• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming Scare - Past Tense

RickJames3000 said:
I didn't insult you. It's interesting to see the lengths you'll go to justify your arrogance.
Click to expand...

This thread did not represent my best work and for that I apologize. Your easy assumption of base motives among skeptics is unfair and drives me crazy, but it's no excuse for incivility in reply. I will try to do better next time.
 
Jack Hays said:
This thread did not represent my best work and for that I apologize. Your easy assumption of base motives among skeptics is unfair and drives me crazy, but it's no excuse for incivility in reply. I will try to do better next time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. If it means anything to you, I am better informed now.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Have you? Please provide your source for that. I believe the Koch Bros. are neither members of nor regular contributors to Heartland Institute nor are any other persons or organizations associated with the Koch Bros. In 2012, Heartland did receive $25,000 from the Koch Bros. to support Heartland's work in promoting free market solutions for healthcare and that had absolutely nothing to do with climate change research. That is the only donation they have received from the Koch Bros. or anybody associated with them. Heartland's total budget is $7 million.
Click to expand...

From the link I quoted above to connect the Kochs to Heartand:

"The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with," the document said."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
 
vesper said:
You and I both know what all this was about from the beginning. They almost got away with it. Would it surprise you those who are behind the whole global warming agenda are the same people behind all the unrest in our society from silencing free speech on campuses to BLM and racial tensions to tearing down our police and other institutions in this country? They have an agenda alright. It's anti-American.
Click to expand...

And just today, it has come out that the NOAA has been purposely manipulating the data to hide pause in warming.
 
RickJames3000 said:
From the link I quoted above to connect the Kochs to Heartand:

"The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with," the document said."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
Click to expand...

Anonymous donor? An unnamed foundation associated with the Koch Bros? Come on. How vague can you get in a smear piece. This is the kind of journalism that drives me up the wall, not only for its blatant and obvious dishonesty, but because of how many fanatics cite it as fact.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Anonymous donor? An unnamed foundation associated with the Koch Bros? Come on. How vague can you get in a smear piece. This is the kind of journalism that drives me up the wall, not only for its blatant and obvious dishonesty, but because of how many fanatics cite it as fact.
Click to expand...

When you refuse to reveal your funding streams out of fear of exposing your donors, you leave yourself open to the allegations of anonymous sources. Perhaps Heartland should be more forthcoming about whose interests they represent.
 
RickJames3000 said:
When you refuse to reveal your funding streams out of fear of exposing your donors, you leave yourself open to the allegations of anonymous sources. Perhaps Heartland should be more forthcoming about whose interests they represent.
Click to expand...

Who has refused to reveal their funding? Not Heartland. But you take a vague accusation from a strong pro global warming source who did not name the foundation. Why wouldn't they name it if they knew their insinuation was accurate? The fact that they didn't shows strong possibility of information intended to sway the gullible but without any substance of fact.
 
RickJames3000 said:
When you refuse to reveal your funding streams out of fear of exposing your donors, you leave yourself open to the allegations of anonymous sources. Perhaps Heartland should be more forthcoming about whose interests they represent.
Click to expand...

You also legitimize idiots if you address every lie.
 
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
Click to expand...

NOAA Whistleblower reveals ?Pausebuster? scandal – Study ‘exaggerated global warming…& timed to influence’ UN agreement | Climate Depot
 
ObamacareFail said:
And just today, it has come out that the NOAA has been purposely manipulating the data to hide pause in warming.
Click to expand...

That certainly seems to be the case via a very recent congressional hearing:
https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

So, with the climate-gate scandals continuing to amount, and now extending into a U.S. government agency itself, how much longer will it take to convince the pro-global warming people that their pro-global warming scientific heroes are either being paid to promote global warming or that the skeptics have a valid reason to be skeptics?

And for the cognizantly challenged, those 'scientists' who insist that draconian measures are necessary to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to combat global warming are really challenged to explain why global warming has slowed and in many cases stopped even though CO2 levels continue to rise.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You also legitimize idiots if you address every lie.
Click to expand...

I feel like you'd be more in danger of legitimizing idiots by leaving the lies unchallenged.
But I really don't see how your response applies here.

In your opinion, why is the Guardian UK lying about this?
 
RickJames3000 said:
I feel like you'd be more in danger of legitimizing idiots by leaving the lies unchallenged.
But I really don't see how your response applies here.

In your opinion, why is the Guardian UK lying about this?
Click to expand...

I don't know why they are lying. You would have to ask them.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Who has refused to reveal their funding? Not Heartland. But you take a vague accusation from a strong pro global warming source who did not name the foundation. Why wouldn't they name it if they knew their insinuation was accurate? The fact that they didn't shows strong possibility of information intended to sway the gullible but without any substance of fact.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

"The Heartland Institute no longer discloses its funding sources, stating that it had ended its practice of donor transparency after experiencing the organized harassment of its donors"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
 
bubbabgone said:
NOAA Whistleblower reveals ?Pausebuster? scandal – Study ‘exaggerated global warming…& timed to influence’ UN agreement | Climate Depot
Click to expand...
I always thought the Karl, et al 2015 paper was odd, in that it compared times frames the earlier studies did not.
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science
As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows that the trend over the period 1950–1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C decade−1, which is virtually indistinguishable from the trend over the period 2000–2014 (0.116°C decade−1).
Click to expand...
The problem with this statement is it contrasts greatly with the other stated periods of the observed warming.
Global warming (GISS)from 1950 to roughly 1978 was almost ZERO, The period that caused the concern has been stated as 1978 to 1998.
To average in 28 years of ZERO increase will flatten the per decade rate of the earlier period.
If we took the 5 year average in 1978 (.006) to the 2000 5 year average (.46) we get a per decade rate of .206 C per decade.
The 5 year average from 2000 to 2015 was .14 C per decade. (Delta .21C over 1.5 decades)
So there is indeed a noticeable change in slope.
Changing the slope of the "before" line by including a longer period of zero warming, just demonstrates that
the long term rate of warming is lower than expected, and not very alarming!
 
RickJames3000 said:
Incorrect.

"The Heartland Institute no longer discloses its funding sources, stating that it had ended its practice of donor transparency after experiencing the organized harassment of its donors"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
Click to expand...

So how does "The Guardian" or anybody else have any clue who those donors are? What source are you and other anti-Heartland Institute using to make your accusations?

I can certainly understand their reasoning in this regard given the hatefulness and hysteria we witness from the left everyday these days. Nevertheless, as a not-for-profit organization they do have to file a public disclosure form of their funding sources every single year as well as include a list of their sources of income every year on their taxes. Even filing our taxes for our piddling little retirement income, I have to do that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
So how does "The Guardian" or anybody else have any clue who those donors are? What source are you and other anti-Heartland Institute using to make your accusations?

I can certainly understand their reasoning in this regard given the hatefulness and hysteria we witness from the left everyday these days. Nevertheless, as a not-for-profit organization they do have to file a public disclosure form of their funding sources every single year as well as include a list of their sources of income every year on their taxes. Even filing our taxes for our piddling little retirement income, I have to do that.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in going in circles with you anymore.
Chase your own tail.
 
Goshin said:
Is there climate change? Yes there is. We know from history, archeology and ice cores that the climate has always changed, sometimes drastically, and did so long before humans.

Is current climate change primarily human-driven? Debatable. I've read a number of scholarly works on both sides of this issue, and while I concede some possibility it is so, I also see plenty of room for legitimate skepticism.

Does current climate change constitute an existential threat to humanity? I seriously doubt this. Science shows there have been periods in pre-history when the Earth was considerably warmer with much higher atmospheric carbon than at present, and that far from being times of mass die-off these were periods when life flourished. Furthermore the planetary biosphere has shown considerable self-regulating ability as regards to maintaining life-supporting conditions.


If #1-3 are all true, can humanity do anything to stop it? In theory, there might be a slim chance... but in practice, no. Most anti-AGW schemes involve massive restructuring of our society and civilization in ways likely to provoke economic disaster, and the political will does not exist at this time to engage in such actions. In particular, developing 3rd world nations are unwilling or unable to comply with the required actions, and first-world governments are unwilling to risk the massive loss of revenue and political fallout. In short if #1-3 are all true we're forked... but I decline to worry about it as I find #3 improbable and #2 open to question.
Click to expand...

Yes.

The hideous part is that like all mis-used science it is extremely powerful and has and is causing massive suffering.

Today the poor of the world are being starved slowly, quietly and constantly off camera to the tune of, my guess, 20 million per year dying as a result of the use of food as fuel. Well done the Green movement. The additional effects of strangling the economic growth of these people by forcing them to pay 30% to 70% more for their basic food than they should is even more dreadful.
 
longview said:
I always thought the Karl, et al 2015 paper was odd, in that it compared times frames the earlier studies did not.
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science

The problem with this statement is it contrasts greatly with the other stated periods of the observed warming.
Global warming (GISS)from 1950 to roughly 1978 was almost ZERO, The period that caused the concern has been stated as 1978 to 1998.
To average in 28 years of ZERO increase will flatten the per decade rate of the earlier period.
If we took the 5 year average in 1978 (.006) to the 2000 5 year average (.46) we get a per decade rate of .206 C per decade.
The 5 year average from 2000 to 2015 was .14 C per decade. (Delta .21C over 1.5 decades)
So there is indeed a noticeable change in slope.
Changing the slope of the "before" line by including a longer period of zero warming, just demonstrates that
the long term rate of warming is lower than expected, and not very alarming!
Click to expand...

Playing with data, time frames, graphs, etc. is unfortunate and not unusual.

Curry was warning about Karl's paper when first announced.
Pity it took over 1 1/2 years to confirm her and others' suspicions.
Given the circumstances, it was clearly politically driven so in that sense it gives new meaning to the term Political Science.

This is what happens when a hypothesis is assumed to be fact and science sets out to prove it using unending public funding.
 
bubbabgone said:
Well we know where the alarmists get their funding, don't we.
Click to expand...

It's so ignorant and hypocritical of these guys criticizing funding sources, when the AGW funding is the most corrupt of them all.
 
Quaestio said:
How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study | Science | AAAS
Click to expand...

"Science" is a very alarmist friendly mag and online arm. How do we know this?
By the attention they pay (make that don't pay) to subjects that don't satisfy the party line.

How else? Like this from your link ...

" ... the prominent blog of Judith Curry, a climate researcher who recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and has walked the line between science and climate contrarians over the past decade. Bates’s complaints were also the centerpiece of a story published Sunday by David Rose of the United Kingdom’s The Mail on Sunday, a tabloid, which claimed that national leaders “were strongly influenced” by the “flawed NOAA study” as they finalized the 2015 Paris climate agreement."

Can't tell where "Science" coming from, nosiree.

As already mentioned, Curry and others noted there were problems with Karl's study years ago when it first came out.
When someone adjusts historic data (you know ... like the disappearing MWP & LIA) to comply with the mission it would have been a red flag to most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom