Lead Climate denier caught taking bribes...

[crockett]

Ruh Roh, Scooby Doo....

Seems one of the top scientist on the side of denial of man made global warming has been taking money from big oil, including the Koch Bros.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Soon.html?_r=0

In fact he's been getting paid to write research papers by big oil, as in paid on delivery to the true of 1.2 million bucks.. (hell that's more money than they pay Congressmen.. Big oil usually buys off morons in Congress for just a few tens of thousands.. Guess Harvard Professor is worth more than a politician..

It's it kinda ironic that those whom claim it's all a big hoax and a way to get one over on everyone are the ones whom have been lied too.

[2MuchMark]

I'm surprised he was caught.

I'm not surprised that it happened.

I won't be surprised when people still refuse to care.

[TheSquealer]

Just be safe you two and have fun. Whoever is on top, wear a condom.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Just be safe you two and have fun. Whoever is on top, wear a condom.

Perhaps you can boycott NG.. There is no doubt about it the right is full of dumb and you are right up there at the top. It's just such an odd thing that most of these conspiracy theories revolve around right wing lala land.. Makes you go hummm..

[TheSquealer]

You know what the right is not full of? People like you that live in their vehicle.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You know what the right is not full of? People like you that live in their vehicle.

i realize it's hard to keep up with your crazy right wing conspiracy theories.. I bet you reminisce for a simpler time when you only had to worry about everyone being a communist..



Right wing crazy from the past..

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by crockett

Ruh Roh, Scooby Doo....

Seems one of the top scientist on the side of denial of man made global warming has been taking money from big oil, including the Koch Bros.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Soon.html?_r=0

In fact he's been getting paid to write research papers by big oil, as in paid on delivery to the true of 1.2 million bucks.. (hell that's more money than they pay Congressmen.. Big oil usually buys off morons in Congress for just a few tens of thousands.. Guess Harvard Professor is worth more than a politician..

It's it kinda ironic that those whom claim it's all a big hoax and a way to get one over on everyone are the ones whom have been lied too.

Is it global warming or climate change?
I wish you "global warming nutjobs" would make up your minds. You always use the term interchangeably as though they were the same thing, they're not. And if you don't know the difference then I'm not going to explain it to you.

...but here are some facts and myths by a scientist who should know.

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

By Prof. Robert M. Carter
Global Research, December 30, 2013
James Cook University, Queensland, Australia and Global Research 9 December 2009
Theme: Environment, Science and Medicine
In-depth Report: Climate Change
6834 799 314 92.7K
Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
Originally published by GR in 2009

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

[pornmasta]

I'm not totally sure for GMO food...
Especially if it's modified to handle more toxic pesticides...

[MediumPimpin]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Is it global warming or climate change?
I wish you "global warming nutjobs" would make up your minds. You always use the term interchangeably as though they were the same thing, they're not. And if you don't know the difference then I'm not going to explain it to you.

...but here are some facts and myths by a scientist who should know.

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

By Prof. Robert M. Carter
Global Research, December 30, 2013
James Cook University, Queensland, Australia and Global Research 9 December 2009
Theme: Environment, Science and Medicine
In-depth Report: Climate Change
6834 799 314 92.7K
Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
Originally published by GR in 2009

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a ?stable? climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that ?the IPCC review process is fatally flawed? and that ?the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz?.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism ?one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism?. If Kyoto was a ?first step? then it was in the same wrong direction as the later ?Bali roadmap?.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes ?hockey stick? curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun?s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth?s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[29] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[29] Carter has emphatically denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought.[30]

[takethebluepill]

This link is perhaps more relevant to the anti vaxxers, but it does offer some light on how even the crazies (anti climate changers) can justify thinking they are correct and the majority are wrong.

The Right Chemistry: Why would anyone think a homeopathic remedy would help with ADHD? | Montreal Gazette

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by MediumPimpin

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[29] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[29] Carter has emphatically denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought.[30]

What about the hundreds and thousands of scientists who are paid by the government as well as other special interests to perpetuate this global warming hoax? Oh that's right, they work for free, they do what they do out of the goodness of their heart. Not influenced by the hand that feeds them no, never!

[crockett]

Another Right Wing Conspiracy..

the EPA is coming to steal your land...



Right-Wing Watchdogs Push "Bogus" EPA Map Conspiracy | Blog | Media Matters for America

Meanwhile they have no issue letting a Canadian company steal people's land for an oil pipe line..

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by crockett

i realize it's hard to keep up with your crazy right wing conspiracy theories.. I bet you reminisce for a simpler time when you only had to worry about everyone being a communist..


Right wing crazy from the past..

Crockett I'll see your silly cartoon and raise you one.

[arock10]

I just pray to jesus and he will make everything better

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Dvae

What about the hundreds and thousands of scientists who are paid by the government as well as other special interests to perpetuate this global warming hoax? Oh that's right, they work for free, they do what they do out of the goodness of their heart. Not influenced by the hand that feeds them no, never!

This is the exact same bullshit that has been proven well bullshit over and over..

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

It's the same kind of cherry picked info that has no basis in reality.. It's 2015 and yes the global temperature has risen since 1995 in fact 2014 was the hottest year on record.

From NASA (oh no it's NASA a conspiracy hotbed right?)

The year 2014 ranks as Earth?s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA

[crockett]

Originally Posted by arock10

I just pray to jesus and he will make everything better

I keep praying that Dvae reads a science book, but Jesus keeps letting me down...

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by crockett

I keep praying that Dvae reads a science book, but Jesus keeps letting me down...

Unlike you and Al Gore I'm not a scientist. I'm simply pointing out the obvious.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Unlike you and Al Gore I'm not a scientist. I'm simply pointing out the obvious.

7 years ago didn't Al say the entire North ?polarized? cap will disappear in 5 years. lol


.

[SuckOnThis]

[Sly]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

7 years ago didn't Al say the entire North ?polarized? cap will disappear in 5 years. lol


.

Al is still trying to figure out where ManBearPig is hiding.

[seeandsee]

global what, they dont fucking know nothing

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Dvae

What about the hundreds and thousands of scientists who are paid by the government as well as other special interests to perpetuate this global warming hoax? Oh that's right, they work for free, they do what they do out of the goodness of their heart. Not influenced by the hand that feeds them no, never!

You never hear that addressed by climate change Alarmists.

For the science that agrees with them...it's perfectly fine to get paid (like everyone in the world who earns a living does). But if any scientist who doesn't agree gets paid for his work? Then he is automatically disqualified.
Very convenient huh?

Alarmists are blind. The cartoon posted above that shows all the WRONG predictions by scientists being PAID to push a "Man Made" climate change agenda are proof of that.

When you bring that up...the Alarmists will simply say that scientists were not quite right over the past 40 years but NOW they are infallible.

What a joke. As usual the sheeple are being brought in to be sheared again. This time by people making billions of dollars (hello Al Gore) on the "Carbon Credit" market.

[EonBlue]

Crockett and ********** - loyal soldiers in Obama's SS marching in step with their jack boots and brown shirts.

Anybody who wishes to join them can sign up here:

Call out climate change deniers

We're feeling the effects of climate change now. But it's hard to take action when so many of our elected officials are still publicly in denial about the basic science.

It's time to expose climate change deniers?add your name, and join the team that's calling them out, one by one.

Organizing for Action

Friend ?
It?s tough out there for climate change deniers.

One by one, literally every argument and excuse they?ve been using for years is being proven false.
They?re still grasping at myths and conspiracy theories, but deniers are on the run.
Let?s keep them there ? join the team that?s calling out climate change deniers.

