Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1881 - 1900 of total 28437 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Mar 22, 2011 - 06:44pm PT
Association Of Irritated Residents Defeats California Air Resources Board’s Global Warming Plan

They insist on max regulation of emissions by CARB rather than what is in the works and the judge agreed.

Hilarious if you don't think of how much prices will go up on everything.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3650

Dr. F.

climber
So Cal
Apr 8, 2011 - 07:44pm PT
Global Climate Change Proven as Fact By a Koch Brothers Study to prove it isn't happening, and to support their denialist agenda

after they spent 100s of millions of Dollars on Denying GCC, God has served them papers for being in Cahoots with Satan


Koch funded climate study, intended to prove climate scientists distort data, instead proves global warming is happening
Submitted by Bill on April 1, 2011 - 10:36pm
http://voicesweb.org/koch-funded-climate-study-intended-prove-climate-scientists-distort-data-instead-proves-global-warmi

I have in the past often debated global warming with right wingers in various unsavory parts of the net, leading me to become much more familiar than some with their main arguing points.

Frequently in these heated arguments (heated on their side, not so much mine), I make this point. "If you believe that climate scientists are all fudging the data so they will get funding because the government wants to use global warming as an excuse to impose a one world socialist government (a commonly seen assertion from the right, with a number of minor variations), then why doesn't your side fund it's own studies to publish in the science literature to prove your point?".

Well, the Koch brothers, and others (including Bill Gates) actually did fund a study, under the auspices of the Novim Group, and they hired a famous climate skeptic to head it. The results of that study have been published, and testimony about that study made before congress.



Put together under the aegis of Novim, a non-profit group that runs environmental studies, the team gathered up a bit over half a million dollars—including $100,000 from a fund set up by Bill Gates and $150,000 from the Koch foundation, whose animosity towards action on climate change made the Berkeley project look yet more suspicious to some climate-change activists—and got to work. There was also support from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley Lab, where Dr Muller and some of his team work. It is probably fair to assume that Steve Koonin, an undersecretary of state at the energy department with whom Dr Muller has served as one of the “Jasons”, a group of particularly intellectually fearless scientists which provides blue-sky and sometimes far-out advice to the defence department, and who has also produced a report for Novim, had an unofficial eye on what was going on. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change

And whattya know, using the most rigorous of data analysis methods, and having climate sckeptics apply the data analysis, not only did not disprove the the three main models used by climate scientists, they confirmed it.

That's right, the Koch brothers funded a study they hoped would disprove global warming, but they ended up proving it instead. Ironically, their study supported the "hockey stick" they hate so much.

Here's a PDF of the testimony before congress. made by Richard Muller, a physicist who is one of the worlds most famous climate skeptics.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Here's the executive summary of the testimony before congress - note his conclusion - that global warming is so real that he recommends that congress create a ARPA style crash program to study it and prepare for it - ARPA, for those that don't know, stands for Advanced Research Projects Agency, and in the past we have used ARPAs for things like fighting the cold war with the USSR. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, invented the internet.

And Richard Muller now says we should create a Climate ARPA.

This is huge news for people interested in the climate change debate. The Economist has an excellent detailed article on this here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change



STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Richard A. Muller
Professor of Physics
University of California, Berkeley
Chair, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project
31 March 2011
Executive Summary


The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was created to make the best possible
estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record of measurements as
possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and elimination of systematic
biases. It was organized under the auspices of Novim, a non-profit public interest group.
Our approach builds on the prior work of the groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK
(Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit, or HadCRU).


Berkeley Earth has assembled 1.6 billion temperature measurements, and will soon make
these publicly available in a relatively easy to use format.


The difficult issues for understanding global warming are the potential biases. These can
arise from many technical issues, including data selection, substandard temperature
station quality, urban vs rural effects, station moves, and changes in the methods and
times of measurement.


We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations
with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the
complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results are shown in
the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported
by the other groups.


We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings
according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in
the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.
We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.


I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.


Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.



Dr. F.

climber
So Cal
Apr 8, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
Luckily The Republicans new Budget Bill will De fund Alternative Energies

But provide special interest Deals and tax cuts, and subsides to the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, and Coal

and of Course Nuclear, they think we should invest more in Nuclear Now, Its the perfect time for it

And ZERO Government Money for Alternative Energy
And ZERO Government Money for Combating Green House Gas Problems
Dr. F.

climber
So Cal
Apr 8, 2011 - 09:34pm PT
The Republican new Budget Bill will De fund Alternative Energies
stich

Trad climber
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Apr 12, 2011 - 10:09pm PT
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full documentary film)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming.

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

The film won best documentary at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.

A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but for the past 21 years a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.

Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.

Oh goodness, they actually honored Wunsch's wishes.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Apr 13, 2011 - 12:41am PT
The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

More research, Ed? More current? How long will this charade go on??? It may even be true, but the data isn't there. Or it is there if you choose to look at weather cycles from history.
Dr. F.

climber
So Cal
Apr 13, 2011 - 08:13pm PT
Where are the apologies of the Deniers??

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 13, 2011 - 08:54pm PT
I thought all those scientists were supposed to be smart? If they're going to organize themselves into purveyors of fraud on an International scale they should pick a more lucrative swindle. Research grants? is that the best they can think of? Have they never heard of derivatives? Well I guess they have to start their criminal careers somewhere......

Its a good thing we have guys like Patrick Moore, Lord Bunkton and the channel 10 weatherman on top of this story. I heard Glenn Beck and Donald Rump are investigating as well. And the fabled Bluering! A high standard of credentials and integrity ensures credibility so no need to doubt a word they say.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 13, 2011 - 11:19pm PT
It's all the potheads fault!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/04/12/marijuana-causes-global-warming.html?ana=e_pft


In California, some 400,000 authorized growers use about 3 percent of the state’s electricity for their business.

