Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[richntiff]

Just to be clear on what my priorities are on this issue, I know that many of those pushing the global warming awareness agenda are truly doing the right thing and are personally doing their part to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum. Some of these people are my personal friends and I recognize that they are not only sincere in their practices, but they are on the right side of truth.

It is a fact that we humans are altering the environment for the worse and our wasteful use of fossil fuels is heating up our atmosphere in a way that we can't accurately predict but that we know is imprudent. While I've been very vocal about the necessity of being skeptical of the rhetoric of the global warming crisis mongers, it's equally important to claim foul on those who describe the entire issue as a hoax that we can safely ignore. Both sides of the issue have seemingly become overrun with political propagandists and the objective, scientific truth is the victim.


Don't waste our natural resources.
Resist the temptation to burn cheap energy for convenience when you can just as easily expend some muscle power.
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. If everyone lived their lives this way, regardless of ideology, the problem of global warming would disappear overnight and so would many other problems.

IMO.

I'd like to buy you a virtual beer sir. Well said.

 

[Solarmist]

If there are legitimate studys that show a change, and that change is at least in part related to higher CO2 levels, and we are responsible for at least some of that CO2 increase, why not just stick with that?

Why pad the data, or include unscientific opinions, speculation, etc. to make the change look worse than it is? That's where you leave good science behind, and you're into motive, money, power, control, etc.

He has a great point when saying they're doing science in general a disservice.

If we'r going to be all about the scientific method, then we have to be all about the scientific method, even if the result doesn't always fit our personal views, goals, desires, etc.

If they're going to honest about this, they'll just cite the legitimate studies, and leave all the opinion and speculation and "bending data" to suit their views out of it.

IPCC seems to be more a global political body rather than group of scientists.

Great point. So many people have been deterred by all the data manipulation from the IPCC reports and the Michael Mann charts that it makes the whole thing look like a big business/political agenda – which to a large degree is. I wish the alarmist community would recognize this, and quit with all the insults – it really doesn’t help. Most skeptics are just that ... skeptics. They are open to new information, and just want the truth. I'm all for the studies, but I think we have many more years of study to gain a more solid consensus.

 

[Munjibunga]

Trust? Don't most of the scientist pedaling this climate change BS have some connection to the United Nations one way or another? Don't almost all of them rely on grant money for their research?

Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

Almost all scientific research relies on grant money which comes from varied sources on both sides of the fence.

 

[Munjibunga]

I still say we'd be better off in the long run planning on how to deal with the effects of global warming rather than trying to stop it. Don't look for a significant decrease in the burning of fossil fuels worldwide over the next 50 years.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Trust? Don't most of the scientist pedaling this climate change BS have some connection to the United Nations one way or another? Don't almost all of them rely on grant money for their research?

Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

You know what?

This is so funny that I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this guy.

Of course people question authority - but it's not the authority actually doing the research.

You really have no idea how the funding system works.

Really. Try reading a book on the scientific process once in a while. I recommend Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' as a good starting point.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Translation: "I am not a scientist, nor have I ever met a scientist."



Translation: "I get my information from trustworthy sources -- grass-roots blogs reposting oil company propaganda from super PACs, lobbyists and think-tanks."

I dunno man, I guess this guy is lying about his credentials?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Metalbasspro]

Yes. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. It was originally funded by many backers including the Koch brothers and was heartily endorsed by Anthony Watts.

It ended up endorsing the accepted position.

In any case - that whole argument makes no sense. A lot of these scientists are funded by governments who do NOT want them to make these findings. A lot of the crucial research was carried out under Geoge Bush's Republican govt. Are you saying that Bush's Republicans were "in on it"?

I really don't know much about the whole debate I admit but I do know voices of counter point are suppressed and threatened.

About Bush's repubs? Just a feeling of Don't throw me into the brier patch seems to churn in my stomach.

 

[Schlyder]

I dunno man, I guess this guy is lying about his credentials?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Just another random blogger on the internet.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Or maybe the funding goes to qualified groups and those qualified groups keep getting similar results which is kinda the definition of how science works.

Who did they blame for the ice ages of the past?

 

[Metalbasspro]

Eat less beans - fart less. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That might require more cows be raised, live for a time, emit methane and be slaughtered.

Not a very good trade off. ON the other hand big oil suppresses inventions that would lesson our need for it.

The problems that need to be addressed can only be addressed at the top but they have to do away with their sought total control grid for population lock down and control of ALL the resources. I mean it reads like something out of the Communist manifesto.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Almost all scientific research relies on grant money which comes from varied sources on both sides of the fence.

And it's meaningless when the media is controlled. Two sides to one story with only one story getting press, call it pointless.

I mean the fact that most here are brainwashed to one side of the issues shows this to be true.

 

[Metalbasspro]

You know what?

This is so funny that I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this guy.

Of course people question authority - but it's not the authority actually doing the research.

You really have no idea how the funding system works.

Really. Try reading a book on the scientific process once in a while. I recommend Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' as a good starting point.

Scientific process has zero to do with political control of the process. Thanks for the tip but it's worthless and frankly like apples and oranges.

That you totally miss that the problem has been highjacked by politics tells me you are just as in the dark as you say I am.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Just another random blogger on the internet.

SO all of this is just made up lies?

About
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

 

[Schlyder]

SO all of this is just made up lies?

About
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

you didn't catch my sarcasm... that is what someone else in this thread claimed when marginalizing scientists with an opposing viewpoint to AGW.

He refered to them as "random bloggers on the internet"

 

[Metalbasspro]

And no mention of ClimateGate here? It's all nonsense right?


Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
270 comments, 10 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
Global warming ubx
Image via Wikipedia

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.


“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

 

[Metalbasspro]

you didn't catch my sarcasm... that is what someone else in this thread claimed when marginalizing scientists with an opposing viewpoint to AGW.

He refered to them as "random bloggers on the internet"

Right, that is why I posted that. I mean I never heard of the guy before, ten seconds on google and I found that. Tip of the iceberg I would bet my life.

So we have a bunch of posters here who are either full of crap or downright dumb.

But maybe they can keep telling us how objective they are and how their scientists are too.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Hell! Maybe they can get laws passed that make it illegal to discuss counter points even! Yeay!!!!

 

[Schlyder]

I think at one point in time 97% of the scientists believed the world was flat too.
And they claimed the debate was over. After all, they had consensus, so it had to be true.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.

Trust?
...
Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

...

 

[Metalbasspro]

...

Like I said tip of the iceberg.