a global community...

regards purp...

Going back to the source I originally gave you, consider that over the last decade,global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.

Where does the US fit in, and how will the draconian "remedies" work?

In China, CO2 emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade. (China’s emissions now exceed those of the U.S. by more than two billion tons per year.)
Africa’s emissions jumped by 30%.
India, and the rest of Asia’s increased by 44%.
The Middle East’s rose by 57%.
Over that same time frame, U.S. carbon emissions fell by 1.7%.

Looking at actual numbers, and not pie-in-the-sky projections, over the past decade, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (about 6.1 billion tons per year) could have gone to zero and yet global emissions still would have increased.

So, why are the AGW advocates not putting the pressure where it belongs? Because Americans and European governments are sheep, willing to throw their citizens money at "solutions" that have no effect other than the destruction of their own industries and the impoverishment of their citizens.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

So, why are the AGW advocates not putting the pressure where it belongs? Because Americans and European governments are sheep, willing to throw their citizens money at "solutions" that have no effect other than the destruction of their own industries and the impoverishment of their citizens.

Perhaps Maurice Strong Club of Rome member has an idea!

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies



"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King


There are many more: green-agenda.com...

This is simply the NWO agenda dressed up as eco-loonyness to suck the usefull idiots in.

Originally posted by ladykenzie

anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.

(With all due respect), that is a little bit insulting because yes, we presumably all made it past third grade and we know how to read a bar graph.
The argument isn't that no one has ever presented evidence of global warming.
The argument is that there is an ulterior motive, an agenda, data is skewed, manipulated, picked and rejected, etc before these 'bar graphs' were put together and presented, because someone somewhere has personal interests and something to gain.

edit on 25-11-2011 by ladykenzie because: (no reason given)

With all due respect, no argument of ulterior motives, agendas, skewed-manipulated-picked and rejected data for the personal interests of a particular person or group is legitimate without including the motives, agendas and skewed data presented by the worlds wealthiest and most powerful corporations who have their finger on the switch of just about every human who consumes energy... and might I add... have more to lose than anyone could possibly imagine if man made climate change is proven real.
With all due respect, this blathering on about lies in support of grants, taxes and donations makes me literally nauseous... because they come from the same people I'd expect had the guts to question and hold our oil and gas Gods accountable for their crimes. They make accusations of personal gain and greed of the countless legitimate (many are not) men and women scientists who ask the question and search out the answers for climate change while completely ignoring the cost of what such reality would do the the richest corporations the world has ever known. You want to talk about motives and agendas?
Now... having said all of that I don't claim their aren't legitimate arguments against certain groups of scientists for reasons that include everything from personal gain to trying to prove a hunch for the sake of humanity. But please don't ignore what the oil companies have to win or lose in this game.
Finally, to be clear about my motives... I really, really, really hope it is all a hoax. For 3 main reasons. First, I like driving my car, I like burning fuel and I hope I never to have to stop. Second, I work for an oil company... I live and work in Alberta Canada because the economy is strong here and I can make good money exploiting it's resources. I hope those oil sands go full throttle and I continue to make loads of money off an economy that sells it's energy to the world. That is my agenda for living here... coming from Vancouver I can tell you it's not because of the scenery and weather. Third, I have 2 young children and I really, really, really hope they don't grow up in a world underwater because Greenland's ice has boiled into the oceans... a world of droughts, floods and famines... I mean, I might just be a strange father but I don't particularly want to see my children grow up in such a world. So, I hope all the deniers are right. I truly do. But to ignore the oil company propaganda, greed and obvious motives to disprove it unbelievably ignorant. Maybe that isn't you in particular, and I apologize for directing my tirade at you... it's just a general statement to those with illusions of mad socialist scientists and an evil plot to take over the world... while those who actually do control the world are painted as the victims. In fact the cost to humanity as a result of climate change vs. the cost to humanity of finding alternative energy and being more efficient is so lopsided that anyone who claims with certainty and tries to convince us it's all a hoax is likely just a shill for big oil. None of us know anything for certain, if someone claims they do and tries to sell it as fact they're the ones with the agenda.

Originally posted by onebullet

Originally posted by ladykenzie

anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.

