Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; It doesn't...nature uses the carbon for photosynthesis and generates oxygen. Man-induced climate change is fertile ground for the fool.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; It doesn't...nature uses the carbon for photosynthesis and generates oxygen. Man-induced climate change is fertile ground for the fool.

You do realize the contaminates consist of more than just carbon dioxide, right? Nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, benzene, and formaldehyde and carbon monoxide come out of every tail pipe, another list can be compiled for smoke stacks. Do you know what a catalytic converter does? It converts carbon monoxide into co2. (carbon dioxide) That is what plants require for photosynthesis. So as your body will tell you, too much of a good thing is poisonous. So all that extra co2 with all the other pollutants make for an unkindly end. Who knows when, but why continue to contribute to it? We can opt for renewable energy. As bad as the hysterical doomsday alarmists and the creeps who would fleece our wealth are, The overreaction, hysterical responses of the right to the alarmists; equally provide fertile ground for the fool.

Bogan

Factfinder quote   In case you haven't noticed, even the left is starting to say we need to fund the police.

 I have noticed.    But the point is, that any person with a triple digit IQ could easily predict that defunding the police was an insane idea.    It was only when those low IQ people who man the barricades for every potty liberal idea were confronted by the easily predicted consequences of their own insanity, that they grew some brain cells and figured out that their passionately held beliefs were just plain potty.   The same with open borders and climate change.      Western society has an ever growing class of activist people with very low IQ’s, who have been conditioned by the elites in the media to think that people who advocate for insane leftist ideals have high IQ’s.     And because these low IQ people so desperately want to think that they are smart, they will embrace every lunatic idea promoted by the Left.     How do you convince people of the insane idea that a man can get pregnant?    Easy.   Just convince people that “smart” people KNOW it to be a fact.     The desire for dumb people to think that they are smart will overcome whatever capacity they have for rational thinking about objective reality.           It is only when everything comes crashing down do the low IQ people like Dreamer and Openminded realise that their passionately held beliefs are idi-otic.

 

Factfider quote      And biden is bombing hamas supporters funded by iran.

Boing?   Boing?    I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that statement.   Please explain? 

 

Factfinder quote     I beg you @bogan do not make me defend liberals! YUCK.

Once again, I have no idea what point you are making with that statement. 

 

Factfinder quote   In order for sane policies to prevail we must remain in reality. I do not know that much about australia beyond the fact they have one of the worlds most diverse animal populations in the world. Don't you think that should be protected? The science of climate change is very real despite political hysterics that usallly grab the headlines. As I said before, we can ditch the charlatans and still seek better options in meeting our energy needs.

 The “science” of anthropogenic climate change is open to scientific dispute.         We know that the earth warms and cools every 1000 years or so, and we know that our present warming period is right on schedule.       You can make the case that increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming, and I would agree with you that it is possible.      But the problem is, that nobody can prove it.     Although, given the consequences of humanity getting it wrong, I see nothing wrong with governments funding scientific research into BOTH sides of the scientific debate.     But western governments have never funded both sides of the scientific debate because they want their own populations to just accept the alarmist position.     They only fund the alarmists.    That is because western governments, which are increasingly becoming more elitist, want to frighten their own populations into conforming with whatever usually self serving elitist policies that governments can dream up. 

 Meanwhile, back at the ranch, eastern totalitarian governments are going full speed opening up new coal fired power stations.      They must laugh their heads off at our present western fashion of denouncing the energy sources that have made the western world such desirable places to live?       What totalitarians think of the fashionable western cry of “No blood for oil!” is anybody guess?     Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, and Ji Jinpeng know that oil is blood for an advanced society.    

Factfinder

@Bogan

So why let the left paralyze your thinking? You've accepted that pollutants caused by human activity increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming multiple times now. Though all the other pollutants you seem to ignore. You even accept that science is in dispute. Now it's not impossible for scientific experts to be compromised, but it is a real hard thing to do. Once a scientist losses credibility, they're done. They'd be lucky to have their work published in a creationist publication, not to mention a legitimate peer reviewed publication. Politicians though, just wait for the simpletons to forget and move on. So why not commission neutral scientists to seek the answers, evidence, proof, clean energy or whatever? 

Most totalitarian governments come and go, scammers have had their covers blown and let's not forget, we are smarter, right? 

Bogan

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote    So why let the left paralyze your thinking?

 Lefties have a very hard time ‘paralyzing” my thinking.      

 

Factfinder quote          You've accepted that pollutants caused by human activity increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming multiple times now.

Errrrr, no I have not.     I have pointed out that 600 million years of steadily reducing CO2 levels in our atmosphere did not seem to have any effect upon global warming or cooling.      There were times when CO2 levels went up, and global temperature went down, and vice versa.

 

In addition, I have pointed out that CO2 is plant food and increased atmospheric CO2 seems to be beneficial  to the propagation of global plant life.    Agronomists are now talking about “the greening of the earth.”