In reality, the debate on the basics is over.
Not only do 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, but new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now.
Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast, and we?re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief ? no one is denying that.
Instead, what you hear from climate change deniers are mostly excuses for not taking action. Some have hidden behind foreign countries, saying America can?t or shouldn?t lead on climate until someone else goes first.
Let?s set aside for a minute that this isn?t actually how we solve global problems. The fact is, President Obama is leading internationally through agreements with China and India to cut carbon pollution and expand the use of clean energy. (So there goes that denier talking point?)
Another thing you might hear from a denier is that we simply can?t get serious about cutting carbon pollution without destroying the economy. That?s just false. For example, the climate and public health benefits from President Obama?s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.
Maybe deniers doubt we have the will and ingenuity to take such a huge problem on. Well, the American people are proving them wrong: Since 2009, we?ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power. Hundreds of thousands of Americans work in clean energy today.
The arguments from deniers are getting more and more ludicrous.
We have the facts on our side ? and we have to drive that message home. Because as long as deniers and polluters are blocking progress, we?re not doing all we can to combat climate change.
Say you?ll help take them to task ? join the team that?s calling out climate change deniers:
Call out climate change deniers

Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Frishberg
Senior Climate Advisor
Organizing for Action

These people make Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur.







Go Team Go!!!!




.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Robbie

You never hear that addressed by climate change Alarmists.

For the science that agrees with them...it's perfectly fine to get paid (like everyone in the world who earns a living does). But if any scientist who doesn't agree gets paid for his work? Then he is automatically disqualified.
Very convenient huh?

Alarmists are blind. The cartoon posted above that shows all the WRONG predictions by scientists being PAID to push a "Man Made" climate change agenda are proof of that.

When you bring that up...the Alarmists will simply say that scientists were not quite right over the past 40 years but NOW they are infallible.

What a joke. As usual the sheeple are being brought in to be sheared again. This time by people making billions of dollars (hello Al Gore) on the "Carbon Credit" market.

Its sad, their side is always 100% correct. Those who don't agree with them are loony bins. Why they can't admit that both sides are motivated by money, at the very least.

[EonBlue]

SS Officers Crockett and Prince apparently didn't get this memo:

Koch brothers attacks to blame for Democrats midterm elections losses, party officials say

Democratic officials are second-guessing the party?s obsession with attacking the Koch brothers, saying it bears some of the blame for last year?s devastating election losses as the focus on the conservative billionaires diluted a party message already struggling for clarity.

Doubts about the relentless attacks on the Koch brothers surfaced as the Democratic National Committee held its annual meeting Thursday in Washington, where state party officials from across the country mulled what went wrong in 2014.

.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

7 years ago didn't Al say the entire North ?polarized? cap will disappear in 5 years. lol


.

Haha he's still working on it!

[baddog]

Fucking crockett scientists; always good for a morning laugh.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Is it global warming or climate change?
I wish you "global warming nutjobs" would make up your minds. You always use the term interchangeably as though they were the same thing, they're not. And if you don't know the difference then I'm not going to explain it to you.

...but here are some facts and myths by a scientist who should know.

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

By Prof. Robert M. Carter
Global Research, December 30, 2013
James Cook University, Queensland, Australia and Global Research 9 December 2009
Theme: Environment, Science and Medicine
In-depth Report: Climate Change
6834 799 314 92.7K
Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
Originally published by GR in 2009

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a ?stable? climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that ?the IPCC review process is fatally flawed? and that ?the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz?.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism ?one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism?. If Kyoto was a ?first step? then it was in the same wrong direction as the later ?Bali roadmap?.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes ?hockey stick? curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun?s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth?s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

This guy is a piece of shit. Fortunately though its fairly easy to see that his disinformation skill set sucks too, and might probably only fool the worst of the poorly educated.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Haha he's still working on it!

Good old Al leading the environmental charge by flying around in private jets and paying $30,000 a year in utilities. The same guy who sold his TV network to Al Jazeera which is funded by Qatar ... you know fossil fuel money.


.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by crockett

another right wing conspiracy..

The epa is coming to steal your land...



right-wing watchdogs push "bogus" epa map conspiracy | blog | media matters for america

meanwhile they have no issue letting a canadian company steal people's land for an oil pipe line..

bingo!!!!

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by **********

This guy is a piece of shit. Fortunately though its fairly easy to see that his disinformation skill set sucks too, and might probably only fool the worst of the poorly educated.

Al Gore is a piece of shit too. Fortunately though its fairly easy to see that his disinformation skill set sucks too, and might probably only fool the worst of the poorly educated.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Crockett and ********** - loyal soldiers in Obama's SS marching in step with their jack boots and brown shirts.

I have a question for you. Why do you have to compare Obama to Hitler and Nazi's? Is it possible that you can't find any real reason to hate the man, so instead you have to create an illusion of him to vilify instead? Just asking...

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Al Gore is a piece of shit too. Fortunately though its fairly easy to see that his disinformation skill set sucks too, and might probably only fool the worst of the poorly educated.

Al Gore got some things wrong, but also got a lot of things right. There is a great article about this at Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

The vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Its sad, their side is always 100% correct. Those who don't agree with them are loony bins. Why they can't they admit that both sides are motivated by money, at the very least.

Some crazy old right-winger summed it up thusly:

?I've never been able to understand why a Republican
contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of
money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.?

- Ronald Reagan

It is the job of these people to smear the other side in any way they can regardless of the actual facts.

Here is the technique that they use as described by their kindred spirit:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

- Joseph Goebbels

.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by **********

I have a question for you. Why do you have to compare Obama to Hitler and Nazi's? Is it possible that you can't find any real reason to hate the man, so instead you have to create an illusion of him to vilify instead? Just asking...

I don't hate him. I just think he is a horrible president. He is a useless idiot. And the comparison to the Nazi's is not without merit because he uses many of the same techniques that they used.

There is no need for you to be personally offended by my vilifying Obama.


.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by **********

Al Gore got some things wrong, but also got a lot of things right. There is a great article about this at Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

The vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

Ok Mark from the link you posted what's wrong with this picture - this is not from Fox news I swear.

Me not being a scientist and all was able to figure it out.



in case you can't see it here is an up close.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by **********

I have a question for you. Why do you have to compare Obama to Hitler and Nazi's? Is it possible that you can't find any real reason to hate the man, so instead you have to create an illusion of him to vilify instead? Just asking...

Here is an actual climate scientist who draws the comparison much more effectively than I can:

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me ?deniers?, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics? view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi?s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It?s time to push back.

I?m now going to start calling these people ?global warming Nazis?.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation?all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries ?fire!? in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree?even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I?m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I?m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

They invoke ?consensus?, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class?I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I?m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me ?deniers?, I will call them ?global warming Nazis?.

I didn?t start this fight?they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of ?Nazi?, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did ? all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause ? I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn?t start the name-calling.

.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Some crazy old right-winger summed it up thusly:



It is the job of these people to smear the other side in any way they can regardless of the actual facts.

Here is the technique that they use as described by their kindred spirit:





.

Here's a good one.
. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." - Saul Alinsky

If that doesn't describe Obama and the radical left and certain Canadians I don't know what does. Except they also can't help themselves in bringing race into every disagreement.

[takethebluepill]

Just sayin'...

If you read through the threads on GFY and on mainstream media, there is a fairly consistent pattern revealed.

The sentence structure, grammar and overall arguments presented by the Science Believers are generally presented in a coherent fashion and at an educated level. The anti climate change, anti vaxxers, pro conspiracy community on the other hand tend to possess non of the above. In fact, many are just one step left of joining the crazies you can find on any street corner, muttering incomprehensible mumble jumble, professing their love for Jesus, who apparently has left them to rot.

Coincidence?

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by takethebluepill

Just sayin'...

If you read through the threads on GFY and on mainstream media, there is a fairly consistent pattern revealed.

The sentence structure, grammar and overall arguments presented by the Science Believers are generally presented in a coherent fashion and at an educated level. The anti climate change, anti vaxxers, pro conspiracy community on the other hand tend to possess non of the above. In fact, many are just one step left of joining the crazies you can find on any street corner, muttering incomprehensible mumble jumble, professing their love for Jesus, who apparently has left them to rot.

Coincidence?

And which one are you?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Dvae

Here's a good one.
. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." - Saul Alinsky

If that doesn't describe Obama and the radical left and certain Canadians I don't know what does. Except they also can't help themselves in bringing race into every disagreement.

That sums them up perfectly. Obama is a student of the Alinsky school of thought.



.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by takethebluepill

Just sayin'...

If you read through the threads on GFY and on mainstream media, there is a fairly consistent pattern revealed.

The sentence structure, grammar and overall arguments presented by the Science Believers are generally presented in a coherent fashion and at an educated level. The anti climate change, anti vaxxers, pro conspiracy community on the other hand tend to possess non of the above. In fact, many are just one step left of joining the crazies you can find on any street corner, muttering incomprehensible mumble jumble, professing their love for Jesus, who apparently has left them to rot.

Coincidence?

I think you will have a hard time reconciling your grossly over-generalized argument with the fact that a large percentage of anti-vaxxers are well educated and wealthy and they also happen to be climate change alarmists.



.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

I think you will have a hard time reconciling your grossly over-generalized argument with the fact that a large percentage of anti-vaxxers are well educated and wealthy and they also happen to be climate change alarmists.



.

So true. The first time I heard about it were Hollywood movie stars McCarthy in particular.

Here's another one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - You know that uneducated dolt from Hicksville.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vaccine conspiracy theory: Scientists and journalists are covering up autism risk.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by takethebluepill

Just sayin'...

If you read through the threads on GFY and on mainstream media, there is a fairly consistent pattern revealed.

The sentence structure, grammar and overall arguments presented by the Science Believers are generally presented in a coherent fashion and at an educated level. The anti climate change, anti vaxxers, pro conspiracy community on the other hand tend to possess non of the above. In fact, many are just one step left of joining the crazies you can find on any street corner, muttering incomprehensible mumble jumble, professing their love for Jesus, who apparently has left them to rot.

Coincidence?

How can you say that with such genius comments like this?

Originally Posted by EonBlue

That being said, CO2 is the wrong substance to target if you are looking for clean air and a reduction in toxic waste. CO2 is not pollution and it is not toxic even at levels thousands of times higher than it is now.

Also, in most of the developed world, the air is cleaner now than it was 100 or even 40 years ago. Waterways are generally cleaner, forest cover is greater and there is just less overall pollution. All of that despite increased populations and increased use of oil and gas.

[arock10]

How much money is there to be made by pushing the climate change exists agenda and how much money is there to be made by fighting it?

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by arock10

How much money is there to be made by pushing the climate change exists agenda and how much money is there to be made by fighting it?

Are you serious?

[takethebluepill]

When I was younger, and fresh out of high school, I decided I wanted to become a Geophysicist. Being that I was living in a region that boosts a landscape containing some of the highest concentrations of oil reserves in the world, and somewhat motivated by money, it seemed like a good choice.

After 3 years of studies, I came to realization that I was not at all fond of calculus, nor did I have much of an affinity for physics. So I changed my field of study.

My biggest regret..I wish I had stayed long enough so that I, with the other scientists in the class, could experience first hand the gathering of the graduates, in what I would assume to be a large secret auditorium with no windows. We would then be taught the secret hand shake, followed by the speech from government authorities and big business representatives in which we would be sworn to secrecy, and be required to pledge to the oath that we will only release data which falls in line with the pre-approved government message. (Although I am not sure whether this would happen at the Bachelor, Masters or Doctrate level)

Sound crazy? Ah huh, sure does. But if you read through the pro conspiracy, anti climate change, anti vaxxer literature, apparently the above must be true.

F'in nut jobs.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by arock10

How much money is there to be made by pushing the climate change exists agenda and how much money is there to be made by fighting it?

It's more about a fight against people who want to leave a better world for their kids, versus old people who won't be around to experience the effects of climate change. But they definitely don't want any regulations cutting into their profits while they're still alive.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Crockett and ********** - loyal soldiers in Obama's SS marching in step with their jack boots and brown shirts.

Anybody who wishes to join them can sign up here:

Call out climate change deniers


These people make Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur.







Go Team Go!!!!




.

Oh please..

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by crockett

Oh please..

Oh please...

Bush hasn't been president for 7 years now. Let it go.

Pretty bad photoshop job on that picture.



.