(With all due respect), that is a little bit insulting because yes, we presumably all made it past third grade and we know how to read a bar graph.
The argument isn't that no one has ever presented evidence of global warming.
The argument is that there is an ulterior motive, an agenda, data is skewed, manipulated, picked and rejected, etc before these 'bar graphs' were put together and presented, because someone somewhere has personal interests and something to gain.

edit on 25-11-2011 by ladykenzie because: (no reason given)

With all due respect, no argument of ulterior motives, agendas, skewed-manipulated-picked and rejected data for the personal interests of a particular person or group is legitimate without including the motives, agendas and skewed data presented by the worlds wealthiest and most powerful corporations who have their finger on the switch of just about every human who consumes energy... and might I add... have more to lose than anyone could possibly imagine if man made climate change is proven real.
With all due respect, this blathering on about lies in support of grants, taxes and donations makes me literally nauseous... because they come from the same people I'd expect had the guts to question and hold our oil and gas Gods accountable for their crimes. They make accusations of personal gain and greed of the countless legitimate (many are not) men and women scientists who ask the question and search out the answers for climate change while completely ignoring the cost of what such reality would do the the richest corporations the world has ever known. You want to talk about motives and agendas?
Now... having said all of that I don't claim their aren't legitimate arguments against certain groups of scientists for reasons that include everything from personal gain to trying to prove a hunch for the sake of humanity. But please don't ignore what the oil companies have to win or lose in this game.
Finally, to be clear about my motives... I really, really, really hope it is all a hoax. For 3 main reasons. First, I like driving my car, I like burning fuel and I hope I never to have to stop. Second, I work for an oil company... I live and work in Alberta Canada because the economy is strong here and I can make good money exploiting it's resources. I hope those oil sands go full throttle and I continue to make loads of money off an economy that sells it's energy to the world. That is my agenda for living here... coming from Vancouver I can tell you it's not because of the scenery and weather. Third, I have 2 young children and I really, really, really hope they don't grow up in a world underwater because Greenland's ice has boiled into the oceans... a world of droughts, floods and famines... I mean, I might just be a strange father but I don't particularly want to see my children grow up in such a world. So, I hope all the deniers are right. I truly do. But to ignore the oil company propaganda, greed and obvious motives to disprove it unbelievably ignorant. Maybe that isn't you in particular, and I apologize for directing my tirade at you... it's just a general statement to those with illusions of mad socialist scientists and an evil plot to take over the world... while those who actually do control the world are painted as the victims. In fact the cost to humanity as a result of climate change vs. the cost to humanity of finding alternative energy and being more efficient is so lopsided that anyone who claims with certainty and tries to convince us it's all a hoax is likely just a shill for big oil. None of us know anything for certain, if someone claims they do and tries to sell it as fact they're the ones with the agenda.

edit on 2-12-2011 by onebullet because: spelling corrections

I'd also like to add, I don't think any of these debates make a difference. If it's not real we'll continue down the same path. If it is real, we'll also continue down this same path. Humanity unfortunately is a freight train heading towards... well, we just don't know what we're heading towards but whatever it is we'll only be stopped if we're derailed, fly off a cliff or hit the side of a mountain. As long as enough of us are relatively comfortable in our homes with too much to eat, a broadband connection and a few hundred channels to consume, pummelled into apathy by the illusion of freedom... well, nothing will change. Soon another couple billion will enter this reality we in the western world have enjoyed and I doubt they'll want to give it up either.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by jdub297

 

So, why are the AGW advocates not putting the pressure where it belongs? Because Americans and European governments are sheep, willing to throw their citizens money at "solutions" that have no effect other than the destruction of their own industries and the impoverishment of their citizens.

Perhaps Maurice Strong Club of Rome member has an idea!

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies



"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King


There are many more: green-agenda.com...

This is simply the NWO agenda dressed up as eco-loonyness to suck the usefull idiots in.

And the oil companies (along with their Republican right-wing whipping boys & girls) are trying to save us from the NWO agenda? Right... LMFAO!

reply to post by onebullet

And the oil companies (along with their Republican right-wing whipping boys & girls) are trying to save us from the NWO agenda? Right... LMFAO!

BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years

BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”

ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”

Actually the oil co's are funding the warmist agenda by orders of magnitude more than the sceptic side.

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Tuesday, November 3, 2009 A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax. According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.

www.prisonplanet.com...

See www.appinsys.com... for information on the companies planning to scam the carbon credit trading, as well as their connections to the UN etc.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Sorry, pal. Human carbon emissions pale in comparison to what exists naturally.

Now, if you want me to point out... we build large concrete slabs that soak up the sun's energy and radiate it back out into the atmosphere. We also have neat devices that take the heat inside of a building and transfer it to the outside air (with some extra heat because of entropic losses).

We also, quite literally, take energy that has been stored up in chemical bonds throughout history and release it.

So, yes, we -must- be warming the planet up.

