>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

All these scientists gettin' me pissed.


Yeah, those IPCC "scientists". They should.

"or even the IPCC"
potholer54 saying that, makes him all the more reliable Good post

Unfortunately he spends too much time talking about fox news and random youtube commenters. I follow climategate pretty closely, and lately I'm more interested in the mysterious disappearing weather stations than anything else. Can't find a good explanation. Here is the link to this "scandal" NOAA/NCDC: GHCN – The Global Analysis And here is Delingpoles report

Links? Evidence?

Sure - but I'm not interested in playing duelling banjos. I'm listing a few of many. I could go on, but doing so ultimately becomes pointless. Science is science, and the current science is not decided. However, if you have made up your mind POLITICALLY where you stand then no amount of fact or evidence will be useful. But here we go. Here is the IPCC working group 1 report itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Here is the section detailing the models they selected to write their conclusions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

Here are some links detailing just some the problems with their models.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/59296-ipcc-climate-models-8-fatal-errors.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Being a statistician myself, I am fascinated by the process by which other analysts arrive at a methodology. The IPCC report is sloppy at best, and it doesn’t take any advanced statistical analysis to dismiss the conclusions prima facie. The IPCC freely admits that it ignored critical variables, and arrived at specious conclusions.

Keep in mind the “two divisions” I talked about. On the one hand we have “science of climate” and on the other hand we have “politics of man-made C02”. Warmers like to refer to science as justification for politics. This allows them to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

No one disagrees with the posit that the climate is “changing”. Duh! The climate always changes. We figure that out a few millennium ago. But that isn’t what the Warmer movement is trying to say. The Warmers say, “Science has PROVEN that human behavior is the cause of climate change – and human behavior can stop it.”

Horse hockey. In the first place, science has NOT proven human behavior as causal or even related to climate cycles. In the second place, there is no evidence of any kind that the cessation of human C02 emissions would supply a correction. The Warmer approach is therefore not scientific.

‘destroy the world paranoia’

Odd, since I didn’t say that. I said there are groups that desire to reduce human activity. I keep a folder full of links specifically about discussions related to the reduction of human activity in order to ‘save the planet’. Some of them are amusing. Some of them are creepy when you strip away the veneer of good intentions.

Explain NASA hottest decade?

Sure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3494

Sadly, NASA is an organization corrupted by politics. Obama specifically has pushed to have NASA be less about 'space' and more about 'political justification of my cap & tax plan'. There are good people there, but they are operating in a nasty political environment. Their use of substation data for their temperature projections invalidates their data entirely.

I don't get global warming.

In order to 'get' this discussion you need to seperate out two completely different components. ONE: The science of climate change. TWO: The politics of 'man-made' global warming (AKA anthropogenic global warming or AGW).

ONE: THE SCIENCE
The science of climate change is undecided. Scientists create models to predict climates change. However, to date all such models are unsuccessful. There is no current valid mathematical model that serves as a platform for predicting climate change. Some models are rigorous, others are 'loose'. Some weight XYZ variables, and others focus on ABC. But anyone who claims to be able to predict temperatures, hurricanes, or the other components of global climate is full of crap. There is no 'consensus'. Real scientists would not dare to say 'the science is settled' because they are still collecting data.

As of this time the science can only tell us that there are 'variables' that effect the climate. However, science has not yet determined if the variables are causal or predictive. EG - they know atmospheric C02 is involved in the equation but they do not know whether C02 causes climate change or whether its alterations are caused by the climate changes. Science is still up in the air on the topic - no pun intended.

TWO: THE POLITICS
The AGW movement is not 'science'; it is pure agenda politics. There are lots of groups that desire to reduce human activity, for whatever reason. Some want to reduce ALL human activity. Some want to reduce a specific area. Others focus on overpopulation. Others are anti-capitalist. Whatever. The one thing in common is a generalized desire to reduce human activity on some scale or other.

The political label this movement co-opted is "AGW". They took AGW C02 (one variable out of dozens) and artificially weighted it. They dangled tons of grant money in front of sympathetic scientists, universities, labs, and clinics. They shut out dissent. They falsified data. They hid methodology. They pretended anecdotes were 'experts'. They threw way primary data. They clammed thier pieholes shut when their conclusions were wildly exaggerated. In the kindest interpretation, AGW has been proven to be no more than a very rudimentary hypothesis. In laymans terms, AGW C02 as a cause of 'climate change' is bunk.

The scientific claims are easily refuted because they are just about 100% wrong every time they say anything. Global warming causes hurricanes to be bigger and more powerful... ...eeeexcept that hurricanes became less frequent and weaker. Global warming is causing rising temperatures... ...eeeexcept that temperatures have been falling for 10 years and there's 7 feet of snow in DC. Human C02 will melt glaciars... ...eeeexcept the glaciers are actually getting thicker. You pick the topic. The 'science' predictions of the Warmers have been dead wrong every time.

Realizing that they have lost credibility when examined with real scientific rigor (or even with plain common sense) the Warmers simply moved their target. "Global Warming" not working? Well - just call it climate change. Since the climate always changes, ANY weather (good, bad, whatever) is "proof that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet". How rhetorically convenient.

But since the real objective is POLITICAL and not environmental, it doesn't really matter. If they can get enough gullible people to just pretend the Emperor has clothes long enough then they could still achieve the political goal - science be damned. They don't care that they've made the scientific community a laughing stock as long as they could get the IPCC to use East Anglia's bogus conclusions to try and sucker people at Carbonhagen.

So keep the divide in this issue clearly in mind. There is the 'science' side which is still undecided. Then there is the 'politics' side which is more like a religion that has the reduction of human activity as its Nicene Creed. That's all you need to know to look at any news story on this issue and arrive at a clear conclusion as to what its 'angle' is.

>> ^Nithern:
I find that Winstonfield is simply a conservative Republican lap dog. Saying and doing anything his masters wish, with total obedience and unwavering fanatic behavior. If they told him, the sky will be yellow zig zaps, purple poka-dots, and red curvy lines, three weeks from now. He would be on here, saying so, without an ounce of evidence or proof. In fact, he would show websites devoted to this concept, which in turn, are hardly non-bias. Remember that, when you read his stuff.


Despite his untasteful arrogance, it's obvious he knows alot more about the subject than you. Forget "climate change" because that is not the real issue. The issue is money, and Winston is completely right in the fact that COP15 is going to make a number of people somewhat richer. Imagine Enron, on a global scale. In fact the same names show up (Ken Lay) if you take a look at carbon credits. As for the scientists, of course they are not all a part of some conspiracy. But important people like the president of the IPCC stand to gain loads of cash, thankfully people are finally taking a look at their work

P.S. if you saw Winstons youtube link, you would also see he is alot funnier than you. YOU LOSE!

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

If you rephrase to say "no reasonable person doubts that Earth's climate has cycles" then I agree. But if you mean "no reasonable person doubts Anthropogenic Global Warming as defined by Al Gore, the IPCC, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the "Green" movement and their bought & paid for scientists" then I strongly disagree.

Temperatures change, sure. I have seen no credible evidence to date that proves human activity has (A) caused it (B) could possibly prevent it or (C) can do jack-squat to 'fix' things. I don't mind sensible resource management. But the AGW movement is not about pollution so much as it is about wealth redistribution. No thanks. The next energy revolution will happen on its own without a multi-trillion dollar tax scheme.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - what do you know - even Jon Stewart occasionally swerves into accuracy. Nice to see he isn't trying to just ignore it like Obama's administration, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the AP, and every other major media outlet. One wonders what the media reaction would be if the hacker had stolen files from Exxon about how they used 'tricks' to 'hide' temperature increases...
Still I can't help but shake my head. "Does this mean warming doesn't exist? Of course not!" Uh - yeah it kind of does... When the lead climate lab used by the IPCC admits it has thrown away primary data, deliberately hidden data that contradicts their claims, and engaged in a practice of censoring opposing science then it pretty much dismisses the concept of there being 'consensus' on the so-called 'science' of AGW.


Let's assume that these out of context emails did discredit all of the work from this lab (although, they don't), that does not mean that global warming doesn't exist. You have a significant misunderstanding of science. If a scientist's work is completely fraudulent, then the work is uninformative. It doesn't prove the opposite of what he was trying to show.

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

As a scientist, I do wince when I hear about some of the stuff from this lab. Not either of these emails -- those were just fine (the "trick" was nothing nefarious, nothing was "hidden"). But the fact that they're hiding the raw data and the fact that they're making personal attacks on other scientists and skeptics is pathetic.

Well - what do you know - even Jon Stewart occasionally swerves into accuracy. Nice to see he isn't trying to just ignore it like Obama's administration, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the AP, and every other major media outlet. One wonders what the media reaction would be if the hacker had stolen files from Exxon about how they used 'tricks' to 'hide' temperature increases...

Still I can't help but shake my head. "Does this mean warming doesn't exist? Of course not!" Uh - yeah it kind of does... When the lead climate lab used by the IPCC admits it has thrown away primary data, deliberately hidden data that contradicts their claims, and engaged in a practice of censoring opposing science then it pretty much dismisses the concept of there being 'consensus' on the so-called 'science' of AGW.

I think the debate here goes right to the central issue about Climate change:
How do you make science and politics play well together?

In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.

Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.

How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?

This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.

Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.

That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:>
Sorry bub, you may believe whatever you wish to believe, but if you wish to convince others you're going to have to make your point with peer reviewed research. Those are the breaks, kid. Life is hard.


Funny that you would say that, I haven't seen your peer reviewed research. But that's right, you don't need it because you have a link to wikipedia about global warming consensus. A consensus given to us by the IPCC. You should know that the IPCC is not comprised of only scientists. There are many activists from enviromental groups such as greenpeace as well. So your statement about politics having nothing to do with climate change is truely wrong. They have everything to do with it.

Also you more than anyone should stay informed about the massive critic "aka hockey stick" that is hitting CRU right now, if you plan to keep tossing your wikipedia links. There are plenty unanswered questions.

I do not wish to convince anyone of anything, I'm just tired of the close mindedness around this subject. Unfortunately if you ever saw what happens to scientists who don't conform to your consensus you might understand why they aren't willing to risk their career because they think something sounds fishy.

I don't like the video.. but I agree that the IPCC is shady, and their word should not be taken as gospel.

I'm suspicious of Gore, and yes, I agree he is a dick head.

Way to "research" an argument. Seeing as Obama's coverage plan has yet to be released, and the people it will help most is those with ZERO Health care currently.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-01-ipcc-report_x.htm

And when the majority of the science community agrees that global warming is man made, and agrees that it is becoming a major threat, then I think the term "manufactured" becomes invalid.

Lastly, offering social services is not socialism. Many democratic counties employ social services to maintain a functioning democracy. And I'll consider your concerns with "big government" when you acknowledge that deregulation allows for big business to take advantage of the little guy.

If I have a choice between big government and big business running my life I will take big government every time.