State of the Union 2014 -- Addressing the Propaganda: "Climate Change"

Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

The UK participates in the Kyoto protocol.

And, as a consequence they are now dealing with the scam and fraud
that comes with a carbon credit market, a market that is based upon
Pseudoscience mixed with a wealth redistribution scheme.

I see that you did not address the scams taking place?

I don't know about "skewed". I do know the audit was not about research

Well, like many folks in your congregation your not examining the facts,
just blindly following the leaders of climate doom.

the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showed that Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.

Nasa data: Warming still on pause - Ice hits record

NASA.gov

State Department bureau’s Climate Change Data Can’t Be Relied Upon, Audit Says

According to the audit, the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Administration (OES), is in charge of the majority of the $120.5 million the State Department handed out last year for foreign assistance on climate change issues.

Most notable among ongoing problems that investigators cited at OES was that the office still had not taken steps to ensure all of its information was completely accurate.

www.washingtontimes.com...

reply to post by burntheships

And, as a consequence they are now dealing with the scam and fraud that comes with a carbon credit market, a market that is based upon Pseudoscience mixed with a wealth redistribution scheme.

What pseudoscience would that be? And about that redistribution "scheme" we've talked about before, do you really think that the rich and powerful nations of the world are scheming to redistribute their wealth to poor nations? Because that's what Edenhofer was talking about as far as the net (not planned) effect of carbon trading.

I see that you did not address the scams taking place?

It doesn't surprise me. But it doesn't have anything to do with the science.

Well, like many folks in your congregation your not examining the facts,
just blindly following the leaders of climate doom.

You said the State Department was skewing data. I asked you where, in the audit, any skewing was cited. But are you now saying that NASA and NOAA are skewing data by showing the pause in warming? Why would they do that? Are they changing their tune? Are they now AGW deniers?

State Department bureau’s Climate Change Data Can’t Be Relied Upon, Audit Says

Weren't we just talking about that? The data is in regard to program administration, not climate data. Their bookkeeping sucks. They turn in reports late. That sort of thing. But they are getting better.

Your own source, though it actually "skews" what the audit is about by only talking about how studies are funded. Not the other programs which the OES administers as well.

An audit by the State Department’s Inspector General last month showed that the agency still hasn’t fixed problems — originally spotlighted more than a year ago — in the way it funds climate change studies, and specifically how it uses resources from other government agencies.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Here's that followup audit. Maybe you can show me where climate data has been "skewed". I can't seem to find it. I can't find anything about climate data at all as a matter of fact. Just bookkeeping stuff.
oig.state.gov...

spiritualzombie

neo96

webedoomed
reply to post by neo96

 

You've been called out as a liar.

Have a nice night.

edit on 30-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Have been called many names on this site over the years.

To date not a single person has ever called it right.

How about a one dimensional mindless-bot whose sole purpose is to embrace ignorance at every turn? A poster child for idiocy. A right-wing caricature, too simplistic to be real. Basically a total waste of bandwidth. Did I call it right?

My apologies if you're an actual living person. I've read enough of your posts to suspect you might just be mindless code meant to respond in the most idiotic way simply to raise tempers.

Again if you're a human being, my apologies. I would never knowingly say such a thing to something I believed had a genuine human brain.

edit on 31-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

You are doing what kids do when they lose arguments, which is using personal attacks.., it isn't safe for you, you could sprain or damage your hippocampus which can actually lead to Alzheimer's.
And by the way, just relax and take a deep breath...

Tip: Write smarter, not meaner. It does take way more concentration, but it is really worth it.

alienreality

spiritualzombie

neo96

webedoomed
reply to post by neo96

 

You've been called out as a liar.

Have a nice night.

edit on 30-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Have been called many names on this site over the years.

To date not a single person has ever called it right.

How about a one dimensional mindless-bot whose sole purpose is to embrace ignorance at every turn? A poster child for idiocy. A right-wing caricature, too simplistic to be real. Basically a total waste of bandwidth. Did I call it right?

My apologies if you're an actual living person. I've read enough of your posts to suspect you might just be mindless code meant to respond in the most idiotic way simply to raise tempers.

Again if you're a human being, my apologies. I would never knowingly say such a thing to something I believed had a genuine human brain.

edit on 31-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

You are doing what kids do when they lose arguments, which is using personal attacks.., it isn't safe for you, you could sprain or damage your hippocampus which can actually lead to Alzheimer's.
And by the way, just relax and take a deep breath...

Okay, I relaxed and deleted it. Sometimes reading an obnoxious level of ignorance can be maddening. My suspicions of him being a bot will have to remain unanswered. But you have to admit, it is curious...

On the subject of climate change. CLEARLY mankind is not responsible at all. We barely have any impact on this planet. Maybe some drilling, some oil spills, maybe a few nuke tests, some nuke meltdowns, smog, a few billion cars, an actual island of trash... Hardly worth mentioning.

This thread has completely confused me.



Are you guys arguing Climate Change ?
Or the Anthopogenic Global Warming theory ?

There's a huge difference between the two and they are not one in the same.

Which is exactly what the OP was trying to avoid by mentioning the difference in the first place... Meanwhile, you guys all fell right back into exactly what he was trying to shift the thread away from.



So please, decide which topic it is you're actually debating in this thread and stick with it. Discussing two completely different subjects (or worse yet, responding to a post about climate change with a rebuttal about AGW) in any singular post is not only confusing , it's downright frustrating.

Please stop using the term "Climate Change" if you're discussing AGW and vice versa... the same damn confusing terminology mistake Obama made in his State of the Union address.


Thank you.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


You are on the right track OP. Less developed countries get our cash that is paying for the carbon offsets (ie. increased taxes), but before we send the funds, the government will get their share!

We get to feel good about saving the environment however the major polluters like China get a pass.

Like P.T. Barnum said so fittingly, "There's a sucker born every minute".

Just guess who we are!

BTW, no sarcasm, just statements of fact.

reply to post by CranialSponge


The terms are interchangeable because what's really at play here is AGW induced climate change. And it seems the thread is going exactly where the OP wanted it to.

My guess is that he is advocating for the first, that we humans are effecting the climate adversely. If that is so, the evidence is scant to none in this argument. No one scientist can point to any data that can prove that human activity is driving climate in one direction or another. There are models, there are theories, but there is not concrete evidence that Man has diverted the course of the Earth and its natural system in regards to the weather.

I challenge ATS to show otherwise....

reply to post by Cynic


The US government does not participate in carbon trading. Private corporations within the US on a voluntary basis do. The only role the government plays in that is that they offer limited buyer protection.

GAO

reply to post by neo96


I'm going to retract my statement. Most people would say you have to be aware of the fact to be a liar. I don't think you realize the fallacies you make.

As stated in another thread, in these cases it's best to remain nice and leave the other person be. That's what I'll do with you from now on.

Enjoy your day in this "totalitarian" state.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


First Global Warming fell out of use in favor of Climate Change because it is a difficult concept to convey a global concept to someone when their local conditions aren't exactly "warming". Second if you live on Earth then you must accept that there will always be climate change whether it be natural, man made or even just man accelerated. Two of those factors we have absolute and direct control over. So if we can control how much we do contribute to the phenomenon, it then becomes our responsibility to minimize the impact. There is no escaping that. This is what makes deniers so very deluded, they want to shirk the responsibility of being aware of the impact we have altogether so they can do whatever they want.

ownbestenemy
At his state of the union address, the President of the United States stated that "...the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."

To address this issue, we need first examine what the President was getting at. Was he expressing the notion of "global warming" (which has morphed into the climate change) and saying that it is a fact or was he stating the known of the Earth, that climate does change?

My guess is that he is advocating for the first, that we humans are effecting the climate adversely. If that is so, the evidence is scant to none in this argument. No one scientist can point to any data that can prove that human activity is driving climate in one direction or another. There are models, there are theories, but there is not concrete evidence that Man has diverted the course of the Earth and its natural system in regards to the weather.

I challenge ATS to show otherwise....

edit on 30-1-2014 by ownbestenemy because: Grammar edits...

All the proof in the world is out there. But this is a typical argument of a skeptic, that never becomes more educated or well rounded, never advancing, it is always the same, tired, worn out arguments.

It is the sun
Al gore
the Antarctic has more ice
the IPCC is wrong
scientists are paid off
its the natural cycle
Al Gore
the earth is cooling
hasn't warmed in 15 years
they predicted an ice age in the 70s
Al Gore


You will see these same arguments on every discussion about GW. All of which have been thoroughly debunked for years.

Last but not least "there is not enough evidence. "

Data supporting GW has come from every branch of science, from thousands of scientists around the world, from almost 200 countries.

Which is why deniers have to resort to blogs written by 13 year olds or total nut jobs to try to find any proof that supports their viewpoint.

Because, the evidence of work from thousands of scientists isn't proof, but some crackpot blog that you had to really search for, is.

Of course there isn't evidence to support GW if the only place you are looking for proof is the crumbs that are under your mouse pad.

I am going to end this argument over how can man possibly affect the planet. First off, the planet isn't that big, you can fly around it in a day.

Man has created a mine in Idaho that dwarfs Meteor Crater. You know, that massive crater in Az that formed by a 100ft. asteroid?

The Colorado River no longer reaches the ocean. Since it no longer flows into Mexico, a desert has been created in that area. Changing the CLIMATE for the area. 100 species are now endangered in the Colorado, since no more sediment flows down the river.
The park service has to import and replant the cedars along the shore in the GC, since the river can no longer support the environment.
Portions of the Colorado are now saltier than the ocean.

The mighty Mississippi has been corralled. Enough said.

The Chinese have built a dam so large that the concentration of so much water in one location is now causing earthquakes. It has concentrated so much water, that it has added time to the Earth's rotation.

It is so large that it is causing draught and disease down the river. It has changed the CLIMATE for that area.

the Soviet Union drained the fourth largest lake in the world. Look up the Aral Sea.