 

Factfinder quote       Though all the other pollutants you seem to ignore.

The current furor is about CO2.

Factfinder quote        You even accept that science is in dispute.

Yup.

 

Factfinder quote      Now it's not impossible for scientific experts to be compromised, but it is a real hard thing to do. Once a scientist losses credibility, they're done. They'd be lucky to have their work published in a creationist publication, not to mention a legitimate peer reviewed publication

 

You are completely and utterly wrong.     With the once all powerful influence of the church reducing in this secular age, the push is on by leftists to use take over science as they have done with our universities, and to use the high respect and authority of science to push their socialist pseudo sciences.      Any scientist who goes against the left wing party line gets cancelled and sacked from their jobs.     Within Climate Change science alone, Professor Pual Ridd of Queensland university got sacked after he “peer reviewed” an article on the effect of climate change on the great Barrier reef, and he criticised the scientific methodology used.

 

Then there was the “climategate” Email from the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Institute who sent an email to a colleague asking about whether an EACRI employee was in the sceptic camp?     The head of the EACRI asked for proof of this “charge” so that he could get the man sacked.  

Dr Susan Crockford “the polar bear lady” got sacked from her Canadian university when she challenged the alarmist party line that the polar bears were all drowning.     She pointed out that they were in fact thriving. 

 

I could go on and on about scientists who have been sacked for not toeing the left wing academic party line, but I will finish with a recent and very famous one.  That is th case of internationally renowned Psychologist Jordan Peterson who refused to acknowledge non binary gender pronouns. 

 Factfinder quote  . Politicians though, just wait for the simpletons to forget and move on. So why not commission neutral scientists to seek the answers, evidence, proof, clean energy or whatever?  

 

  Because western governments do not fund sceptic scientists, that’s why.    All the money goes to the alarmist camp because it suits governemnts for scientists to frighten the populace into accepting ever higher taxes and to just submit to whatever government initiatives that the self serving elites can dream up to supposedly “save the world” but which seem to benefit nobody except themselves. 

 

Do you respect President Eisenhower?      Okay, here is the warning Eisenhower gave in his speech and out the Military Industrial Complex and the corruption of science.  

President Eisenhower.  January 17, 1961.

 

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex."  " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Barnardot

@Bogan @Factfinder ;Errrrr, no I have not. 

So you mean to say that the video and the data that you posted is right and legit is it? Like all the other made up false videos and made up false newspaper articles and the extreme sites that get taken down. And you mean to say that any one will believe any thing you say or back up is being honest and that you actually use more than half a brain?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote    So why let the left paralyze your thinking?

 Lefties have a very hard time ‘paralyzing” my thinking.      

 

Factfinder quote          You've accepted that pollutants caused by human activity increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming multiple times now.

Errrrr, no I have not.     I have pointed out that 600 million years of steadily reducing CO2 levels in our atmosphere did not seem to have any effect upon global warming or cooling.      There were times when CO2 levels went up, and global temperature went down, and vice versa.

 

In addition, I have pointed out that CO2 is plant food and increased atmospheric CO2 seems to be beneficial  to the propagation of global plant life.    Agronomists are now talking about “the greening of the earth.”

 

Factfinder quote       Though all the other pollutants you seem to ignore.

The current furor is about CO2.

Factfinder quote        You even accept that science is in dispute.

Yup.

 

Factfinder quote      Now it's not impossible for scientific experts to be compromised, but it is a real hard thing to do. Once a scientist losses credibility, they're done. They'd be lucky to have their work published in a creationist publication, not to mention a legitimate peer reviewed publication

 

You are completely and utterly wrong.     With the once all powerful influence of the church reducing in this secular age, the push is on by leftists to use take over science as they have done with our universities, and to use the high respect and authority of science to push their socialist pseudo sciences.      Any scientist who goes against the left wing party line gets cancelled and sacked from their jobs.     Within Climate Change science alone, Professor Pual Ridd of Queensland university got sacked after he “peer reviewed” an article on the effect of climate change on the great Barrier reef, and he criticised the scientific methodology used.

 

Then there was the “climategate” Email from the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Institute who sent an email to a colleague asking about whether an EACRI employee was in the sceptic camp?     The head of the EACRI asked for proof of this “charge” so that he could get the man sacked.  

Dr Susan Crockford “the polar bear lady” got sacked from her Canadian university when she challenged the alarmist party line that the polar bears were all drowning.     She pointed out that they were in fact thriving. 

 

I could go on and on about scientists who have been sacked for not toeing the left wing academic party line, but I will finish with a recent and very famous one.  That is th case of internationally renowned Psychologist Jordan Peterson who refused to acknowledge non binary gender pronouns. 

 Factfinder quote  . Politicians though, just wait for the simpletons to forget and move on. So why not commission neutral scientists to seek the answers, evidence, proof, clean energy or whatever?  