The argument that it is to any appreciable amount, and that our added emission of carbon dioxide is capable of trapping enough heat to cause a substantial difference, is bollocks.

Nice try, though.

Wow, thanks for the science lesson there, "pal". I always enjoy coming to ATS to be lectured by condescending armchair climate experts with apparently zero understanding in the basics of things like thermal equilibrium, but all the confidence to try and fake their way through it anyway.

Before you go bragging about all the problems wise "engineers like yourself" solve for me though, maybe you want to educate engineers like yourself on what the Carbon cycle is - and how natural CO2 sources are balanced out by their sinks - while anthropogenic emissions are not.

Then you might want to read up on how heat trapping actually works, (maybe this 9 year old can explain it to you):




...and come to realize it has nothing to do with how much waste heat humans themselves produce (lol).


I mean by your amazing engineer-logic, a blanket doesn't work either because it produces no heat itself (minus the "entropic losses" when you shuffle it around and stuff I guess).


So figure that much out first, and then maybe humble little commoners like me can point out to you the 893287635 other "bollocks" you clearly don't even understand, but are seemingly too arrogant to bother with.

reply to post by onebullet

I can understand your fear of "big oil" and "mega-corporations" as drivers of the anti-AGW agenda, because that is one of the mianstays of the AGW dogma.

to ignore the oil company propaganda, greed and obvious motives to disprove it unbelievably ignorant. Maybe that isn't you in particular, and I apologize for directing my tirade at you... it's just a general statement to those with illusions of mad socialist scientists and an evil plot to take over the world... while those who actually do control the world are painted as the victims. In fact the cost to humanity as a result of climate change vs. the cost to humanity of finding alternative energy and being more efficient is so lopsided that anyone who claims with certainty and tries to convince us it's all a hoax is likely just a shill for big oil. None of us know anything for certain, if someone claims they do and tries to sell it as fact they're the ones with the agenda.

Unfortunately, among the corporations ready and willing to capitalize (in every meaning of the word) on carbon trading, carbon mitigation and carbon sequestration strategies, none have more money and more resources dedicated to these than General Electric and ConocoPhillips. I could give you a longer list, but these are suffucient to show that your suspicions are misdirected, at best.
www.conocophillips.com...
www.ge.com...

If more people would think for themselves; maybe look at the information instead of who brought it to light, they might see that the source isn't always indicative of the truth of the underlying message.

Ask yourself whether any, all or most of the IPCC's dire predictions from 1998 or even 2007 have been accurate.
Go back, look for yourself.

It doesn't take an oil company to show you that the Himalayan glaciers haven't disappeared; or, that the true cause of any measurable loss is the result of black soot released by the bordering countries, rather than the industrialized West.

You don't need to be a "denier" to realize that while CO2 emissions have skyrocketed, global temperatiures have not.

It doesn't take a "climnate scientist" to reveal that the Kyoto protocol has been a disastrous failure at controlling emissions, while costing entire nations and economies large percentages of their limited resources and GDP, while enriching those positioned to take advantage of "alternatives."

You do not have to be a politician to recognize that "renewable energy" is NOT renewable:
hydo-electric requires dams that have limited lifespans, tremendous environmental impacts and divert precious water resources from other uses; the largest US geothermal project ("the Geysers") has run out of steam; windpower requires rare earths that are expensive to obtain and in very short supply (hence "rare"), and storage and transmission infrastructure that do not exist, et c.

What we need to work on are increased efficiencies and conservation of the resources that we rely on today.
Conservation, alone, is responsible for the most significant strides we have made in self-reliance, and reduction of hydrocarbon combustion.

Of course, conservation doesn't fatten the accounts of liberal think tanks and "climate change" programs at the IPCC, Hadley, MIT, Penn, East Anglia and Stanford.

I suppose the whole thing is very ugly ...HOW UGLY...well it depends on the depth of ones understanding of what is right and what is wrong ....here listen to this ...Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com joins us to talk about the latest from the world of crimatology. We explore Climategate 2.0, the massive release of emails that once again demonstrates the brazenly anti-scientific actions of the scientists at the heart of the IPCC. We also discuss the latest “fun in the sun” climate conference, COP17 in Durban, which Morano will be attending next week www.corbettreport.com...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

That is, again, glib.

Scientists care a lot less about funding, as a group, than corporations do about profits. In many instances the debate has fallen along the scientists v. corporations line and I'll always trust scientists, as a group, over corporations.

Every time.

Yes! Yes! And Yes! How this obvious point is swept under the rug is quite telling of the intellectual capabilties of those who not only deny, but claim their own cherry picked facts and propoganda fed bias as truth.