Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26741 - 26760 of total 27325 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2015 - 11:02am PT
Interesting opinion piece EdT. Way upstream, EdH wrote a very interesting post on accuracy in predictions, with an emphasis on how accurate can be our climate models WRT short vs. long term predictions.


You don't have to believe the science around climate science. But to think that it is a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades... Well that sounds pretty loony to me. I prefer to look at the conclusions of hundreds of rigorously-tested scientific studies, instead of cherry-picking random quotes made along the way.

BTW, ever look up how much money is being poured into debunking the findings of the climate science community?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:17am PT
You don't have to believe the science around climate science. But to think that it is a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades... Well that sounds pretty loony to me. I prefer to look at the conclusions of hundreds of rigorously-tested scientific studies, instead of cherry-picking random quotes made along the way.

BTW, ever look up how much money is being poured into debunking the findings of the climate science community?

Conspiracy? Did I say there's "a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades"?

Cherry picking? I posted two examples of UK Met Office's predictions, which involved changes through 2014, and you see it as cherry picking "random quotes".

I don't know how much is spent debunking the findings of the climate science community. It's probably less than one percent of what's spent reaching those findings. More or less.
raymond phule

climber
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:39am PT
I missed the confidence intervals in your first quote. I thought that you also know how important those are or is it just that confidence intervals are important when someone say something that you don't like?

It is good that someone start to parrot what is recently posted on WUWT again.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:40am PT
It is good that someone start to parrot what is recently posted on WUWT again.

Have we seen this movie before?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 5, 2015 - 11:42am PT
It is basically a strawman argument to harp about some outlandish quotes from "liberals" about climate change.
It is very easy to get the facts and the best predictions yourself direct from science sources such as the IPCC, NASA, EPA, etc. ALL major science federations are united in their basic consensus on climate change. All of them.
Once in a while you'll hear something inaccurate from climate scientists, which gets sorted out by the scientific process. It's only big news if you listen to faux news or wuwt or wsj or someone else trying to make money off hype and propaganda. They find some tiny mistake and then proclaim in 120 point BS font "a relatively small changes in earth’s climate, it would be laughed out of any serious debate." The problem is that the right wing deniers in the USA have mostly had their way with controlling politicians on climate change for 20 years now, corresponding to the rise of right wing media (remember when Bush junior had his henchmen rewrite the NASA and EPA science reports according to the whims of the fossil fuel and chemical industries)
So guys like Hansen have felt obliged to start minor lobbying against those deniers (Koch alone is spending $1 billion on lobbying in the next 1.5 years). And we also get partial ineffective policies like the bullet train to nowhere in California because many politicians have a hysterical fit when you even mention what is needed: a large revenue neutral carbon tax, RNCT, that starts off national and is forced through trade policy to become international.

More on Jim Hansen
Why focus on some possible minor misquote of his than the FACTS of his immense contributions to climate science and education? Why resort to strawmen instead of talking about the main points he has made?

Allegations by Hansen of censorship

In 2007, Hansen has stated that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[97][98] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[99] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general found that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had mischaracterized the science of climate change intended for the public.[100]

In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[101] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Allegations_by_Hansen_of_censorship

And Just another small correction:
Each year a little more of Manhattan is indeed under water. We will mostly only notice this in times of future storm surge. We are on track to follow the IPCC predictions on future sea level rise, which will not magically stop in the year 2100 as deniers like to think. Sea level rise is a very delayed reaction to the heat imbalance. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/a-new-sea-level-curve/#more-18022
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sea-level-rise-quickens-more-than-thought-in-threat-to-worlds-coasts-20150114-12oe4o.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/04/experts-ipcc-underestimated-sea-level-rise

" don't know how much is spent debunking the findings of the climate science community. It's probably less than one percent of what's spent reaching those findings. More or less."

It might be correct that there isn't a lot of science debunking science, because most scientists already have a process for correcting theories, just like they are now finding that the evidence last year on the Big Bang is not good after all.

But there is a MASSIVE amount of money spent lobbying by Deniers. They don't scientifically debunk much of anything. They just make up facts and distortions and put them on the news.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 5, 2015 - 12:25pm PT
Hey Chiloe.

Do you mind disclosing your publications list and funding sources?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 5, 2015 - 01:01pm PT
But there is a MASSIVE amount of money spent lobbying by Deniers.

The US government spends over 21 billion dollars each year on climate change expenditures. 2.6 billion dollars goes to the US Global Change Research Program. These figures are just federal government expenditures.

How much money is spent funding denier efforts? Not total budgets for groups that support skeptics! Funding specifically for denier efforts?
raymond phule

climber
Feb 5, 2015 - 01:05pm PT

Hey Chiloe.

Do you mind disclosing your publications list and funding sources?

It took me 5 seconds to find his homepage and publications list. Are you lazy?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 5, 2015 - 03:31pm PT
"How much money is spent funding denier efforts? Not total budgets for groups that skeptics! Funding specifically for denier efforts?"

YOu tell me how it is that for 15 years most republicans in congress would run away and hide so they wouldn't be on the record if you asked them something about climate change.
They didn't want to lose their funds from Koch, ALEC, Heritage, CATO, fossils, etc, which are mostly dark money now.

Also how many more times in the future will FEMA spend $50 billion per Sandy?

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/08/climate-change-denial-brothers-koch/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-bolstered-by-gop-wins-work-to-curb-environmental-rules/2014/12/07/3ef05bc0-79b9-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html
http://grist.org/news/funding-evil-lobbying-group-was-a-mistake-says-google/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/boehner-climate-change_n_5411154.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/meet-new-climate-denier-caucus
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/john-boehner-and-house-republicans-edit-climate-change-facts-out-obamas-speech
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010968.php
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ofa/9-actual-quotes-about-climate-change-from-the-peop-dbl0#.ffbE0LWy9

etc.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 5, 2015 - 05:25pm PT
How much money is spent funding denier efforts?

Not total budgets for groups that support skeptics!

Funding specifically for denier efforts?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 5, 2015 - 05:55pm PT
So is it good that Sketch is back?.........lol.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:01pm PT
Who are these groups that support skeptics?

nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:03pm PT
Funding specifically for denier efforts?

why would you spend money on supporting denying science?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:10pm PT
Ask the Kochs.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:18pm PT
why would you spend money on supporting denying science

Are you now claiming that science is infallible?

Anyone.

Ask the Kochs.

Ask them what? How many Billions they put into denying science. Ask them if they are putting as much funding into deny the science as is money going into proving it?

They aren't. No where near it.


Nice list of Left Wing ideological propaganda sources Splater....

nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:32pm PT
Ask the Kochs.

oh right... if your vested interest happened to mean the rest of the planet would be f*#ked if your way continued I suppose you would spends millions to ensure it goes on. At least so long as you don't have a moral consciousness.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:37pm PT
How many "millions" Nature?


Still doesn't come close to the gov't funding of billions globally to prove the science.


Let's compare the amount of Pro CAGW blogs and other sources of perpetuating the CAGW agenda to those denying it.

Far more pushing the agenda then denying it. Most are supported by Green Energy Corporations, Gov't Agencies and Independent Research entities.


wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
Billions?

BS,post up proof.

There is plenty of info on denier funding and alot that is hidden.


Oh yeah it,s that renewable energy industry that only owns 2% of the market share funding this whole HOAX!

Or just blame it on us"fiscal liberals",you know, government.













If you could get anywhere near realistic with anything you contend ,you just might be better liked.


LLBK.




The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Feb 5, 2015 - 06:56pm PT
Billions?

BS,post up proof.

There is plenty of info on denier funding and alot that is hidden

Edwardt did up thread earlier today.

Now, where is the is plenty of denier funding?

"Post up Proof" that is credible and not some fkn liberal blog.


you just might be better liked.

What does being "liked" have anything to do with facts, reality and calling you people on your insistent Bullshet, Wilbeer.

Nothing!
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 5, 2015 - 07:05pm PT
Good luck w/that.




Denier.

So it must be "Big Solar" ...........LOL.
Messages 26741 - 26760 of total 27325 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