• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.
This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.

The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process.

In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.
But he also blames the researchers themselves for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript.
"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
"This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."

Scientific papers that turn out to be flawed or fraudulent are usually retracted by the journals that publish them, with editorial resignations a rarity.
But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said Dr Wagner had done the decent thing.
"It was a mistake, he's owned up to it and taken an honourable course, and I think he's to be commended for it," he told BBC News.
"I think it remains to be seen whether the authors follow a similar course."

Mr Ward described the tactic of publishing in off-topic journals as a "classic tactic" of scientists dismissive of man-made climate change.
"Those who recognise that their ideas are weak but seek to get them into the literature by finding weaknesses in the peer review system are taking a thoroughly disreputable approach," he said.

Roy Spencer, however, told BBC News: "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com.
"Our university press release necessarily put our scientific results in lay language, and what we believe they mean in the larger context of global warming research. This is commonly done in press statements made by the IPCC and its scientists, too, when reporting on research which advocates the view that climate change is almost entirely caused by humans.
"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."

Dr Spencer is one of the team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that keeps a record of the Earth's temperature as determined from satellite readings.
He is also on the board of directors of the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing thinktank critical of mainstream climate science, and an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical Christian organisation that claims policies to curb climate change "would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs" and "could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
 
Climate scientists back call for sceptic thinktank to reveal backers
Leading experts lend support to Freedom of Information request concerning climate sceptic foundation chaired by Lord Lawson
Leo Hickman
The Guardian, Monday 23 January 2012

Leading climate scientists have given their support to a Freedom of Information request seeking to disclose who is funding the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London-based climate sceptic thinktank chaired by the former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson.

James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, has joined other scientists in submitting statements to be considered by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal on Friday. They will argue that Lawson's foundation routinely misrepresents and casts doubt on the work of climate scientists. Their statements will form part of the supporting evidence being presented by an investigative journalist who is appealing against an earlier rejection of his FOI request to the Charity Commission for it to make public a bank statement it holds revealing the name of the educational charity's seed donor, who gave £50,000 when it launched in 2009.

Brendan Montague, the director of an organisation called the Request Initiative, a "community interest company that makes Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of charities, NGOs and non-profits", is seeking to argue that, by authorising his request, the public interest will be served by ending the secrecy around the financing of Lawson's charity.

"Lord Lawson's thinktank, which has been bankrolled by shadowy funders, is lobbying government for a change in climate policy that would affect the lives of millions of people," Montague told the Guardian. "The privacy of wealth has so far been valued above public accountability, even by our own civic institutions. The democratic principle of transparency is breached when a former chancellor can sit in the House of Lords influencing government policy on matters as important as climate change while accepting funding for his thinktank from secret supporters."

Montague first submitted a FOI request to the Charity Commission in 2010 arguing that the public has a right to know if any donor is related in any way to the oil industry. Montague claims he has reasonable grounds for suspicion because Lawson served as an energy minister under Margaret Thatcher and is a past president of the British Institute of Energy Economics, which "encourages the exchange of ideas" between the energy industry, government and academia and is sponsored by BP and Shell. Montague adds that Lawson has also been chairman of, and a shareholder in, Central Europe Trust Ltd, a consultancy business which has boasted BP, Amoco, Texaco and Shell as clients.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has always stated that it does not accept donations from the energy industry, or anyone with a "significant interest" in the energy industry. The Charity Commission rejected Montague's request arguing, in part, that the release of the donor's identity would "bring significant media scrutiny of the donor's private affairs".

An appeal considered by the Information Commissioner's Office in 2011 was also rejected because the commissioner did not "consider it fair" to disclose the name of the donor because it would contravene the Data Protection Act. If Friday's tribunal also rules against him, Montague says he will ask the Supreme Court to consider his request.

Lawson said he had "no intention of responding to Mr Montague's political attack on me and on the GWPF". He did, however, refer to an earlier statement he published last year alongside the foundation's first set of accounts, which revealed that it received an income of £503,302 in its first year. In the statement, he said: "The soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity."

James Hansen told the Guardian: "Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today's young people and future generations."

"The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet's energy balance and stabilise climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today's young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control. If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies."

Last November, a report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which analysed climate coverage in the UK media, concluded that the GWPF had been "particularly successful " at courting media attention and that Lawson and the foundation's director Benny Peiser were "by far" the most quoted climate sceptics.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nk-funding
 
Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 03.30 GMT

The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.
The scheme includes spending $100,000 on commissioning an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents. "There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels at New York's Time Square as well as in Washington DC.

If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.

"It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."

The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that year.
In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.

The documents posted on Desmog's website include confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.
The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year.

The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as Microsoft and RJR Tobacco.

The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to discredit established science.

Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... te-climate
 
Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents
Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science
Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 February 2012 04.06 GMT

A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week's sensational expose.

In the latest revelation, Peter Gleick, a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute who has been active in the climate wars, apologised on Monday for using a false name to obtain materials from Heartland, a Chicago-based think tank with a core mission of dismissing climate change.
"My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated – to attack climate science," Gleick wrote in a piece for Huffington Post.

The admission – nearly a week after Heartland's financial plans and donors' list was put online – looked set to further inflame the climate wars, in which a network of fossil fuel interests, rightwing think tanks and politicians have been working to block action on climate change.

In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore's press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.
As one environmental campaigner said: "Now it's gone nuclear."

Heartland's president Joseph Bast said the unauthorised release of confidential documents – and a two-page memo it has condemned as a fake – had caused permanent damage to its reputation.
"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage," he said in a statement.

Bast also disputed Gleick's account that he had received the first document – the faked two-page memo – from an anonymous source.
He said Heartland was consulting legal experts.

In the piece, Gleick made the odd claim that he carried out the hoax on Heartland as a means of verifying the authenticity of a document that appeared to set out the think tank's climate strategy. Heartland declared the two-page memo a fake.

"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate programme strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it," Gleick wrote.

"Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues."

Gleick's admission was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate between scientists, campaigners, businesses and politicians who want action on climate change and a small but well-funded group of those who deny the existence of man-made climate change.

Some were dismayed [by] the revelations. Others suggested that Heartland had got what it deserved – given its support for efforts to discredit science.
"Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years," wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. "They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to 'teach the controversy' where none exists."
He went on: "Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

Gleick, a well regarded water scientist, has been an important figure in the increasingly heated climate wars, and has sparred often in print against Heartland and others who deny the existence of climate change, such as the Republican Senator Jim Inhofe.
Last month, Gleick signed on with a new initiative to defend the teaching of climate change.

He offered that bruising experience on Monday as an explanation for his actions.
But Gleick does not appear to have experienced immediate remorse. He did not move to claim the ruse until there was already feverish online speculation about his involvement. He responded to a request by The Guardian for comment last Wednesday by saying he did not wish to comment.

Those actions may have undercut an entire career, the journalist Andrew Revkin wrote.
"Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others," he wrote.
"The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the "rational public debate" that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed."

Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace USA, said it would be unfortunate if the row over Gleick and his methods to obtain the documents distracted from Heartland's work to block climate action.
"There are a lot of people involved with Heartland's multimillion dollar climate denial machine who want to change the subject to anything else."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -documents
 
Is this one of those conspiracies that was more, or less, secret, until it was exposed?

Typical denier tactic, spinning the controversy away from the uncovered evidence to focus on who managed to uncover it.

Note the exact opposite of what happened over the, so called, 'Climategate', scandal. Still would be useful to know who really hacked the e-mails.

Should have check-list of the journalists who express outrage at Gleick's strategy and start asking whose payroll they're on and how much they're being paid.
 
Meanwhile, over on, Huffington Post. news that, last week in the US, anti-AGW, Heartland Institute, launched and then pulled, a billboard campaign, comparing people who believe the facts concerning Global warming, to famous serial killers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/heartland-climate-change-billboard_n_1478011.html?ref=green

Heartland's Climate Change Billboard: HuffPost Follows Publicity Stunt To Its Logical Conclusion [UPDATE]

Huffington Post. Green Politics. Lucia Graves. 04 May 2012

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/594833/thumbs/r-HEARTLAND-BILLBOARD-large570.jpg

The Heartland Institute is out with what is quite possibly its most ill-considered publicity stunt to date: a poster ad campaign comparing a belief in global warming to the psychology of mass murder.

The Chicago-based think tank notorious for denying the basic facts about global warming on Thursday launched billboards in Chicago featuring the likes of Ted Kaczynski (better known as the Unabomber) and convicted murderer and cult leader Charles Manson, saying these notorious criminals "still believe in global warming" and asking viewers if they do, too.

The first billboard appeared on Thursday over the Eisenhower Expressway, the interstate freeway running west from the Chicago Loop.

"Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants," notes Heartland in its press release (some killers also simply think puppies are cute, breathe air and tie their shoes one at a time).

It isn't the first anti-environmental campaign to draw such outlandishly false connections, though it is probably the most prominent. The website Vegetarians Are Evil, for instance, makes such meaningless revelations as identifying Genghis Khan as a vegetarian.

HuffPost has compiled a slideshow parodying Heartland's ploy for media attention, because it seems like the only rational response. We make some equally empty observations -- Kim Kardashian still believes in marriage; Donald Trump still believes in great hair; Charlie Sheen still believes in winning -- and we ask our readers: Do you?

UPDATE: 5:40 p.m. -- The Heartland Institute has pulled its digital billboard featuring Ted Kaczynski, which ran for just 24 hours before going dark. In a statement issued late Friday afternoon, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said the billboard was "always intended to be an experiment" and acknowledged having disappointed even defenders of the Institute.

“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters," he said, "but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the 'realist' message on the climate."

The retraction comes after the ad campaign was widely criticized, receiving censure even from leading climate skeptic Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), who indicated Friday in a statement to The Washington Post that he would not participate in the upcoming Climate Change Conference if the Heartland Institute continued its ad campaign.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/224561/slide_224561_941234_wide570.jpg?1336159064
Click to expand...
Bit of a boggler, really.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Ronson8 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In future, all speculation about the AGW, 'swindle', will be moved to that thread.

P_M
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's teling em, this thread is for true believers only. :roll:
Click to expand...
A science and evidence based thread, as opposed to a conspiracy theory thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what?

My point has been from the beginning that the science behind AGW is uncertain, and I've brought a lot of evidence to support that. How exactly is that a 'conspiracy theory', while your claim that Big Oil is funding anyone who even doubts AGW is not?

If you like I'll start a new thread called - "The Complex Science of Climate", and you can rename this one - "AGW is REAL, and anyone who says it isn't is a Shill or a Loon." then people won't make the mistake of thinking this is some sort of open forum where all shades of opinion are welcome ;)

Edit: Moved from Global Warming and Climate Change. P_M
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Ronson8 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In future, all speculation about the AGW, 'swindle', will be moved to that thread.

P_M
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's teling em, this thread is for true believers only. :roll:
Click to expand...
A science and evidence based thread, as opposed to a conspiracy theory thread.
Click to expand...

Statistics and computer models are not science. And they are only acceptable evidence if properly audited by sceptical (in the constructive sense of the word) third parties.

[Edit: Post moved from Global Warming and Climate Change thread. P_M
 
Cochise said:
Statistics and computer models are not science.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but the models are all based upon known scientific principles relating to atmospheric physics and chemistry.

And they are only acceptable evidence if properly audited by sceptical (in the constructive sense of the word) third parties.
Click to expand...
And, you know what? They have been. Just because they weren't audited by people who agree with you doesn't mean it wasn't done.


Edit: Moved from Global Warming Thread. P_M
 
Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst
Firm has 'no plans' to work with thinktank following campaign comparing people concerned about climate to mass murderers
Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 May 2012 17.15 BST

Diageo, one of the world's largest drinks companies, has announced it will no longer fund the Heartland Institute, a rightwing US thinktank which briefly ran a billboard campaign this week comparing people concerned about climate change to mass murderers and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski.

On Thursday, a billboard appeared over the Eisenhower Expressway in Illinois showing a picture of Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who in 1996 was convicted of a 17-year mail bombing campaign that killed three people and injured dozens. The caption read: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" A day later it was withdrawn.

The London-based drinks giant, which owns brands such as Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon, said this year that it was "reviewing any further association with Heartland" following the release online of internal Heartland documents which revealed its corporate donors as well as a plan to promote an alternative climate change curriculum in US schools. Following the widespread outcry triggered by Heartland's billboards, a Diageo spokeswoman told the Guardian: "Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo's only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future."

In February, a US scientist, Peter Gleick, admitted obtaining and publishing internal Heartland documents which showed that Diageo had given the thinktank $10,000 (£6,190) in 2010. The documents, one of which Heartland later claimed was a fake, said the thinktank was expecting another $10,000 from Diageo this year.

On Friday, Heartland, which is trying to promote its annual conference for climate sceptics, to be held in Chicago this month, said it was withdrawing the billboard campaign. However, it refused to apologise, claiming the campaign was an "experiment". Its website is still hosting the original press release, which includes the claim that the "most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." Microsoft, which has a policy of supplying free software to all non-profit organisations in the US, posted a blog on its website on Saturday distancing itself from Heartland. The thinktank received software from Microsoft worth $59,908 in 2011. The blog said: "Microsoft believes climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly … The Heartland Institute does not speak for Microsoft on climate change. In fact, the Heartland Institute's position on climate change is diametrically opposed to Microsoft's position. And we completely disagree with the group's inflammatory and distasteful advertising campaign."

In March, General Motors, the world's largest carmaker, said it was ending its funding of Heartland after 20 years owing to the thinktank's hardline climate scepticism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... -institute

EDIT to add: do not confuse US propaganda tank with Heartlands in Cornwall:
http://www.heartlandscornwall.com/
 
Note - properly audited.

Many of the mathematicians who have audited the statistics do find them inadequate to support the assertion. That is one of my main reasons for feeling the theory is mistaken.

But you misunderstand my position. I am not looking for people to agree with me, I'm looking for rational discussion that takes into account the evidence both for and against the theory. If there is no evidence that tends to disprove the theory than it would be a most unusual theory indeed.

Outside of pure maths and other areas where conjecture can be proved by actual experimentation, we do not deal in absolute certainties, there is always counter-evidence, the question is what weight to give to that evidence and is it sufficient to dismiss the theory.

Far too much of what is reported in favour of the theory (and quite a lot of what is published against) is politics and scare tactics or simply plain religious fervour or propaganda. This discredits all concerned, but it does nothing to actually gain support for the theory which it will need if in fact it can be proved correct. Because, make no mistake, if it is essential to actually reduce our CO2 emissions by the amounts that have been proposed, then radical social and economic change will be necessary and given the usual reaction of humans to such changes, it is unlikely that the process will pass off peaceably.
 
The real problem is that doubt or ambiguity about AGW is being conflated with calling it a 'swindle'. The middle ground is being depopulated. Whatever happened to 'maybe'?

AGW isn't a swindle, any more than solar-theory is a swindle. They are both scientific propositions is all. I do think there are pressure groups on both sides of the AGW debate prepared to distort the data because they think the end justifies the means - but it was ever thus. At the moment the pro-AGW side has most of the publicity and the increasing backing of government, so their distortions get a bigger audience than the distortion on the other side. That's the only real difference.

Maybe that will change, and all the newspapers presently printing simplistic nonsense about how AGW is 'proved' will soon be doing the same about how it was all a big hoax. But that won't really be a step forward for the human race will it?

:(
 
quote
"Climate scientists"

imho they are mostly interested in perpetuating there future employment

:D
 
AngelAlice said:
AGW isn't a swindle, any more than solar-theory is a swindle. They are both scientific propositions is all.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that. Climate change in and of itself is generally accepted as fact by all sides - however, as you said, the causes are the subject of debate, denial. spin and obfuscation. Hence the separate threads, in an attempt to keep the "pure" distinct from the "applied".

I will be absent for a few days now (real life needs-must.)
 
Bump

Um
Coz it’s good innit

But where are we now?
Five years on from this tedious superbrown debate, we were all like it’s no longer is it a thing and is more what do we do about it.

Now? Ten years after. Is it still a thing? Are we where we’d imagined we’d be at this point? Well I wonder.
 
skinny said:
Bump

Um
Coz it’s good innit

But where are we now?
Five years on from this tedious superbrown debate, we were all like it’s no longer is it a thing and is more what do we do about it.

Now? Ten years after. Is it still a thing? Are we where we’d imagined we’d be at this point? Well I wonder.
Click to expand...

ln 1972 we were told by the UN that we had ten years to prevent the catastrophe.

In 1982 we were again told by the UN that we had ten years.

In 1989 it was again ten years.

In 2004 the Grauniad gleefully predicted that the UK would have a Siberian climate by 2020, and that major European cities would be swallowed by the sea by the same year.

Luckily, in 2019 the UN gave us 11 years to prevent disaster.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/

- And still people believed them. Until Covid killed them all. Or maybe an asteroid.

:rofl:

maximus otter
 
BBC investigation slams own climate editor for false global warming claims

An internal investigation at the BBC has found its own Climate Editor, Justin Rowlatt, made a series of false claims during a Panorama broadcast last year.

While presenting the documentary Wild Weather, which aired alongside COP26 back in November, Rowlatt claimed worldwide deaths from extreme weather events caused by climate change were rising – despite the opposite being true.

He also insisted Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine, when in reality other unrelated factors were involved.

BBC News released a statement saying “it accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been..."

https://order-order.com/2022/05/10/...imate-editor-for-false-global-warming-claims/

maximus otter
 
Interview from 2014.
"If your gonna get their money, you're gonna support their position...."
Pretty clear there.

 
The Real Inconvenient Truth: Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown Since 2012.
Global warming paused, polar bears thriving, more coral on the Great Barrier Reef than you can shake a stick at – it’s been a difficult gig for climate alarmists of late. But there is always the melting Arctic ice, and the prospect of the Greenland ice sheet slipping off its perch and ending up in your front room.
Alas, even that old standby is looking shaky, with evidence gathering that the ice is no longer melting as fast as in the recent past. On August 16th, summer sea ice in the Arctic was at its third highest extent since 2007.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/01/the-real-inconvenient-truth-arctic-sea-ice-has-grown-since-2012/
 
lol. Good luck.
May all of you planning to be around in another 30 years avoid frying, drowning, or starving as you continue to make shit up about the weather To make yourselves feel superior.
 
I think the book Superstorm described what is going on and how it will play out is very close to reality. If you had geology training you would understand how the ice ages happened, what weather caused them and why part of the world got an ice age while another part got excesive heat. We live in a closed system and anything that affects one part of the world affects the whole world. It is not about global warming or ice age, it is about climate change, which is normal, has happened many times and part of it is the desalination of the oceans cause severe winds and storms that then cause severe cold or heat. The part that humans play to speed this up is not as trivial as is being represented. CO2 does make a slight difference, but other things make larger differences. eco systems being destroyed for human puruposes, mining for minerals and oil, (excavation for oil being the most destructive), decimation of forest... And then there is pollution of other kinds (trash in the oceans, plastic everywhere, etc). Humans do have to take responsibility for their actions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top