So even though we can drain the fourth largest lake on the planet, somehow, humans can't affect the planet.

I wish there was an eye rolling emoticon because I would put ten of them here.

The question is, what ways have humans NOT screwed up the planet.

neo96

Is pollution redistribution just buy 'tons' for the pun of carbon credits, and keep polluting.

Yea, it didn't solve that acid rain problem at all.

You do know they are voluntary, right?

Meanwhile the US has them most awesome 'green laws' that has killed job and wealth creation countries like China are becoming greater polluters.

What green laws have killed what jobs?

And yeah certain people will make billions off them carbon credits creating another bubble that has the potential to burst thus creating the next 'bailout' scenario.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None, zero, zilch.

neo96
I wish I could get an answer to this for some odd reason all the proponents of global warming will never give me an answer.

So how do more laws in one country out of over 270 'save the planet' ?

Global warming has been hijacked by politics because it gives them another means of control.

And propaganda is abound on how to 'justify' that totalitarianism.

For one, more than one country is passing laws. That is why people can't answer your question, because it isn't even relating to a real subject.

Bolivia actually gave mother Earth equal status in the government.

China has invested far more in green technology than the US.

Japan has enacted a slew of laws in recent years:

Noise Regulation Law
Offensive Odor Control Law
Studded Tires Regulation Law
Vibration Regulation Law
Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law
Water Pollution Control Law
Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law

it gives them another means of control.

Who is "them" and what "control"?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Really interesting points - people are going to fight tooth and nail (already are) over the Colorado - especially if there's less and less runoff

Years ago I had a friend that lived in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area - she's a landscape architect

She explained that all the extra water brought into the area for lawns and golf courses and whatnot had changed the surrounding ecosystem - everything had adapted to the extra water in the ground and air - even if it doesn't seem like much compared to the surrounding desert

If that water goes away suddenly there will not be enough time to adapt back. How many other regions around the world have been changed by our influence - but in subtle ways that escape our notice

We can and do affect everything. Whenever I hear the 'how arrogant is man to think he can affect the world' argument - I cringe. How arrogant is that? That we should believe the planet we live in is here for us to abuse - full of inexhaustible resources and that the idea of stewardship apparently means nothing in the end

The possible risk to future generations should be enough to at least err on the side of caution - one would hope

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

PDF This was published in the peer reviewed journal: Environmental Research Letters

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Yea, it didn't solve that acid rain problem at all.

Tell that the China, and india:

sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com...

You do know they are voluntary, right?

EPA regulations are 'voluntary' ?

Since WHEN?

What green laws have killed what jobs?

Jobs like these

www.governing.com...

Meanwhile While Some Americans are 'saving the planet' :

www.washingtonpost.com...

Americans, and others will be buying more products made over seas using FOSSIL FUELS and have them imported here.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None, zero, zilch.

I agree some people have no damn idea of what they are talking about.

Phage

When you start eliminating other influences which could cause it (i.e.the sun hasn't gotten significantly hotter in the past century but temperatures have risen) and when you see that the trend does coincide with models based on CO2 increases, and CO2 levels have steadily increased, what do you have left? Do you just chalk it up to, "well, it must be something else because it sure can't be because of us." Ok.

No, it's not certain that warming is being caused by us. Only a 95% chance.

What about the Earth's magnetosphere weakening. It has weakened 15% over the last 200 years, which corresponds to the same time period we observed the CO2 uptick during the industrial revolution.

There is evidence that the Earth magnetosphere has been weakening, this shield protects us from the effects of solar wind; if it is weakening, then more solar wind will reach the surface; regardless of the luminosity of the sun itself.

More solar wind = warming trend = permafrost layer thawing = methane released in the atmosphere = further warming trend....

You are a very intelligent scientific mind and we all respect your contributions to these types of threads.

What are your thoughts on a weakening Magnetosphere and the potential for that to be the cause of the warming trend?

God Bless,

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Really interesting points - people are going to fight tooth and nail (already are) over the Colorado - especially if there's less and less runoff

Years ago I had a friend that lived in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area - she's a landscape architect

She explained that all the extra water brought into the area for lawns and golf courses and whatnot had changed the surrounding ecosystem - everything had adapted to the extra water in the ground and air - even if it doesn't seem like much compared to the surrounding desert

If that water goes away suddenly there will not be enough time to adapt back. How many other regions around the world have been changed by our influence - but in subtle ways that escape our notice

We can and do affect everything. Whenever I hear the 'how arrogant is man to think he can affect the world' argument - I cringe. How arrogant is that? That we should believe the planet we live in is here for us to abuse - full of inexhaustible resources and that the idea of stewardship apparently means nothing in the end

The possible risk to future generations should be enough to at least err on the side of caution - one would hope

I have lived in Phoenix, and what your friend says is true.

Even more sadly, despite 7 states and Mexico fighting over meager water sources. they use and abuse water there more then we do here on the east coast where it is in full supply.

I have never seen so much waste. You would think that they would be conserving it. Not only that, but everyone spends exorbitant amount of money on lawns and grass. If you wanted a green environment, move to Florida.