“This corresponds to the electricity use of 1 million average California homes, greenhouse-gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars, and energy expenditures of $3 billion a year,” Mills says. However, since California is such a green state, it only generates 20 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions from pot growing, while using 70 percent of nationwide energy for this industry.

Read more: Marijuana causes global warming, uses 1% of U.S. electricity | San Francisco Business Times
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Apr 20, 2011 - 11:51pm PT
This is the Coldest Spring on Record in Washington State


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1454103/pg1


Glaciers growing on Mt. Shasta – Record snowfall to spur even more growth

Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption.

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2011/04/01/glaciers-growing-on-mt-shasta/
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 7, 2011 - 12:08pm PT
Cornhole you are awesome! Where do you find this stuff? are you in with Bill Maher's think tank?

Godlikeproductions.com and Westernfront is shear genius. You should be script writing for disney.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 13, 2011 - 02:12pm PT
Ed,

The NRC study is important because it included economists as well as scientists. It is one of the better studies attempting to integrate scientific findings with economic analysis. For that reason alone, it is worth reading, even if it was commissioned by a highly partisan Congressional request.

I think economists will have some trouble with its conclusions, because they make, sub silencio several assumptions about costs, benefits and risk aversion that greatly influence their conclusions, but I think it's an excellent start.

John
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 13, 2011 - 02:29pm PT
John, the excelent start came and went about 10 years ago wouldn't you say?
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
May 13, 2011 - 02:36pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10&feature=player_embedded
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 13, 2011 - 02:38pm PT
always throw a little doubt of skepticism in by finding something about the "source"
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 14, 2011 - 01:50am PT
Bruce,

Ten years ago, the climate science was well under way, but the economics wsa non-existent. Unfortunately, we still aren't that far along. A recent AEA paper deals with trying to determine a workable framework for analyzing the economics of climate change. The obvious problem is trying to measure marginal costs, where we have only the crudest of proxies.

Most of the papers I've read either ignore the economics, or admit that there's almost no credible measurement of the parameters. This paper at least has a cogent discussion of the issue.

In general, my experience as an economist and as an attorney has been that the scientific community's work doesn't make it far enough into the economic decision-making, in part because the two disciplines have interst in different things. The interested parties usually provide lots of useless data. The environmentalists will tell us the total cost of pollution, but not its marginal cost. The anti-environmentalists will tell us the economic disruption in total elimination of pollution, but not the marginal cost.

Ideas like cap and trade, that make economic sense, are still not well understood by people who should know better. For example, the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal -- a publication that should know better -- calls cap and trade a mere tax increase. If, in fact, carbon emissions have a cost (and I know of no scientific literature that says otherwise), cap and trade simply places more of that cost on the emitters. Sure, we don't know the precise amount of the marginal costs, but trial and error should be able to get us pretty close.

The reason I find this study important is that it helps span the rhetorical gap between scientists, politicians, lawyers and economists. Put another way, it helps focus people in one discipline to provide analysis and data useful to interrelated disciplines. As I've said ad nauseum, what to do about carbon emission is, ultimately, a decision about resource allocation. That makes it an economic one.

John

P.S. Do you think anyone in Canada would mind if I start a CARCA chapter in Fresno? I could call it the California Avalanche Rescue Cat Association.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 14, 2011 - 01:28pm PT
John, I can hardly disagree with you on the importance of the economical factors. nothijng can happen without consideration of it. No doubt such a report as the Nrc is vital to advancing policy.
The question remains why did it pop up now and not ten years ago? If scientific determined opinion had been given priority over all other opinion (in determination of a question strictly of science) then we wouldn't be wasting a decade or more chasing our tails before factoring in all other relevant issues to determine action. The fact remains that (in north america at least) government still operates on the assumption that global warming is a low priority issue at best, or dosn't even exist at worst. How can anyone be satisfied with such attitude when the concensus scientific opinion has been in favor of accelerating man made global warming for at least a decade?

who gives a damn about the economic angle when we can't even confront the fact that the idiots in charge are incapable of listening to expert opinion in determining wether the problem exists at all?

Decreasing the burning of fossil fuels is now and has been for some time the obvious decision to make, and is the basis from which all other relevant decisions are based.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 14, 2011 - 01:51pm PT
More stuff to look at:
Do Climate Skeptics Change Their Minds
Confessions of a Climate Change Convert

photo not found
Missing photo ID#202221
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism and the pdf


Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications Hansen, Sato, Kharechia & Schuckmann

And with temperatures climbing because of global warming, mining in the Arctic has become logistically possible as well, because sea lanes stay open longer due to thinner ice and railways can operate year round.
Globe & Mail
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 14, 2011 - 04:36pm PT
New Rule - science is made by scientists not idiots
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my car’s not real because I can’t find my keys. That’s the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally — especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesn’t know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head. There is no debate here — just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don’t get a vote. We shouldn’t decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn’t make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat sh#t, 20 trillion flies can’t be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06R-qTXfVYE
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 14, 2011 - 05:11pm PT
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my car’s not real because I can’t find my keys.

If "scientists" think those are good analogies, it's nor surprising that more and more people are tuning them out.

Separately, lots of us can at least entertain the notion that there is a certain amount of GW occurring, and it's been caused in least in part by mankind.
This thing is, we just don't give a rat's ass. There is already huge variation in climate where people live--if the climate where you live gets a little shift over the course of many decades, big freaking deal. And to a large extent the changes will be positive.
Messages 1881 - 1900 of total 28437 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews