Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 275
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 12 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)


Actually it wouldnt be surprising for a dip in the suns output to coincide with the temperature overall continuing to increase anyway


Yes good point when you stop putting energy into a system it would indeed not be surprising to see it cool down over a 30 year period when it is receiving less heat and we would expect it to heat up


Actually we would, thats kind of what a "lag" means

The seas core stores heat but and theres a delay between drops or rises in the seas core temperature influencing surface temperature

So we would expect a cooling core to not influence the surface temperature for a period of time afterwards and the same would apply to a warming core

And even then thats just one factor, So with a huge variety of both positive and negative drivers all working to varied time frames and cycles with either instantaneous effects or time delayed ones when one factor increases or decreases what net effect that would have cant be ascertained with any degree of certainty until the entire system is fully and meticulously understood. Which is a long way off from where we are now

So unless our climate only had the sun and CO2 having ANY effect on the climate direct and exact mirroring would be pretty much non existent. And the more things with a wider variety of cycles and lags you introduce the less clear the consistency you will get

Start to blend in reciprocal cumulative effects of multiple drivers and counter productive cummulative effects of multiple drivers and you have something heading towards chaos theory where 9 times out of 1o an increase in something might be mirrored and the 10th time it wont because several other drivers were at different points in their cycles or vice versa


Wow perhaps you could give us a link so we could see this peeer rewviwed paper that said

Solar activity is a big climate driver
It might be positive or negative
We don’t really understand enough about the mechanism to explain it
It is shame you don’t get science as that is actually hilariously funny – How would that get published? its just a paper that shrugs and goes I don’t know what solar flares do , how it does what it does or what the consequences would be or how it works – proper research there eh Mike :really really rolls eyes:


yeah sure, well the NASA link at least, seeing as its them that discovered it

I didnt realise you'd broken all your fingers and were incapable of doing so yourself

I'd suggest asking someone else though when you need your arse wiping though coz I'm busy that day

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html

Is nasa "proper" enough research for ya?

And forgive me if I avoid wiki links seeing as its a very Pro AGW site and therefore a bit like asking the Pope about muslims really, so hardly a good place for objectivity or balance really
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 276
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 7:58:55 PM

For every unit of CO2 you need 1 atom of Carbon and 2 atoms of Oxygen


But its such a miniscule amount comparatively that it cant really make much difference surely?

After all we are only talking about an extra 100 parts per million so that would mean 200 parts per million extra of oxygen being tied up in CO2 molecules

And forget the ice for a minute. The ocean is one of the largest CO2 repositories and it holds less the warmer it gets

So as the climate was already in the process of warming the sea would after the fact start to release CO2 anyway. So we would need to remove however many PPM of that CO2 was caused by warming oceans, then theres deforestation, changes in land use and various other reasons there would be more CO2 in the air all of which would need to be removed from that 100 PPM before we are left purely with the fossil fuel man made component

Once we have that exact percentage we can then work out what percentage of any claimed warming is then due to the fossil fuel CO2 component

Which is when we would actually have some idea of how much fuss it actually deserves

After all we have many climate drivers. And only a relatively small increase in temperature

The 33% increase (total) of CO2 hasnt caused a 25% increase in temperature. So its not a linear relationship by any stretch of the imagination.

But suppose 1% increase in CO2 caused a .01% increase in temperature. If fossil fuel burning made up 10% of the total increase then it would only be causing 0.001% of the temperature increase

I'm fairly sure that methane is something like 5 times worse than CO2 as well, but I havent seen any money being spent on raking up rotting leaves in the autumn or the mass culling of termites who have have a much higher (and increasing) total mass than all humans on the planet (even including americans)

The laymans picture that is painted is pretty much along the lines that burning oil and coal alone is causing warming and thats why its the only thing being tackled

When more acurately its the only thing that can be taxed

Exactly what percentage of any claimed warming it accounts for seems to be obfuscated beyond belief
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 277
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/31/2011 5:02:09 AM
Firstly the CCX closing is fairly recent, and it doesnt negate that it DID turnover 15 trillion US dollars whilst in operation which DIDNT get siphoned off into "green" schemes

Had it never existed then your childish pouty comments might have had some relevance, but it did. And its infact not the ONLY carbon exchange scheme and many others including in the US are still thriving

It MIGHT be a sign they will all flounder and die now the CCX had keeled over. But the only reason it has failed is because politicians didnt manage to guarantee the gravy train quickly enough to sustain it. The fact also remains that cap and trade in the form of the CCX was simply clever manouvring to make fortunes from the green schemes they thought would be introduced

So its failing if anything is a good sign that the US government DIDNT manage to secure inane and pointless policies to support the vampirish practice of selling carbon credits despite all the AGW scaremongering that was trying to bring the legislation into place so that organisations like the CCX could milk money from economic system in huge quantities


Given what you post mike i would expect you to wipe my elbow


Given your usual level of childish snidey commentary I wouldnt have expected a "thank you" for providing the "imaginary link" you were incapable of googling all by yourself

But yeah gee its a shock, something so many think can only cause warming can also cause cooling too. Go figure

Kind of shows how little climate scientists actually "know" about the climate they claim to be experts on yet again
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 278
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/3/2012 3:19:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8JQixgj97g

Reasoned debate :)
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 279
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/3/2012 5:55:15 PM
Apologies for not randomly checking the status of every company in the world just on the offchance they "might" go belly up on a monthly basis. How selfish of me to sleep

As for the turnover, have to admit that sounded high when I wrote it, the 15 Trillion I think is the combined turnover of carbon trading as of a few years ago.

But I will have to find the name of another one now the CCX has selfishly closed down.

It still doesnt change the fact theyre pretty much all founded and funded by "greenies" and yet still make millionaires left right and centre and do little by comparison for the religion they claim to be so passionate about

And Obama did infact provide the funding for the CCX, he was the chairman of the organisation that gave it the funding to set up. He didnt give it them out of his own pocket. But then I didnt say he did, I just said he "gavc" it to the CCX.

And Al Gore was one of the founding financiers of the London version too

No point letting all that hard work scaremongering go without netting a fortune eh?



As for the next bits


The oceans are the Earth's largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2 increase were "natural", it would likely be coming from the oceans


I wasnt actually saying anything was "natural"

Irrespective of what is causing warming or whether its man made or natural warm water "allegedly" holds less CO2 than cold water

So the only reason the seas should be storing more CO2 is because their average temperatures have dropped as that makes them a more effective CO2 sink.

My point was simply that irrespective of the reasons the climate warmed up that would (should) then cause an increase in CO2 due to the oceans warming as a result

So that would add to the overall increase in CO2



then theres deforestation,



Which is man made


Some is, some isnt and some is man made but is claimed to be due to "green initiatives" and envirmentalists who think they have even a basic understanding of the ecosystem which it turns out they dont

But either way thats irrelevant where taxing fosil fuels is concerned though

ANY source of CO2 except fossil fuels needs to be removed from the CO2 increase whether its man made or not in order to see what percentage of that CO2 is from fossil fuels.



changes in land use



Which is man made again


Again some is, some isnt. The distribution of deserts, tundras and forests have been changing constantly since the planet had its first green shoot appear

But as with deforestation it would still need to be removed from the 100ppm before we can even begin to calculate what actual impact burning fossil fuels plays as a direct percentage of any claimed warming

So again, ANY CO2 contributions from ANY source other than burning fossil fuels irrespective of whether its man made or natural would need to be quantified and removed from the 100ppm


which are what exactly


Everything EXCEPT the burning of fossil fuels basically

ANYTHING

Throw breathing in if you want, seeing as the population is about the only thing with a curve that perfectly matches the increase in CO2 since the 1950s

Forest fires might be a good one too whether man made or natural.

But basically anything and everything that does give off CO2 either directly or indirectly except for the burning of fossil fuels

Thats pretty much the only way to figure out what percentage of the 100ppm IS caused by the burning of fossil fuels isnt it?

And without knowing that percentage you cant ascertain what percentage of any warming can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels

And without that you cant really decide how "scary" it is (obviously we would need to wait till some warming starts up again though)

That isnt a "thought experiemt" its basic maths. very basic maths infact

But maths that seems to be avoided in favour of obfuscation

Nobody, and I do mean absolutely nobody including the dissenting scientists is claiming CO2 isnt increasing, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

This point however tends to be conveniently ignored by "greenies if the church of AGW" so they can keep pointing out something that nobody is disagreeing with over and over and over ad nauseum

What IS being questioned and always has been isnt whether burning fosil fuels produces CO2, nor whether CO2 is increasing or even whether its a greenhouse gas. But what actual influence it has/is and will have overall in the planets ecosystem per each 20ppm rise as an example

Repeatedly stating the temperature has gone up X degrees in Y amount of years with an increase of Z ppm of CO2 is like saying 10 million people a day die so we should try and cure cancer

but without saying what percentage of that 10 million people actually died from cancer and what percentage died from other things


So all your figures in your thought experiment are wrong


Really? Which ones?

I said if we had a rise of 100 ppm of co2 we should see 200 ppm of Oxygen vanish from the system

Is that wrong?

I also said

"But suppose 1% increase in CO2 caused a .01% increase in temperature. If fossil fuel burning made up 10% of the total increase then it would only be causing 0.001% of the temperature increase"

And I'm pretty sure the maths is correct there too (0.01/10 = 0.001)

As those are the only mathematical claims made that a 10th of .01 is 0.001, as I was simply stating the relationship, not claiming those were the actual figures because as far as I'm aware nobody knows the "actual" figures. Or if they do they seem to keep it pretty quiet because its not quite as scary giving the actual fossil fuel component of the 100ppm rise rather than making it sound like its ALL from fossil fuels
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 280
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/5/2012 6:49:25 PM
I'm going to go with the notion that temperatures have risen a degree or so in the last measurable past.

we did it? don't know.

if we did it, or not, we are not about to fix it.......realistically, that is.

and, there isn't any reason to assume that nature keeps temperatures at a specific temperature.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 281
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/5/2012 10:16:51 PM

if we did it, or not, we are not about to fix it.......realistically, that is.

and, there isn't any reason to assume that nature keeps temperatures at a specific temperature.


The level of mercury in fish has risen dramatically in the last century. There's little doubt that human activity is the cause. Can we fix it? Certainly, if not quickly. The same could be said for acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, depletion of groundwater, destruction of old growth forests, and dramatically altering ecosystems across the globe.

So what rational reason is there to believe that all the science supporting the human role in climate is wrong? Or that we can't do anything about it? We make lakes out of rivers for our convenience. We remove mountains to get to the thin seams of coal in them. We do all sorts of intentional changes to the planet without shying away from them with a "we can't " attitude. What possible justification could there be for ignoring the serious consequences of impending global warming that will be many, many, times what we've seen so far?

Yes there are natural temperature fluctuations. There are also natural floods, but we do plenty to minimize their impacts. There is no rational reason NOT to take action to minimize our contribution to global warming. The costs will be many times offset by the benefits.

The appropriate discussion is not whether we have an impact or whether we can do anything about it, but rather how best to address the problem.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 282
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/5/2012 10:57:16 PM
it will obviously be too late to do anything about it, gw, when it is deemed serious enough to fix it, you see that, I hope.

the best china will do right now is build 'clean' coal power plants.
and a big country in n.a. is running trillion dollar deficits.

it's not a panic situation, where the oceans will rise overnight.

I still don't see WHY 'nature' 'rights' itself.

we should all make a hugely smaller footprint regardless.
but it's not going to happen through big gov.

we should compost [everything we can]
recycle
drive exceedingly less or non.
smaller houses [small is even better!]
etc.

gov are always reactionary.
but what they are really good at is taxing the hell out of us, and misdirecting the proceeds.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 283
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 8:36:55 AM

it will obviously be too late to do anything about it, gw, when it is deemed serious enough to fix it, you see that, I hope.

the best china will do right now is build 'clean' coal power plants.
and a big country in n.a. is running trillion dollar deficits.

I still don't see WHY 'nature' 'rights' itself.

we should all make a hugely smaller footprint regardless.
but it's not going to happen through big gov.


Your logic makes some sense, but not complete sense.

Global warming is not a matter of either it happens or it doesn't. It is already too late for us to reverse what we've already done, at least within a few centuries. But it is NEVER too late to minimize our impact and maximize the better practices we could adapt.

You're absolutely right that it takes an 'in your face' crisis for us to embrace a true sense of urgency, and you're also right that we can't simply rely on government to handle the problem.

But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do everything we can on every level, including government, to address the problem.

Look at the issue of safety as an example. I remember as a child standing between the seats of my parents VW bug on road trips. I had no child car seat. There were no shoulder straps or airbags in the car. Flat tires were common occurrences back then. Guard rails were far less common and often made out of wood that we might easily just bust right through. During that time workplace injuries and hazards were far greater than they are today.

Did we eliminate all those risks? Of course not. But we sure did minimize them, through a combination of regulation and education. Every time a new regulation was proposed there were howls of protest that we'd cripple the economy, put people out of work, and not make that much of a difference. But none of that came to pass and as a result we live and work in a much safer world today.

There are many, many financial analyses that show that taking the steps needed to shrink our carbon footprint will make us a dollar for every dollar spent, create jobs for every job lost, and that's BEFORE calculating in the direct costs of GW impacts from NOT doing anything about it.

No matter what the planet will still warm during the rest of this century. It's too late to fix that. But how MUCH it warms we very much can have an impact on, and hence the degree of crisis we may face. Government imposed sanctions have already proven successful in addressing many other environmental problems. Overall, our water and air quality in the U.S. is much better than it was when I was a child, even though there are many more of us living here. Cap and trade, which is only one of the potential tools to address climate change, was developed under the Reagan administration and made a big difference in reducing acid rain and the Ozone hole.

But government intervention is not THE answer. Just as we all take far more safety precautions in our daily lives than our parents and grandparents did, so too can each individual take steps to minimize our carbon footprint, and many of us do on the state, municipality, and personal level. That won't fix it, but it sure will make a difference.

None of us are perfect, and we won't ever be, but we CAN continue to strive to improve our actions to be better stewards of the only planet we have to call home. It only makes sense.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 284
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 9:12:18 AM


Global warming is not a matter of either it happens or it doesn't. It is already too late for us to reverse what we've already done, at least within a few centuries. But it is NEVER too late to minimize our impact and maximize the better practices we could adapt.


I don't understand. The goal has been to reduce the impact through better practices because it is too late. If we did that then we could reduce the impact in a few centuries. Is that correct or not?

I kept asking for some form of accepted fact that reducing it would have an impact and the response back was that we haven't done it so it cant be proved.

We have done it. I found a report earlier that showed that the UK had steady reductions. Here is the US version showing very significant strides.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html#comparison.

No success will ever be good enough. Which is how you know the debate isn't a debate.

The problem is that Global Warming advocacy cannot accept the risk of positive results. It is against the mindset agenda that consumerism is evil, that equality is achieved by lowering standards and through redistribution, and that fear is the shortest path to that end.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 285
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 11:16:21 AM

ah you were just warming up for this mish mash and mud slinging as you dont actually have any evidence or a point to make.


Yep, thats it. I bet you wouldn't be surprised to know that I work for a right wing media company!!! hahahaha
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 286
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 11:35:23 AM

I don't understand. The goal has been to reduce the impact through better practices because it is too late. If we did that then we could reduce the impact in a few centuries. Is that correct or not?


It is not.

It's too late to reverse the impacts we've already had. It's NOT too late to minimize the impacts we've yet to create. While our choices now will indeed still be noticed a couple of centuries from now, they'll also be noticed in the next few decades.

What you will NOT see is one year's worth of changed practices resulting in immediate improvements that year or the next. That's not how it works. When it comes to global climate, a decade is about as small of a meaningful unit as you can use, and even that is stretching it.

By your logic Europe should do nothing about their economic woes because they're already happening, and nothing can undo what's already happened. Likewise all solutions involve some level of hardship, so would it be better to guarantee hardship for all or minimize hardship for as many as possible for as short of a time as possible?

Likewise my safety example. We've taken great strides to improve safety practices over the course of my lifetime. Should we therefore stop worrying about safety, or should safety ALWAYS be a concern, and we ALWAYS look for ways to improve our safety practices?

A healthy environment is essential to human survival and quality of life. We should ALWAYS consider environmental impacts of everything we do, and always seek to minimize negative consequences of our actions. We'll never be perfect, never good enough, but always better than if we paid no heed to environmental concerns. This is no different than our approach to economics, safety, living peacefully, minimizing civil rights abuses, and pretty much everything else we consider important in our lives.

Global warming is happening, to a large part due to human activities. Choices we make today will impact many generations to come. There is NO good reason not to do all we can to make good choices.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 287
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 12:03:49 PM

There is NO good reason not to do all we can to make good choices.


People are trying. They are not ignoring it. Can't they be given some level of credit?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 288
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 1:25:34 PM

People are trying. They are not ignoring it. Can't they be given some level of credit?


Yes they are trying, and those who do get credit from the likes of me and any others who are paying attention.

What frustrates us, though, is the great number of people who think they know science better than scientists do, think there really isn't a problem or that there's no way human activity could impact the climate.

Those people actively resist not only any encouragement for THEM to change their practices, but they also deride and resist any efforts by others to do so.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 289
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/6/2012 2:44:10 PM

Those people actively resist not only any encouragement for THEM to change their practices, but they also deride and resist any efforts by others to do so.


The frustration only sounds like a great number of people that think they know science better. It is actually a great number of people that inherently distrust agendas. That isn't going to change.

In CA, "resistance is futile' regulations are pretty much wiping out our entire economy and have not made anything better and the regulations keep getting stricter and more punishing.

So, your frustration is not greater. It's probably about equal. I wouldn't expect it to get any better any time soon. It was turned into a political issue. Regardless of what it should be. So, these are the consequences of that.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 290
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 1/11/2012 11:53:37 PM
I have no idea if temps have risen a degree naturally, by us, or at all.

but I do think that this earth shouldn't have to bare the brunt of so much of our wastefulness.

how many of us are going to really do at least a little bit about that?

not many, I think.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 291
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/25/2012 8:18:23 PM
This just in:


Leaks show how think tank tries to shape climate teaching

WASHINGTON – Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

More than $14 million of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man, according to the leaked documents prepared for a meeting of the group's board.

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change.

Several of its documents were leaked last week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren't accurate, but declined to be more specific.

As detailed in the papers, Heartland's plans for this year included paying an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach school children that mainstream global warming science is in dispute, even though it's accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization.

It also pays prominent global warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature records website.

The documents show how heavily Heartland relies on a single person it identified only as "Anonymous Donor." In the past six years, that donor has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue.

"The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland's president for a board meeting that took place on Jan. 17," Heartland said in a statement. "The authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed." The institute singled out one of the six documents — claiming to be a summary of efforts on the issue of global warming — as a fake.

Because Heartland was not specific about what was fake and what was real, The Associated Press attempted to verify independently key parts of separate budget and fundraising documents that were leaked.

The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.

David Wojick, a Virginia-based federal database contractor, said in an e-mail that the document was accurate about his project to put curriculum materials in schools that promote climate skepticism.

"My goal is to help them teach one of the greatest scientific debates in history," Wojick said. "This means teaching both sides of the science, more science, not less."

Five government and university climate scientists contacted said they were most disturbed by Wojick's project, fearing the teaching would be more propaganda rooted in politics than peer-reviewed science.

Businesses and other interests often offer free curriculum materials to financially strapped schools, hoping teachers will use them and help disseminate their views or promote their products.

Energy Department spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said Wojick's federal work has nothing to do with climate change and the agency maintains that global warming is real and manmade.

Heartland also planned to spend $210,000 to help Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas tour the nation to speak about municipal debt, according to one document. Pappas lost to Barack Obama in the 2004 Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Pappas confirmed this in a phone interview, saying what Heartland was doing was exposing a "financial tsunami" of municipal debt.

The leaked document also discusses a new million-dollar Heartland initiative to promote the ability of patients to use experimental drugs that have not yet received federal safety approval, and efforts to support embattled Wisconsin Republican leaders in "Operation Angry Badger." Those parts of the documents were not independently confirmed.

The documents also show Heartland has raised more than $2 million from large insurance companies and nearly half a million dollars from tobacco interests.

A person who emailed 15 media and bloggers as "Heartland insider" sent six different documents purporting to be from the libertarian think tank.

The insider then killed the e-mail account used to send the documents and could not be reached. Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely would not confirm or deny the claims made in the five documents that he did not call fake.

The most sensational parts of the documents — and much of what has been confirmed independently — had to do with global warming and efforts to spread doubt into what mainstream scientists are saying. Experts long have thought Heartland and other groups were working to muddy the waters about global warming, said Harry Lambright, a Syracuse University public policy professor who specializes in environment, science and technology issues.

"Scientifically there is no controversy. Politically, there is a controversy because there are political interest groups making it a controversy," Lambright said. "It's not about science. It's about politics. To some extent they are winning the battle."

A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed more than 1,300 most-cited and published climate scientists and found that 97% of them said climate change is a man-made problem. Yet, polls of American public opinion show far more doubt.

An environmental advocacy group, Forecast the Facts, on Thursday started a petition and social media campaign to complain to two of Heartland's corporate donors listed on the documents, Microsoft and General Motors.

The two were not the biggest donors; Microsoft donated $69,000 over three years, while the General Motors Foundation gave $45,000. But those are companies that "need to hear from their customers" that they are not happy about promoting climate skepticism, especially after General Motors got a government bailout, campaign director Daniel Souweine said.

General Motors spokesman Greg Martin said the company's foundation gives money to "a variety of different groups holding a variety of opinions." Microsoft said through its public relations agency that it donates software to 44,000 nonprofits that pass IRS standards, as Heartland does, and that it considers climate change a serious issue.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-02-25/think-tank-leaks/53235836/1

I debated whether to start a new thread to use this new news as a basis for a discussion focused more on various efforts to influence public opinion rather than get us all sucked into another vigorous rehash of the science behind AGW, but realized I'd be unlikely to successfully direct it that narrowly.

But I do find it enlightening that this new hard evidence has surfaced documenting the millions spent in an effort to skew public opinion away from established science.

I'd dub this "climategate II - the shoe's on the other foot"
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 292
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/25/2012 8:54:59 PM
campaigning on the net against faceless men is only going to raise your blood pressure, insted maybe spend your time wwaterfall in your communities educating people about the climate and about ways they can contribute.

Teaching people better energy conservation methods, grow thier own food to exercise more and what companies actualy are not eco friendly but if your were an alien you might think they are at war with the enviorement..
You have unique skills, use them wisely.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 293
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/25/2012 9:26:12 PM

insted maybe spend your time wwaterfall in your communities educating people about the climate and about ways they can contribute.


Oh, this is but one small part of my efforts in this area. I've organized conferences, spoken to students from grade school through grad school, participated in public debates and forums, been published in local and state media outlets both conservative and liberal, been on radio talk shows, and even had a small role in a movie about climate change. (No, NOT 'An Inconvenient Truth', but "Too Hot Not To Handle", an HBO production that I thought did a much better job of focusing on the issue and what people could do about it rather than devoting half the movie to promoting the messenger)

And I post far more often on climate change in two local blogs, one by the best environmental reporter in the state, the other by our most vocal skeptic columnist.

It's an interesting challenge in a state dominated by coal interests. I go back and forth about how much to get into the weeds arguing the science. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist but a whole lot of people pretend they know more science than the scientists do, and I'm well enough versed in both climate science and the many tactics in the skeptic playbook to offer credible rebuttals.

But the piece I just published here, to me, hits at the crux of the problem. There is a whole lot of very intentional disinformation out there, and I suspect part of their agenda is to encourage continued debate over issues science has already essentially settled, so me playing point/ counterpoint may be playing into their hands.

For many this is not at all a matter of education. It's a matter of picking sides in a political dispute, and that dictates entirely different strategies that I'm still sorting out.
 binvincible
Joined: 1/4/2012
Msg: 294
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/28/2012 3:50:57 PM
I am flattered to see and read all the anti-GW writings on this wall...compared to 5 years ago when I was outnumbered over 12:1...I am truly glad to see so many of you have 'found Jesus'!

As IF it weren't enough...the real point of overwhelming evidence to disprove GW/GCC is simply...can ANYONE name the meterological phenomenon which launches CO2 6 miles up to the stratosphere to erode ozone, suspend itself (in spite of the gasses 15:1 density at that altitude), with its semipermeable tendency to allow the sun's rays to pass through, but have a teflon underbelly which reflects back the earth's trapped heat?
At sea level the weight difference between our air and CO2 is virtually 4:1...making it quite awkward to expect a heavier-than-air gas to accomplish this all on its own...AND possesses 9all of a sudden) insulation properties previously unheard of...

Yes, there IS a conspiracy; it is the progressive Socialists way to tax us for breathing. It is more about controlling the means of production than it is EVER going to be about CO2.
djt
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 295
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/29/2012 6:00:14 AM
Global Warming - Peer-Review Deception

Great summary video below of comments by various scientists and prominent individuals regarding man-made Global Warming and how the peer-review process failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcp40a6IYdY

A very good and detailed analysis of Climategate is here by John P. Costella:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 296
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/29/2012 7:36:15 AM
Ever notice that the 'Warmists' NEVER acknowledge that CO2 is NOT a 'greenhouse' gas ... ? If they were to be honest about which gases contribute to the fiction of 'global warming' (which is now thoroughly disproven), they would put WATER VAPOR at the top of any list they draw up ... but they choose to lie, mislead, and create panic amongst the science-deprived. I'm still waiting for them to tell us why they suddenly dropped all talk of the equally-fictional 'Ice Age' they attempted to use in order to panic the sheep back in the '70s. We may never know, but don't expect them to stop working to control the outcome.

Here's a quite succinct analysis of their purpose and tactics by James Delingpole ...

( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100139690/why-i-am-so-rude-to-warmists/ ) ...


" ... As Richard North and Autonomous Mind rightly note, we sceptics/realists won the "scientific" debate a very long time ago:

The climate agenda, he says, is but one front in a much broader campaign involving the centralisation of power, the erosion of democracy and liberty and the transfer of wealth.

Thus says AM, no matter what the "science" reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and economic corporatist – agenda. On that front is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.

Exactly the same sentiment is reflected in a report by Dennis Ambler.

Whilst the continual scientific rebuttals of the climate reports produced by the IPCC may make many people think that this charade cannot continue much longer, behind the scenes it is quite irrelevant, he writes. The long-term process marches relentlessly on as if there had never been any challenges at all.

As the advocates throw in yet more spurious claims of the "hottest year on record", or record cold caused by CO2 emissions, they occupy the debate, and determine the daily agenda in the media, whilst those who know that the claims are spurious, are driven to waste time, effort and resources on refuting them. ... "
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 297
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/29/2012 10:29:35 AM
First off, anyone who tries to argue greenhouse gas theory based on molecular weight of various gasses just doesn't understand physics. If all the gasses sorted themselves our neatly by proximity to the planet surface by weight there would be no life on the planet.


Ever notice that the 'Warmists' NEVER acknowledge that CO2 is NOT a 'greenhouse' gas ... ?


Because it is.


If they were to be honest about which gases contribute to the fiction of 'global warming' (which is now thoroughly disproven), they would put WATER VAPOR at the top of any list they draw up


No scientist I've ever heard of disputes that water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas. That's climate science 101. If it makes you feel better, let me officially state for the record here and now that I believe water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas on planet Earth.

But the overall concentration of water vapor is essentially stable, while CO2 and methane concentrations have changed significantly.

If global warming has been so thoroughly disproven, why has not one reputable national science organization from a single country issued a statement to that effect?


... but they choose to lie, mislead, and create panic amongst the science-deprived.


That would be the strategy of the denialist crowd. Once again, every national science organization with any connection to climate science of every free nation in the world supports the mainstream climate science conclusion that our planet is warming and human activity plays a role in that warming. Those are NOT science deprived perspectives.


I'm still waiting for them to tell us why they suddenly dropped all talk of the equally-fictional 'Ice Age' they attempted to use in order to panic the sheep back in the '70s.


NO national science organization EVER endorsed the global cooling hypotheses that a single paper proposed in 70's. Those who are not science deprived know well that that was simply a hypothesis based on the known physics that particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere has a cooling effect, and that pollution particulates might cool the planet more than greenhouse gasses would warm it. As all familiar with the scientific method know, what happened is that the hypothesis was presented, debated, and ultimately disproven. That's how science works. And that's how the science demonstrating AGW has become so thoroughly accepted.

The scientific community does NOT find panic useful, regardless the issue. What they do is learn, study, experiment, observe, interpret, and inform.


Here's a quite succinct analysis of their purpose and tactics by James Delingpole ...


Tell you what - I won't cite Al Gore as a source if you don't cite the likes of Delingpole, Limbaugh, and others who make their living out of sensationalism. You'll need more credibility than that if you hope to make a case to those not already convinced that science conducted via diligent application of the scientific method is some sort of devious political plot.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 298
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/29/2012 11:54:32 AM
I don't get it.

Every single scientist in the world who has looked at the evidence concludes that man made emissions are causing global warming with fewer than half a dozen exceptions who all get massive funding from industry. We are seeing the evidence every year in the Arctic.

Now, I was alive in the 70's. I never heard a word about the "Global Cooling" nonsense that some people pretend was all over. I did listen to CBC radio at that time, since I lived in a remote community where that was the only radio station we got. At that time David Suzuki was mostly known as a pioneering geneticist and consequently had an agriculture show on CBC radio. He talked about the dangers of global warming all the time. This was in the 70's.

Do they really think that if they stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La La La La La" loudly enough they are going to convince anyone? And why would they? What possible motivation do they have to pretend that the entire scientific community is a secret Marxist cabal? Or do they really believe it?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 299
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 2/29/2012 3:10:49 PM

But I do find it enlightening that this new hard evidence has surfaced documenting the millions spent in an effort to skew public opinion away from established science.

I'd dub this "climategate II - the shoe's on the other foot"


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.


Ok... so it was a fake of a fake? If it was faked it must have been faked by the denialists to discredit the denialists of the denialists denials.

It is all so clear now.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures