Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize those are mock ups, not actual observed data. They are predictions and assumptions, assumption might I had to which have consistently been shown false and they keep having to update them.
Remember all the predictions from 10 years ago? You know, sea ice would be gone in 2010 and the sea levels would rise several meters, etc...
Did they happen? Nope... Sure is a travesty.
*chuckle*
Seriously, start reading rather than parroting and maybe you might learn something.
Ignore? Really? I find that odd considering that you dismissed all of my data provided even though they were links directly to the reporting agencies to which you swoon over.
You are the one who refuses to accept the raw data.
I doubt you even realize that NASA doesn't even go out to their stations to verify and validate? I bet you also didn't know that of their sea ice data, it is entirely done from satellite and the rest "speculated" at with nifty special-ed calculations? (Unlike DMI who actually visit their monitoring stations regularly)
I bet you were unaware of the problems this has caused them when they make their nifty little grid cells to which blanket everything red because of the lack of UHI adjustments they use and the heavy weight they put on stations with higher averages. (nothing like seeing a bright red spot surrounded by cold, but hot spot is weighted to fill in the gaps between stations, /smacks head)
Oh no, I bet you didn't know that they use color schemes that favor a warmer look and are contrary to common color scale representation? (SST maps that have bright yellow as "normal" making the oceans appear visually as if they are somehow above normal).
But you go ahead and act smug defending someones post who provided nothing but prediction maps of events that have not happened and contain no proper scientific support to suggest they will.
personal attacks aside- you have yet to provide proof that the data collected by the NOAA, & NASA is 'phony' or inaccurate.
The allegations you make against NASA, NOAA and many other august Academic organizations as providing 'spurious' data and observations is unfounded - and easily reminds one an extreme political echo chamber - Which includes anti government paranoia and 'black helicopters' lurking in the might.
personal attacks aside- you have yet to provide proof that the data collected by the NOAA, & NASA is 'phony' or inaccurate.
I have pointed out many issues with their claims. I just mentioned several of them. They aren't "smoking guns" of lying and deceit, rather that are unprofessional and show a leaning to a specific conclusion.
I have shown you problems with their grid cell process and how it leans to a warming bias several posts ago. I explained the problems with their "tone" concerning what they report and how which shows an odd leaning to a conclusion and consistent statements occurrence (looking to models as if they are fact) to which they have to keep back stepping on because they haven't come to pass.
What I have shown is simply... uncertainty on their part. And be it deliberate or through error, they have many problems with their data and methods to which they claim supports their willing proclamations of result.
That is all anyone has to show when it concerns the science. You see, we don't have to provide a case where we mount an enormous amount of evidence to show something incorrect. All we have to do is point out one little itty bitty problem with their data, methodology, etc... and if they can't properly account for it and explain it, then... well.. they have to scrap their hypothesis and start over with a better one.
You seem to be under the impression that I have to prove them wrong, but they have to prove that their hypothesis passes ALL tests. Not some, not most, but ALL. That is how it how it works. That is how a hypothesis becomes a theory and not just a collection of would be correlations to which any person with a slick tongue can make "appear" convincing. That would be what is done in politics, something many of your heroes spend a lot of time in. Now why is that? Maybe you can explain that one to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93
The allegations you make against NASA, NOAA and many other august Academic organizations as providing 'spurious' data and observations is unfounded - and easily reminds one an extreme political echo chamber - Which includes anti government paranoia and 'black helicopters' lurking in the might.
You can rubber stamp that statement all you like, but the fact is...
Your movement is dying. Not because of politics, not because of devious campaigns to libel and slander the issue, but because a bunch of people put their own personal opinion and their political motivations before that of proper scientific process. Because of this, they are being found for the short cuts they took, poor practices they applied, and the bad behavior they displayed to those who were attempting to apply proper due diligence.
The true travesty of this issue is that a new field to which could have provided a lot of useful information and opened up a new area of exploration has been hijacked by political monkeys and fanatical activists to which the damage they may have done may take years to repair. Its a loss for science in the extreme.
You say, Normander that NASA & NOAA have slick tongues? And they have unreliable data? And the same old broken record and misinformation about 'Uncertain claims' and the misuse of the Scientific method - to somehow mislead the public. Where have I heard this before? Well here from you - but how about such well enlightened luminaries like Steve Doocy--'The Weather Guy'- or Rush Limbaugh- immensely well qualified to discuss climate science. Should we also include the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr Inhofe? Of course we include Anthony Watts, Steve Goddard, Roy Spencer, John Cristy---- the last 4 having not the spotlight of those on certain radio and TV outlets.
Hmm- these days considering the preponderance evidence that is being assimilated by a plethora of independent sources nationally and globally- that dispute these far fetched 'conspiracy theories' of yes black helicopters and people hiding in the trees- the only person guilty of providing misinformation is from Fox News (hardly fair and balanced) Rush Limbaugh, and the internet group of skeptics that have I named above who have been discredited by real scientists and scientific organizations from the National Academy of Sciences to the Yale Energy & Climate Institute to The United States Global Change Research Program- credibility to deniers and skeptics who have been discredited are given 'airtime' by a media that does not understand the concept of fair and balanced as it relates to science. (the two are not connected) during research into a cure for polio was the media giving those who said a cure was impossible 'fair and balanced rebuttal? Or the same could have been said about the Manhattan Project.
The story of Climategate begins and ends with the sordid tale of dirtier and dirtier—of how Big Oil and Coal sold (and continue to sell) themselves as environmentally green and squeaky clean, and of how the mainstream media ate the whole thing up. Having done that, the media then dutifully passed the “news” on to “consumers,” who also bought it—and, of course, ate it up. Let’s see how, in not much more than about 1500 words (comprising exactly 33 sentences arranged in 12 paragraphs) of detergent strength, we can compress the story into an account both as slamming and as damning as it needs to be to do full justice to the “dirt.” Climategate, as it turns out, is only the biggest heap of media-spun denialist nonsense in the dirty-energy dogpile-----
_____________________________________
With the threat of CO2-driven climate change beginning to be widely recognized in the late 1980s, the fossil-fuel industry faced the question of how to continue doing “business as usual” while still selling itself as ethically oriented and environmentally responsible. Taking hints (and actually the entire playbook) from the tobacco industry’s long and (it seemed at the time) successful war of denial and cover-up against the charge that its products were addictive and responsible for lung cancer, heart disease, and shortened life spans among smokers, Big Oil and Coal realized that the standard industry practice of “Pollute now, pay later—and hopefully never” would work much more reliably if you could convince the public that “pollution” isn’t actually pollution or (failing that) at least raise enough doubt about the issue to have people scratching their heads.
Thus was born the best-organized and -funded campaign of disinformation, denial, deceit, and dirty tricks the world has ever seen, designed to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and hide the truth about global warming—a truth that even the fossil-fuel industry’s own scientists knew. Major planks in this campaign were that carbon dioxide was blameless, that the scientific evidence for man-made warming was weak and contradictory at best, and—as deceptive a lie as any ever told—that the climate was always changing and consequently that we should just get used to it. A perennial buzz saw was that humans were too small to affect anything as large as the earth, such an idea being said to represent hubris: humans lack the power to change climate, the public was told.
The oil-industry attack on the anthropogenic-warming idea resembled nothing so much as a saturation-bombing campaign. Working through a wide variety of spokespeople and bullhorns including paid and unpaid industry boosters, Right-wing political leaders, influential “public personalities,” media operatives, conservative pundits, armies of everyday bloggers, outright dupes, contrarian “scientists” of questionable credentials and/or motives, PR spinmeisters, well-paid congressional lobbyists, and ExxonMobil-funded conservative “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute, the industry game plan called for nonstop airing of these and similar denier “talking points,” which were typically packaged for convenient delivery as sound bytes (“Global warming science is junk science!!!” and “Carbon dioxide—they call it pollution, we call it life!”) intended for repetition ad infinitum—recalling the ‘principle of the lie’ enunciated by Joseph Goebbels to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s: “if a lie, no matter how unbelievable, is repeated often enough, it will be believed.”
To carry the lie to the ends of the earth, oil industry-supported propaganda of the most egregious kind (mostly mindless drivel but often masquerading as rational skepticism and even serious science in its own right) was blared out over the years from countless media, academic, and government sources. These include or included the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post columnist George F. Will, the Washington D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fox News, conservative leaders in Congress, and the Bush White House. Since such disinformation was part and parcel of an aggressive campaign to justify and promote the addition to the global atmosphere of what the U.S. EPA now classifies as a dangerous global pollutant—viz. fossilized carbon—its intentional airing is more or less the moral equivalent of advising mothers to feed cyanide to their babies to improve the little ones’ health.
The most brazen single example of oil industry deceit was that the “CO2 greenhouse effect” was an invention out of whole cloth—something pulled out of a hat quite recently and thus entirely without scientific merit or support—sort of like flying saucers or teleportation. To use a metaphor, essentially the main line of industry defense against the charge of callously enriching itself by knowingly causing grave long-term environmental harm was to paint itself as the victim—arguing that CO2, the major by-product of fossil-fuel burning, was being made the fall guy in a nonexistent crime called “global warming” for the purpose of running a colossal scam, and that anybody who fell for it was a fool.
That the deception largely succeeded was due to the credulousness and scientific illiteracy of a majority of the public in the United States, where a rising anti-science trend had become dramatically apparent by about 1980 and most of the media, itself largely ignorant of science save for a few reporters and editors who have since been fired, was only too happy to feed the trend.
That ignominious cultural slide into what can only be termed ‘bottomless ignorance and stupidity’ has been aptly named “the dumbing-down of America,” and it made the fossil-fuel industry’s job of selling itself (the hungry fox) as a reliable guard for the nation’s and the world’s environment (the unprotected henhouse) vastly easier. In order to raid the henhouse as freely as it wished, the industry needed to get carbon dioxide off the hook and above all prevent its being officially classified as a dangerous pollutant, which would subject it to government regulation (i.e., taxation and/or other controls) at Big Oil and Coal’s expense. The nation’s environmental cops—from the U.S. Attorney General to the EPA itself—had to be kept off Big Oil and Coal’s case. The disinformation campaign’s unceasing “strategy of denial” was tailored and fine-tuned accordingly.
The vast scope of this strategy becomes apparent once we realize that global-warming denial is much more than a denial of the facts as known to science. From the first, it was also a form of psychological warfare intended to spread damaging lies and manufacture a false social and political reality. This included the invention of conspiracies and the imputation of underhanded motives where none existed. In this war of innuendo and insinuation, as shameless as it was ruthless, ExxonMobil and its industry partners worked tirelessly behind the scenes to persuade a majority of the public that the spread of “global warming alarmism” represented a left-wing conspiracy between socialists, one-worlders, and scientists to destroy national sovereignty and bring nations under U.N. control. A key tactic all along was to seize every opportunity to smear the reputations of leading scientists, making it appear that there was a scientific conspiracy to overstate the case for human-caused global warming and even to falsify data outright. If the so-called Climategate scandal had not happened, it would have been necessary to invent it—which of course is exactly why it WAS invented. Its existence was solely a product of clever PR-style spin—the smoke-and-mirrors manipulation of easily-swayed public opinion to make it appear that something was in the stolen e-mails that wasn’t, eliciting a response akin to the mindless stampeding of bulls.
The media, for its part, ever beholden for revenue to industry advertisers (including, needless to say, the fossil-fuel giants) and obsessed with sensationalism in news reporting—worse yet, hiding behind a journalistic ethic of fairness to create the illusion of “balance” in its actually very unbalanced presentations of the global warming story—was an all-too-willing accomplice in the perpetuation of anti-science drivel and denialist nonsense. “Climategate” was simply the most spectacular example of the lights going out in the media’s collective brain—a media power-failure by any definition. Brown-out, perhaps?
Most damaging of all, the media continued to convey the impression of continuing disagreement among experts long after the scientific controversy over global warming had been conclusively settled. Much of the media still reads by this same playbook, dimming the prospects for the public’s getting a straight story about global warming anytime soon—before, that is, the end has come for very many of those in the line of fire, meaning along vulnerable coasts and in interior regions prone to the global-warming era’s increasingly extreme storms, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires.
The truth, of course, will eventually “out.” But waiting for that to “just happen” the way lightning strikes or hurricanes form condemns us to wait until civilization itself is crumbling before the onslaught of warming’s effects. The historic Charney Report, titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,” issued in 1979 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, soberly summed up the global-warming threat in these words: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible…. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”
Global warming deniers and skeptics, as clever but underhanded—even morally contemptible—apologists for the fossil-fuel industry, have perpetually staked their “reputation” (if that is the right word) on the claim that carbon dioxide is climatically unimportant—as such, easily trumped by minor “factors” such as the sun and natural variability. The facts as known to science are otherwise: the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide is and always has been of fundamental importance to climate and life, helping to shape the earth as we know it. The planet is in the process of being re-shaped now, and the great question is whether the much hotter Earth that our descendants will inherit is one that will be hospitable to humans at all.
Reporting from Washington — A group of international investors responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets called Tuesday for the world's nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face economic disruptions worse than the global recession of the last two years.
Reporting from Washington — A group of international investors responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets called Tuesday for the world's nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face economic disruptions worse than the global recession of the last two years.
Never mind the fact that these insane climate change policies ARE what is destroying economies in the first place. These thugs want to dictate this upon the world so they can profit from their climate change schemes. They would make trillions from this redistribution scheme and it would be the populations of the world to which would be under the foot of their fascist dictation.
Never mind the fact that these insane climate change policies ARE what is destroying economies in the first place. These thugs want to dictate this upon the world so they can profit from their climate change schemes. They would make trillions from this redistribution scheme and it would be the populations of the world to which would be under the foot of their fascist dictation.
My thoughts exactly the moment I read the post. But I felt no need to post right away because I knew that you would articulate it better than I. And sure enough....
The extortion term is perfect.
Shelby continues to serve up fast balls in the center of the strike zone despite the fact that she knows as well as anyone that the ball is going to sail over the 420' mark in center. Time after time after time. Sad, really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