 

  Because western governments do not fund sceptic scientists, that’s why.    All the money goes to the alarmist camp because it suits governemnts for scientists to frighten the populace into accepting ever higher taxes and to just submit to whatever government initiatives that the self serving elites can dream up to supposedly “save the world” but which seem to benefit nobody except themselves. 

 

Do you respect President Eisenhower?      Okay, here is the warning Eisenhower gave in his speech and out the Military Industrial Complex and the corruption of science.  

President Eisenhower.  January 17, 1961.

 

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex."  " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Never the less they've succeeded to shut you down. 

Errr, yes you did. You just said: You can make the case that increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming, and I would agree with you that it is possible. As you know that's not the only time you said things like that. 

Current furor. So? Tomorrow that will change, and then again after that. Pretending the other contaminates aren't there affecting our environment is silliness. Just as pretending charts depicting long slow gradual changes trending warmer over millions of years somehow changes the FACT we've raised co2 levels twice as much 150 yrs since the industrial age. More in a 150 year period ever. And of course all kinds of other pollutants you ignore that causes anthropogenic climate change.

A few anecdotal cases doesn't negate the fact most scientists seek answers not fame or job security. In fact they're most likely to want real answers more than your drive for political debates impacts your goals. And were smarter than alarmist and crooks, we can deal with them. We just can't be like them. Get it?

You do realize science gave us fossil fuels, computers, cars... being paranoid over what someone said 60 years ago and we've progressed from that point is well, alarmism. 

Bogan

Factfinder quote   Never the less they've succeeded to shut you down. 

What the hell are you talking about, Factfinder?       WHO “shut me down”?     WHEN did they “shut me down?”     Please stop smoking that wacky tobaccy.      It will be a cold day in hell when a loony lefty gets the better of me. 

 Factfinder quote    Errr, yes you did. You just said: You can make the case that increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming, and I would agree with you that it is possible. As you know that's not the only time you said things like that. 

You are misrepresenting what I said.     Either you are dumb, or you are devious?      YOU said,  “You've accepted that pollutants caused by human activity increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming multiple times now.    THAT is a complete and utter lie.      I said that I agreed that CO2 COULD exacerbate the natural factors which cause the earth’s climate to warm and cool in roughly 1000 year periods.     In other words, it is feasible.     But it is unprovable.     This does not mean that I have “accepted” “many times” that CO2 is in any way responsible for our present warming period, which just happens to be right on schedule.      Especially, since variations in CO2 levels do not appear to have had ANY effect upon global temperatures in the last 600 million years, according to the graph I submitted as proof.

 

Factfinder quote        Current furor. So? Just as pretending charts depicting long slow gradual changes trending warmer over millions of years somehow changes the FACT we've raised co2 levels twice as much 150 yrs since the industrial age. More in a 150 year period ever. And of course all kinds of other pollutants you ignore that causes anthropogenic climate change.

 As could be seen in my graph that I submitted in my last post, global atmospheric CO2 levels were at their lowest point in 600 million years, because CO2 had been scrubbed out of the atmosphere and converted into carbonaceous rocks.     Had that continued, Agronomists have predicted that almost all life on earth would have eventually gone extinct as all plant life above fungus choked to death for lack of CO2.    It was fortunate for the Earth that humans came along and put some CO2 back into the atmosphere.      And the results have been “the greening of the earth as plants are responding to the increases of CO2, which is plant food.  

 

Factfinder quote     Tomorrow that will change, and then again after that. Pretending the other contaminates aren't there affecting our environment is silliness.

 Prosperity is based upon science and technology, which is itself dependent upon a modern, functioning state based upon fossil fuels.     The western world has led the entire world into a period of unprecedented prosperity.     We have made more progress in the last 200 years than in the last 200 000 years.     Along the way, it was the western world which first identified pollution as a real problem, and it is the western world that leads all others in protecting the environment and combatting pollution.        European people discovered that smog caused by coal fired furnaces in people’s homes was killing people, and they were the first to enact emission controls.     They discovered that the reason why forests in Europe were dying was because of acid rain caused once again by lax emission control standards, and they tightened these standards up.     European scientists were the first to discover that CFC’s were destroying the ozone layer and it was the Europeans who convinced the other nations of the world to ban the production of CFC’s.    Prosperity can create problems and it can also solve those problems.      Unless you hanker for a life of subsistence farming, then you had better realise that if you wish to maintain your present lifestyle, you had better stop attacking your civilisation, and instead support the continued advancement of the human race.

 

Factfinder quote       A few anecdotal cases doesn't negate the fact most scientists seek answers not fame or job security. In fact they're most likely to want real answers more than your drive for political debates impacts your goals. And were smarter than alarmist and crooks, we can deal with them. We just can't be like them. Get it?

I get it, but you do not.     The western world is undergoing a new cultural revolution where diplomaed elites want to be the new aristocrats who tell ordinary people like you and me what to do.     So far, they have almost succeeded in ruining their own countries and their own civilisation with their arrogance and their virtue signalling.         But despite the obvious examples of western civilisation collapsing, they still think that they are God’s gift to the human race and the only people who can SAVE THE WOLD.      To this end, they will stop at nothing to stay in power where they have all the money, power, and sex they want.       They will persecute the leading US Presidential candidate by levelling 91 trumped up charges brought against him by corrupt DA’s like Fanni Willis.      They will control the media by inserting law enforcement officers inside social media headquarters in order to “advise” the media moguls about what information (false or otherwise) should be allowed to be published, and which stories should be killed.    This is to influence elections and control the minds of the public.      Finally, knowing the great respect that the public has for science, they seek to intimidate scientists into toeing the Party line, exactly like the USSR did with it’ own scientists.      This is actually quite easy to do.      If you are a scientist and you do not toe the left wing academic party line, then you can kiss your entire career away and you will end up flipping burgers for a living in McDonalds.

 If you think that science is not being corrupted, then get your head out of your ar-se and start having a look around.

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Factfinder quote   Never the less they've succeeded to shut you down. 

What the hell are you talking about, Factfinder?       WHO “shut me down”?     WHEN did they “shut me down?”     Please stop smoking that wacky tobaccy.      It will be a cold day in hell when a loony lefty gets the better of me. 

 Factfinder quote    Errr, yes you did. You just said: You can make the case that increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming, and I would agree with you that it is possible. As you know that's not the only time you said things like that. 

You are misrepresenting what I said.     Either you are dumb, or you are devious?      YOU said,  “You've accepted that pollutants caused by human activity increasing CO2 can exacerbate natural global warming multiple times now.    THAT is a complete and utter lie.      I said that I agreed that CO2 COULD exacerbate the natural factors which cause the earth’s climate to warm and cool in roughly 1000 year periods.     In other words, it is feasible.     But it is unprovable.     This does not mean that I have “accepted” “many times” that CO2 is in any way responsible for our present warming period, which just happens to be right on schedule.      Especially, since variations in CO2 levels do not appear to have had ANY effect upon global temperatures in the last 600 million years, according to the graph I submitted as proof.

 

Factfinder quote        Current furor. So? Just as pretending charts depicting long slow gradual changes trending warmer over millions of years somehow changes the FACT we've raised co2 levels twice as much 150 yrs since the industrial age. More in a 150 year period ever. And of course all kinds of other pollutants you ignore that causes anthropogenic climate change.

 As could be seen in my graph that I submitted in my last post, global atmospheric CO2 levels were at their lowest point in 600 million years, because CO2 had been scrubbed out of the atmosphere and converted into carbonaceous rocks.     Had that continued, Agronomists have predicted that almost all life on earth would have eventually gone extinct as all plant life above fungus choked to death for lack of CO2.    It was fortunate for the Earth that humans came along and put some CO2 back into the atmosphere.      And the results have been “the greening of the earth as plants are responding to the increases of CO2, which is plant food.  

 

Factfinder quote     Tomorrow that will change, and then again after that. Pretending the other contaminates aren't there affecting our environment is silliness.

 Prosperity is based upon science and technology, which is itself dependent upon a modern, functioning state based upon fossil fuels.     The western world has led the entire world into a period of unprecedented prosperity.     We have made more progress in the last 200 years than in the last 200 000 years.     Along the way, it was the western world which first identified pollution as a real problem, and it is the western world that leads all others in protecting the environment and combatting pollution.        European people discovered that smog caused by coal fired furnaces in people’s homes was killing people, and they were the first to enact emission controls.     They discovered that the reason why forests in Europe were dying was because of acid rain caused once again by lax emission control standards, and they tightened these standards up.     European scientists were the first to discover that CFC’s were destroying the ozone layer and it was the Europeans who convinced the other nations of the world to ban the production of CFC’s.    Prosperity can create problems and it can also solve those problems.      Unless you hanker for a life of subsistence farming, then you had better realise that if you wish to maintain your present lifestyle, you had better stop attacking your civilisation, and instead support the continued advancement of the human race.

 

Factfinder quote       A few anecdotal cases doesn't negate the fact most scientists seek answers not fame or job security. In fact they're most likely to want real answers more than your drive for political debates impacts your goals. And were smarter than alarmist and crooks, we can deal with them. We just can't be like them. Get it?

I get it, but you do not.     The western world is undergoing a new cultural revolution where diplomaed elites want to be the new aristocrats who tell ordinary people like you and me what to do.     So far, they have almost succeeded in ruining their own countries and their own civilisation with their arrogance and their virtue signalling.         But despite the obvious examples of western civilisation collapsing, they still think that they are God’s gift to the human race and the only people who can SAVE THE WOLD.      To this end, they will stop at nothing to stay in power where they have all the money, power, and sex they want.       They will persecute the leading US Presidential candidate by levelling 91 trumped up charges brought against him by corrupt DA’s like Fanni Willis.      They will control the media by inserting law enforcement officers inside social media headquarters in order to “advise” the media moguls about what information (false or otherwise) should be allowed to be published, and which stories should be killed.    This is to influence elections and control the minds of the public.      Finally, knowing the great respect that the public has for science, they seek to intimidate scientists into toeing the Party line, exactly like the USSR did with it’ own scientists.      This is actually quite easy to do.      If you are a scientist and you do not toe the left wing academic party line, then you can kiss your entire career away and you will end up flipping burgers for a living in McDonalds.

 If you think that science is not being corrupted, then get your head out of your ar-se and start having a look around.

And because of climate change: breaking...first ever snow storm in hell! The left turned you hysterical. 

@Bogan, do you understand the reality of the existence of the fringe far right? It's impact on the political landscape? How they enable marxist leftist by their knee jerk reactions when truths begin to emerge? Didn't think so. Hope so though. Otherwise I'm forced to accept I'm not dealing with a sane person.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Shortly after the New Year, I was fired from Oak Ridge National Laboratory after urging fellow scientists to take action on climate change. At the American Geophysical Union meeting in December, just before speakers took the stage for a plenary session, my fellow climate scientist Peter Kalmus and I unfurled a banner that read, “Out of the lab & into the streets.” In the few seconds before the banner was ripped from our hands, we implored our colleagues to use their leverage as scientists to wake the public up to the dying planet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/opinion/scientist-fired-climate-change-activism.html ;

All the old data you use from decades past along with their talking points we went though decades ago. Do you realize that? 

We worked our way through it which enables you to say today: The western world has led the entire world into a period of unprecedented prosperity.     We have made more progress in the last 200 years than in the last 200 000 years.     Along the way, it was the western world which first identified pollution as a real problem, and it is the western world that leads all others in protecting the environment and combatting pollution. 

Seriously, there's nothing 'new' about this culture war and world isn't going to end because you think the left is untouchable. Gather your thoughts and calm down.

Bogan

Factfinder quote    And because of climate change: breaking...first ever snow storm in hell! The left turned you hysterical. 

Yawn.  

 

Factfinder quote        @Bogan, do you understand the reality of the existence of the fringe far right? It's impact on the political landscape? How they enable marxist leftist by their knee jerk reactions when truths begin to emerge? Didn't think so. Hope so though. Otherwise I'm forced to accept I'm not dealing with a sane person.

 The fringe far right is almost non existent.    In any case, the fringe far left thinks that anybody to the right of Pol Pot is a Nazi.      It is the fringe far left which has grown exponentially in number and which has become the destroyer of western civilisation.    If the fringe far right does the same thing in the future, then you can bet that I will go after them in the same way I do the fringe far left today.

 

  

Factfinder quote    KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Shortly after the New Year, I was fired from Oak Ridge National Laboratory after urging fellow scientists to take action on climate change. At the American Geophysical Union meeting in December, just before speakers took the stage for a plenary session, my fellow climate scientist Peter Kalmus and I unfurled a banner that read, “Out of the lab & into the streets.” In the few seconds before the banner was ripped from our hands, we implored our colleagues to use their leverage as scientists to wake the public up to the dying planet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/opinion/scientist-fired-climate-change-activism.html ;

 

I clicked on your link and there was nothing there.    Just a note saying that it was the New York Times and “we don’t want to lose you.”

 

Factfinder quote   All the old data you use from decades past along with their talking points we went though decades ago. Do you realize that? 

 Do you mean that my graph showing that atmospheric CO2 made no difference to global warming can not be trusted because it relates to data 600 million years old?  

Factfinder quote  Seriously, there's nothing 'new' about this culture war and world isn't going to end because you think the left is untouchable. Gather your thoughts and calm down.

 Oh, rubbish.     Only five years ago nobody ever thought that transgenderism could be an issue.     When it started off, most people thought it was a joke.   Today, in Britain and Canada, it is now taken very seriously by woke politicians, so much so, that you can get arrested for “misgendering” somebody.      The Left has gone so far left that even Joe Stalin would think that they are extreme.      Elon Musk famously said that he always thought of himself as a leftie, and although he has never changed his leftist beliefs, the Left today has moved for far to the left that it thinks that he is right wing.       Then there is the growing phenomena of very prominent lefties like Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, and Mike Rubin now saying that the Left is just too crazy for them.    And anthropogenic climate change is one of the keystone beliefs of loony leftist ideology.      For any leftie to say that he does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, would be like a Catholic saying that he does not believe in The Holy Trinity.

Factfinder

@Bogan

Click on the embedded part. It works for me.  urging fellow scientists to take action  

Bogan

I am sorry, Mr Factfinder, but I am puzzled at the information you have submitted in your link?     Is this some sort of example of alarmists being and persecuted?   Like, your kidding?    Two young alarmist scientists disrupted a scientific conference demanding the the assembled scientists should stop the conference and go out onto the street and protest climate change?   They got chucked out because of their bad manners.    It would not matter to me if they had been sceptic scientists, disrupting scientific conferences is not on.

Since you seem to doubt that science is being corrupted, then let's look at a few more examples.     The first is once again the Climategate emails where the Director got caught fudging rh figures.      After the year 2000, much to the horror of the alarmist camp, global temperatures fell instead of rising.      The director sent a couple of emails to a colleague suggesting ways to "hide the decline" from being published in the scientific journal "nature".      Here are two of them.

1.    We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and that is a travesty that we can't.   

2.    I have just completed Mike's nature (the Science Journal) trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards, to hide the decline.

Okay, so here are two examples of alarmists from the left leaning British public service "swamp".   The first complains that reality does not conform to their ideology.    The second, discusses fudging the figures to get their desired scientific outcome.     Now, lets look at what happened with the Australian left leaning public service "swamp".

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is another government department which has come under a lot a fire recently for getting everything wrong.    Only a month ago they got in the poo for issuing a cyclone warning a couple of hours after the cyclone hit North Queensland.      However, the scandal I wish to illustrate involved the BoM making a press release where they claimed to have gone back over the Australian historical weather data to "prove" that climate change warming was happening in Australia.      Now this is interesting, because Australia is one of the very few countries which first recorded climate data.    We even beat you yanks to it.     All over Australia, weather stations and ordinary farming families faithfully recorded daily weather data for almost 200 years.       The BoM helpfully released this data to "prove" it's case.    Unfortunately for the BoM, the ancestors of the people who had recorded the data smelt a rat and checked their own ancestors hand written records, and discovered that the BoM was fudging the figures to get their desired outcome.   

Science is being corrupted by the left wing public service 'swamp" because promoting anthropogenic global warming is in their interests, and they have no scruples in lying to "prove" their case.      I would suggest that this is for two reasons.       Some of the people in the swamp really do believe that they are the Saviors of the World, and they see nothing wrong with lying to their social inferiors in order to save their inferiors from themselves.    The second is, empire building by a bunch of very ambitious elites who know that an ever growing public service is crucial to their dreams of becoming top tier public service bureaucrats with all of the wealth, power, and privilege that this entails.     

Factfinder

@Bogan

They didn't disrupt anything. They were invited to be there. It was a function for clime change scientists. The speakers were going to give talks on global warming but no one had take the stage yet. The event hadn't started. They, thinking they were in friendly territory, decided to unroll a climate change alarmist banner for people to read while waiting for the event to begin. But the rest of the scientists didn't want to hear political crap. That was the point. The left doesn't control near as much as you think.  

Bogan

Obviously the scientists did not agree with you if they chucked the bums out.     Where are you going with this?     If you are trying to claim that alarmists are being intimidated, then I don't think that your example bears that out.     I would say that most of the delegates agreed with HIGW, they just did not want their conference hijacked by a pair of radicals.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my examples clearly display that science is being corrupted to conform to this anthropogenic warming fairy tale, which is causing untold hardship to ordinary people and their national economies, while benefitting only government bureaucrats and their mates, who are the captains of industry who can see how this con can benefit their corporations.    And they are in turn supported by a screeching bunch of Luddite world savers.   

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Obviously the scientists did not agree with you if they chucked the bums out.     Where are you going with this?     If you are trying to claim that alarmists are being intimidated, then I don't think that your example bears that out.     I would say that most of the delegates agreed with HIGW, they just did not want their conference hijacked by a pair of radicals.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my examples clearly display that science is being corrupted to conform to this anthropogenic warming fairy tale, which is causing untold hardship to ordinary people and their national economies, while benefitting only government bureaucrats and their mates, who are the captains of industry who can see how this con can benefit their corporations.    And they are in turn supported by a screeching bunch of Luddite world savers.   

Did not agree with me about what? They're climate scientists, they know anthropogenic climate change is real. Yet they wanted to focus on the evidence, not the party affiliations and alarmism you're obsessed with. That's where I went with this. You claim scientist are too to deal with liberals but they aren't. 

No, your 'examples' reveal paranoia, nothing more. 

Bogan

@Factfinder ;    Did not agree with me about what? They're climate scientists, they know anthropogenic climate change is real. Yet they wanted to focus on the evidence, not the party affiliations and alarmism you're obsessed with. That's where I went with this. You claim scientist are too to deal with liberals but they aren't. 

No, your 'examples' reveal paranoia, nothing more. 

The question is, "is science being corrupted?"      The answer is "yes", and I have submitted 6 perfectly plain examples relating to anthropogenic climate change to prove it, and I can submit more.      Claiming that facts are "paranoia" because they disprove your pet social theory is like you saying that the takeover of academia by the Left is also "paranoia".   

Your problem is, that you are only looking at climate change as some sort of noble singular issue, and you do not want to understand the underlying ideology which invented it, and which supports it.     If you ever bothered to do just that, you would discover that the same ratbags who scream about climate change are the same "swamp" members who hate Trump and support Biden, and who march around with HAMAS flags screaming "gas the Jews!"  

Factfinder

@Bogan

You have that backwards. The science was always real. Just in the early stages it was unclear what the data was telling us. As more data was compiled and vetted through the scientific method, the message began to unfold. THEN the left highjacked the issue for their agenda. The way they zealously do all issues. Like I said, nothing new about the left. We've been dealing with the culture war for a while. 

Well, all things being relative I'd say the paranoia my example revealed was yours. You claimed leftists ideology controls science, as you saw it does not. It tries. They install radicals in academia, that's true. But I live here, they're being exposed everyday. They're not as invincible as you think. Mean while back at the ranch anthropogenic climate change is real.

Bogan

 @Factfinder

Factfinder quote   You have that backwards. The science was always real. Just in the early stages it was unclear what the data was telling us.

Heard it all before.   I lived through a time when the self same climate "experts" predicted that the earth was headed for a new Ice Age.      Once bitten, twice shy.

Bogan

Bogan

Bogan

Your avatar should be "chicken little" instead of" Factfinder."  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Your avatar should be "chicken little" instead of" Factfinder."  

LOL as you prove my point repeatedly with your last three posts. Your avatar fits you only with less honor. Education would do you more good then your self willed delusional indoctrinated hysteria. Found out that fact about you. 

Bogan

    @Factfinder ;    Uneducated I may be, but I can still run rings around you.     Anthropogenic Climate change is a scam.      It joins the list of scams perpetrated on western people like "Global Cooling", "The Millennium Bug", "Peak Oil",  and "We are all gunna starve to death."        All you need to do to find out why these "crises" keep happening is to "follow the money."    On 16th of October, 2008 the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed in the entire history of the UK.   This committed the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds.   On that very same day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934.  $400 billion pounds in the UK alone?    Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

  

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Uneducated I may be

I think that you have pretty well established that it is not as much a matter of may be but a matter of am. And it all stands to reason because trying to get an education with half a brain is like trying to push jello up the mountain.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  The climate changes cyclically...man does NOT influence the climate...that is pagan idiocy. Man-induced climate change is a globalist hoax touted by the naive and foolish.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  The climate changes cyclically...man does NOT influence the climate...that is pagan idiocy. Man-induced climate change is a globalist hoax touted by the naive and foolish.

Funny how deniers always boast on the knowledge climate changes naturally like it's something new. The problem with the right is they've allowed myths to destroy their minds. And that let the left highjack climate change as a political tool. Thus we have those on the far right that scudders into the corners when the light of truth shines. So afraid of the left. Trump messiah complex is just as dangerous as trump derangement syndrome.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; It is the paganized fool who touts the insanity of man-induced climate change.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; It is the paganized fool who touts the insanity of man-induced climate change.

And here you are touting insanities.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; It's truth...only the naive and foolish believe that mankind controls the weather.

Bogan

Factfinder quote   Funny how deniers always boast on the knowledge climate changes naturally like it's something new. 

We do not "boast" about anything.     All we have to do is to state the historical fact and tell anyone foolish enough to deny it to get hold of a damned history book and check it out.      Most people are completely ignorant of history.     They may have heard of The Little Ice Age but have never heard of the Medieval Warming Period, or the Roman Warming Period.   And even if they do know something about Rome, they know almost noting of prior ancient history.       Whenever some fool has personally tossed climate change to me, I simply recount the warming and cooling periods which happened in roughly 10000 year increments, and watch their faces.   It absolutely confounds them.   They had no idea.

Factfinder

@Bogan

And yet again your irrelevant response proves my point. What you said has nothing to do with the fact anthropogenic climate change is real or the fact the left isn't invincible.

Phite

Phite

1988: James Hansen forecasts increase regional drought in 1990s

But the last really dry year in the Midwest was 1988, and recent years have been record wet.

Phite

But the number of hot days in the DC area peaked in 1911, and have been declining ever since.

Here's a bunch more:  https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Factfinder

Phite said:

Phite 

I would advise you to read through the debate if you're going to throw your hat in the ring phite. I do not deny that some 50-60 years ago the left saw as data and reports first started getting attention an opportunity to con the people and did so. But we've learned a lot since those days. The left is exposed regularly. So is the right. Most importantly the information we have now has grown and advanced. Did you type your response on a computer that takes of two full sized rooms in your house? Thought not. You also don't see many cars from the 1960's driving around either. (Of course a well restored 1967 mustang is nice to see on occasion) Point is we don't rely on old technology for a reason. Why rely on old information? Science isn't something to be feared or ashamed of.  

Phite

@Factfinder

Are you familiar with John Cook's research that led him to believe that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real?

Something on John:

I'm John Cook, and I'm here as part of my 97 Hours of Consensus project to make more people aware of the overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change. Every hour for 97 straight hours, I'm sending out a playful caricature of a climate scientist, along with a statement from them about climate change. You can watch the progress at our interactive 97 hours site,, on Twitter @skepticscience (where you'll also see my proof tweet) and the Skeptical Science Facebook page.

Our quotes/caricatures will also be posters in the Science Stands climate march, featuring scientists who are taking part in the largest climate march in history!

To give you plenty of ammo for questions, here is some more background:

I'm the climate communication research fellow with the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. In 2007, I created Skeptical Science, a website debunking climate misinformation with peer-reviewed science. The website won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

I was lead-author of the paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, published in 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The paper was tweeted by President Obama, is the most downloaded paper in the 80 journals published by the Institute of Physics and was awarded the best paper in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

I co-authored the online booklet The Debunking Handbook, a popular booklet translated into 7 languages that offers a practical guide to effectively refuting misinformation. I also co-authored the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis.

I'm currently in England finishing my PhD in cognitive psychology, researching the psychology of climate change and how to neutralise the influence of misinformation. While in England, I’m also giving a talk at the University of Bristol about my consensus research on Friday 19 September.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You remember him, right?

Factfinder

@Phite

I'm aware. Of updates and criticisms. 

Phite

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

This of course did not happen

Phite

@Factfinder

And what's your assessment of his findings and how he arrived at them?

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

And what's your assessment of his findings and how he arrived at them?

His motives appear to be genuine however he would really like to convince the world if he could. That may or may not lead to mistakes as often we as people like to find the outcomes we prefer even if we try to be objective.  Why the line of questioning? You obviously have something to say, say it.

If you're talking about the 97% consensus I do not think he conducted himself with any malice despite his strong motivations. I think the true consensus however could be more like maybe 80%-90%. I believe the actual list consisted of some scientists who disagreed about climate change but yet still confirmed other aspects. Like unusually high warming spikes and such. In the end, who knows what damage we've caused or how much if any will be reversible.

But we are causing damage and it's wiser to stop instead of pretending cities sacked with smog (seen or unseen) are having no effect. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

And what's your assessment of his findings and how he arrived at them?

His motives appear to be genuine . . .

Then you only looked as far as you wanted to.

A sample of scientists whose papers were used were asked if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He is a dishonest man who willingly misrepresented these scientists in order to push something.  I wonder how that changes his 97% consensus bullshyt.  And I wonder how many people will overlook the deception simply because it goes against their "beliefs."

Phite

And just when you thought you've heard it all, the Irish government is thinking about destroying 200,000 cows because, you guessed it, they contribute to climate change.  I wonder if they neglected to look into people like Cook before arriving at that bit of "wisdom."

Factfinder

Phite said:

And just when you thought you've heard it all, the Irish government is thinking about destroying 200,000 cows because, you guessed it, they contribute to climate change.  I wonder if they neglected to look into people like Cook before arriving at that bit of "wisdom."

I've always thought actions like that were dumb. It doesn't change the fact we have anthropogenic climate change.  

Phite

@Factfinder

Sure.  Cook was probably the only one who lied about what climate scientists think in order to push an agenda.

Unfortunately, everyone listened to him and thought that he was genuine. I wonder when people will start feeling betrayed by such people.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

@Factfinder

And what's your assessment of his findings and how he arrived at them?

His motives appear to be genuine . . .

Then you only looked as far as you wanted to.

A sample of scientists whose papers were used were asked if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He is a dishonest man who willingly misrepresented these scientists in order to push something.  I wonder how that changes his 97% consensus bullshyt.  And I wonder how many people will overlook the deception simply because it goes against their "beliefs."

I looked as far as I did. Your reason for your questioning was to suggest some sort of forgone conclusion in the negative? Hmm. 

I openly alluded to such criticisms and personally considered the figure to be 80%-90% down from 97%. So what anyway? John Cook didn't persuade me. No more than old headlines produced by misunderstood science can persuade me. Reality does. We can and do measure contaminates in the atmosphere. We can and do compare data gathered from the scientific processes and compare the information to past trends. We do have a clear quid pro co from the beginning of the industrial age till now. I do not generally use appeals to authority because they all have faults, intentional or not. I do not know anymore about the man's character than you do. 

You mean like the way you overlook smog? The fact that for every action there is a reaction?

Phite

@Factfinder

Not talking about smog.  Talking about the CO2,

But since you brought it up, are you implying that smog exacerbates "global warming?"  

Factfinder

@Phite

Are you saying smog has no effect on climate?

Phite

@Factfinder

You answered my question with a question.

You've implied that smog causes global warming; that's why you posted it.

So, you're not implying that smog exacerbates global warming?

Factfinder

Phite said:

@Factfinder

You answered my question with a question.

You've implied that smog causes global warming; that's why you posted it.

So, you're not implying that smog exacerbates global warming?

You seem to know. Say your piece. Lead me once, shame on you, lead me twice...

Phite

@Factfinder

But I'm not the one who decided to enter smog into the equation; you were.

So, were trying to make the point that smog exacerbates global warming, or did you bring it up for nothing?