Climate-gate

[milkweed]

what happens when climate scientists tell the world it has only 50-100 years of human habitation remaining? ( and there is not a lot we can do about it)
What can the global population do?

Question their theory.

27 February 2007 --"It is consistent with the climate change message," he told BBC News. "It is exactly what we expect winters to be like - warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6401063.stm

11/04/2013 -- "After a winter in which temperatures dropped as low as −15.6C, Dr Julia Slingo told ITV News global warming may be responsible for the extreme weather, saying she would be convening with top scientists to try and understand how the arctic melt was affecting the UK."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...er-met-office-chief-scientist-_n_3059116.html

http://climatechangepredictions.org/

"The one thing all those "scientists" have in common is a lack of belief in human ingenuity. Whether you believe that climate change is real or not, you have to acknowledge that in the past, humans have been able to successfully adapt to change and that giving up and throwing in the towel by advocating draconian solutions that would actually stifle creativity in addressing our problems reveals a shortsightedness bordering on myopia."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...earth_day_that_never_quite_materialized_.html

 

[billvon]

Uhm... so what happens , do you think, when climate scientists tell the world it has only 50-100 years of human habitation remaining?

No, that is your theory, not the theory of mainstream climate science. No mainstream climate scientist claims we will all be extinct in 100 years.

 

[iceaura]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...earth_day_that_never_quite_materialized_.html

Those "quotes" are all dishonest misrepresentations of what some scientist actually said, and have nothing to do with the current state of climatology or its findings.

You are reposting deceptions, invented in the first place by professional manipulators to further their backers's agenda. You have done this repeatedly, here, because you insist on putting your confidence in known, paid, politically committed liars. Why?

Maybe this explains the problem:

Question their theory.

You want to do that, but you don't know what you are talking about (you don't know what the theory is, you don't know who "they"are, you don't bother to credit or comprehend the explanations handed to you, you are in thrall to professional manipulators, etc) so you imitate the verbal form or shape of an actual questioning. This is sympathetic magic, technically, and while it may have some value to its practitioner it does not work on other people.

"The one thing all those "scientists" have in common is a lack of belief in human ingenuity. Whether you believe that climate change is real or not, you have to acknowledge that in the past, humans have been able to successfully adapt to change and that giving up and throwing in the towel by advocating draconian solutions that would actually stifle creativity in addressing our problems reveals a shortsightedness bordering on myopia."

1) Since the advent of agriculture humans have usually failed to successfully adapt to rapid and unfavorable environmental change - survivors have occasionally prospered, but usually after the disaster rather than keeping up with it. Human ingenuity is a wonderful thing, but a half meter rise in the sea level along the entire SE Asian coast within thirty years is not something "ingenuity" has much chance of rendering harmless - so the risk of that and similar events should be made as low as possible, in accordance with sanity.

2) Nobody is advocating "giving up" and "throwing in the towel", and I'll bet you can't get - or even guess at - a straight answer to the question of what your source there intended to mean by that - it reads like one of Luntz's vocabulary recommendations for Republican campaign rhetoric, in this tradition http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm ; in other words: deliberately calculated bullshit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit).

3) and very few of the advocated responses are "draconian". Substituting efficiency improvements and thermal solar with storage for coal combustion, for example, would be by most standards a long overdue improvement even without the CO2 benefits.

 

[Quantum Quack]

My post:

Uhm... so what happens , do you think, when climate scientists tell the world it has only 50-100 years of human habitation remaining? ( and there is not a lot we can do about it)
What can the global population do, except go into denial?

billvon's response:

No, that is your theory, not the theory of mainstream climate science. No mainstream climate scientist claims we will all be extinct in 100 years.

Maybe you need to consider the difference between "a planet that is uninhabitable" and "extinction" (uninhabitable, except for a very few who may utilize special accommodations - most likely underground)

 

[billvon]

Maybe you need to consider the difference between "a planet that is uninhabitable" and "extinction" (uninhabitable, except for a very few who may utilize special accommodations - most likely underground)

Then let me be clearer. No mainstream climate scientist claims we will all be extinct in 100 years, AND no mainstream climate scientists claims that the planet will be uninhabitable in 100 years.

 

[milkweed]

Question their Theory

While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider... Video below

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16505796265.pdf

A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

And now its warming... ho hum... Maybe Just Maybe its within the realm of Normal Climate Variation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then let me be clearer. No mainstream climate scientist claims we will all be extinct in 100 years, AND no mainstream climate scientists claims that the planet will be uninhabitable in 100 years.

Fair enough... I stand corrected.

What do you think would happen if they did tell the world that it will be uninhabitable in 50-100 years?
Conflated:
8 billion + people being told this sort of news would lead to what?

If they knew that this was to be the outcome would they tell the world or would they keep silent and wait for the weather to do the talking instead?

 

[milkweed]

Speaking of Dr Steven Schneider:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Why bring this up? There is a long winded but relevant article on Emotional Bias and its symptoms within climate science.

The psychological phenomena of emotional bias, a distortion in cognition and decision-making due to emotional factors, has been known of for millennia.... This distortion is so well known that consciously or sub-consciously, arguments often employ an appeal to emotion exactly because this significantly increases the chance of overcoming opposing views.

For examples at various scales emotional bias can strongly contribute to: skewed jury / legal decisions and extremist politics, bad business practice and financial meltdowns, cults and the spread of misinformation, and yes the social hi-jacking of science too, for instance the Eugenics saga in the first half of the 20th century.

‘But caveats aside, what this new research clearly says is that risk communication that wants to shape how people feel about global warming, or any risk issue, must go beyond simply communicating the facts. It must respect the primary role that feelings play in how we see those facts. It must identify, with research, the particular emotional and instinctive characteristics that shape people’s feelings about the issue, and present information in ways that will resonate with those underlying emotions.

In all these writings and more, I find no concern that such intense emotive targeting and psychological shepherding may not so much be communicating the case for certainty, as manufacturing it.

This series of letters from climate and environmental scientists [link in original article ], shows an astonishing level of personal revelation regarding thoughts about climate change. While 35 (at the time of writing) is not a huge sample, it seems to confirm a systemic emotional state within the mainstream scientific community, which according to the universally accepted knowledge from Section 1 cannot do other than create bias.....So it seems that long-term communication campaigns targeting our emotions have indeed had a major impact upon climate and other environmental science professionals. Enough to make many ill.

From Mourning Our Planet: Climate Scientists Share Their Grieving Process: ‘Take Professor Camille Parmesan, a climate researcher who says that ACD is the driving cause of her depression. “I don’t know of a single scientist that’s not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost,” Parmesan said in the National Wildlife Federation’s 2012 report.’

Once again all the sources in this section are solidly Consensus orientated; the emotional impact is self-described. Given this case for scientists, i.e. those who ought to be most tooled-up for resisting emotional appeals, bias is likely endemic in other functional areas of society, such as politicians and policy makers.

The accepted principle that emotive messaging causes bias does not, as far as I can see, appear to have caused any alarm bells to ring in the minds of Consensus-aligned professionals regarding their long-term emotive messaging campaigns aimed at increasing the support for policy. And yet the climate Consensus cannot set aside the universally accepted dangers of emotional bias. Of all the disciplines involved, it is the psychologists who should have warned us; yet they are all too busy emotively channeling a socially enforced consensus, and attempting to change behavior.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/24/contradiction-on-emotional-bias-in-the-climate-domain/#more-18428

Its not the skeptics who are being played.

Question the theory.

 

[billvon]

What do you think would happen if they did tell the world that it will be uninhabitable in 50-100 years?

People would ignore it until it was about 20 years away, then start doing too little, too late.

If they knew that this was to be the outcome would they tell the world or would they keep silent and wait for the weather to do the talking instead?

Who? Scientists? Since most have dedicated their lives to uncovering the truth about the physical world - and since their careers depend on publishing - they'd publish.

 

[Photizo]

"...only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

 

[Billy T]

"...only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

It would be informative to know, who picked the five to serve as the "experts" and who is paying for their research into the "adjustment facts"
How did you, a perennial skeptic about existence of significant AGW, learn of the existence of this small panel? - That might tell who is paying for their study.

By edit 10 minutes or so later, with help of Google, I found answer to my questions:
About 1.6% of the Global Warming Policy Foundation's funding comes from the general public. This British lord founded it and funds it:

Rich Lord Lawson set foundation up as a Charity but has so consistently misrepresent and invented "facts" that the Foundation's charity status is in review process by English tax authorities.
He is clever guy: Not only does he get to buy "scientific" support for his anti-AGW position, but also a tax deduction for gift to his "charity."

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a clear and strongly biased Anti-AGW front.
Read more about this shame / sham here: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nt-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
The title of today's (26April2015) English newspaper's article is:
Lord Lawson's climate-change think tank risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public.

You can be sure that his hand-picked five "researchers" will report they found the temperature rise has been falsely increased, by adjusting the data.

BTW, The 60 second video summary of the climate change link found at you post's link is quite well done.

 

[milkweed]

"...only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Good to know.

BTW BillyT link is from
Friday 14 June 2013 -- So apparently there was nothing to the claim. Well nothing to another of Bob Wards complaints.

From Bishop Hill 29 Sept 2010

Bob Ward Quote --The public and policymakers need robust and reliable information about climate change. They also expect openness and transparency from researchers in order to have confidence in their integrity and to be sure that they are not being influenced by vested interests. Yet Lord Turnbull does not mention this, and does not explain why the foundation refuses to reveal its sources of funding.

This has actually been explained to Bob before. He knows that GWPF vets donors to ensure that they have no connections with energy companies. But more significantly, he also knows that a charity cannot just reveal the identities of its donors without their permission. This would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.

--End Quote

Its not the skeptics who are being played.

 

[Billy T]

... BTW BillyT link is from
Friday 14 June 2013 -- So apparently there was nothing to the claim. ...

No my link is from 26 April 2015, which for me in Brazil is 1.5 hours in the future (still 25th of April for hour & half here, but my bed time.)
Go to it and read date at the very top of page:
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nt-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

Your June 2013 date is probably when Tom Bawden, writer of the Independent's article, was employed by the Independent as if you click on it, in separated section in the newspaper's article, you get his biographic data.

 

[milkweed]

No my link is from 26 April 2015, which for me in Brazil is 1.5 hours in the future (still 25th of April for hour & half here, but my bed time.)
Go to it and read date at the very top of page:
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nt-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

No BillyT you are mistaken. The date at the top of the page is a wrapper that more and more sites are using which displays current date. Go there tomorrow and the date will be current, but it wont be the Date Of The Article.

From Wiki on Global Warming Policy Foundation:
Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding....

In June 2013 it was reported that Bob Ward had filed a formal complaint to the Charity Commission, alleging that the GWPF had "persistently disseminated inaccurate and misleading information about climate change as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas", and that this was an abuse of their charitable status.

22. Bawden, Tom (14 June 2013). "Lord Lawson's climate-change think tank risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public - Climate Change - Environment". The Independent. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

So what we have is a group GWPF doing nothing wrong in not releasing a donor list but the spokeman for another group (Bob Ward, head of policy at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment ) doesnt like the GWPF and insists there is something wrong when there is no legal basis for the GWPF to comply with Bob Wards ideas on what should be.

You are being played BillyT.

 

[Billy T]

(1) No BillyT you are mistaken. The date at the top of the page is a wrapper that more and more sites are using which displays current date....
(2) So what we have is a group GWPF doing nothing wrong in not releasing a donor list ...
(3) Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment ) doesn't like the GWPF and insists there is something wrong
(4) when there is no legal basis for the GWPF to comply with Bob Wards ideas on what should be. ...
(5) You are being played BillyT.

On (1): You are correct. (I did not know some news paper put the current date "wrapper" at top of articles.)
On (2): Also correct. Charities are not required to show their donor list and no one claims not doing so is illegal.
What Lord Lawson's foundation did that is illegal is discussed in (4).
On (3): Also correct.
I add that I don't like GWPF either (or any group that breaks the law and persistently lies about facts relating to the global warming threat - See one of Lord Lawson's lies made his speech to the House of Lords at end of this post. England is like the US: A member of the legislature can say anything he likes or even read book, while he has the "floor" of the chamber. A current Republican presidential candidate read Green Eggs and Ham etc. for several hours in the US House of Representatives as he did not like something that would pass - had majority support.)

On (4) But there is a legal basis. Lord Lawson was breaking the laws relating to what charities can not do (and taking a tax deduction for it too!). England has busted up his "charity" now. I am sort of glad the complaint against GWPF that Bob Ward, head of policy at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute, was made back in June 2013. Because now Ward's complaint that GWPF was not a charity, but a front for Lord Lawson political support of the coal industry (and other large wealthy emitters of CO2) has been ruled valid.

{30 September 2014}An educational charity set up by former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson has breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage.

Lord Lawson is a well-known climate sceptic. He has previously called the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – an authoritative gathering of scientists – “alarmist”. He also labelled as “wrong-headed” the ground-breaking Kyoto Protocol of 1997, in which governments around the world pledged to cut carbon emissions.

The Commission said that “taken as a whole, it was difficult not to form the conclusion that the publications and postings on the charity’s website promoted a particular position on global warming. The website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments. The promotion of a particular view or position* would not equate to education,” the commission added.

* Ergo: GWPF is not a charity, but an Anti- AGW group lobbying to oppose restricitions on CO2 release, that would be financially damaging to their very rich members. One, Michael Hintze. who admitted his support for the GWPF is a multi-billionaire. Two others are: Neil Record, the founding chairman of a currency management company Record, and Lord Nigel Vinson, a wealthy industrialist.

On (5): I got a date wrong, but was 100% correct on ALL the other facts. I. e. the GWPF charity was an illegal front for a group of very wealthy people who stood to lose a lot of money if the carbon tax legistaion passed. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE BEEN "PLAYED." and many other "deniers" who swallow, hook, line and sinker, the anti-AGW propaganda, that the very rich can pay for, trying not to lose large sums of money, if they can no longer rape the environment. I. e.
Pollute water supplies, release more CO2 every year, kill much of the life in the oceans by pH changes, etc.

Here is how Lord Lawson looked after the ruling he had broken the law - had to pay back the tax deduction he took as GWPF was not a charity, but his Political Action group, resisting restrictions on CO2 release.

Not smiling as he was before in photo of post 2331.

In one of these lies, Lord Lawson claimed in the House of Lords, that “the {British} Treasury has estimated that the carbon floor price [tax on major carbon dioxide emitters] alone will lead to an increase in electricity prices of between 60 and 70 per cent by 2030”.
The truth is: the Treasury’s website indicated at the time that the average household energy bill would be between 3 and 7 per cent LOWER in 2030.

I expect political leaders to lie, but it is sad when qualified scientists like, scientist Wei-Hock and Soon become prostitutes for the rich and powerful - publish lies.

 

[Photizo]

You can be sure that his hand-picked five "researchers" will report they found the temperature rise has been falsely increased, by adjusting the data.

I'm sure of this: Man is a liar and whatever comes from him is contaminated. The best we can hope for is a very distant approximation to truth. That is why discernment and honesty with oneself--to the extent that is possible--is so crucial.

 

[sculptor]

I'm sure of this: Man is a liar ... .

That's a tad harsh dad.
All men? All of the time?

Quite often, though, I've seen people get invested in a project or idea, and alter their perceptions of reality to more closely support their preconceptions.
Fudging data, is just the radical expression of that.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I'm sure of this: Man is a liar and whatever comes from him is contaminated.

to piggy back on what Sculptor said

That's a tad harsh dad.
All men? All of the time?

: not ALL men are liars
perhaps in your neck of the woods, they are... perhaps most in politics are... definitely in national politics...
but not ALL men lie

but
all liars will try to transfer their personal inadequacies to others so that they do not have to face the music alone
(what is that old adage: "there is comfort in the company of others" ??)

 

[Photizo]

to piggy back on what Sculptor said
: not ALL men are liars
perhaps in your neck of the woods, they are... perhaps most in politics are... definitely in national politics...
but not ALL men lie

but
all liars will try to transfer their personal inadequacies to others so that they do not have to face the music alone
(what is that old adage: "there is comfort in the company of others" ??)

False. All mankind are liars. This includes you by definition--and by declaration. ^

 

[Photizo]

All men?

All. What has harshness to do with it?-- other than to drive the truth further away