Has Global warming been a flat-out hoax all along?

[SuperDuper! 230]

[Ban Hammer 14,619]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

is this the same intelligence and military that gave gwb information that made it sound like invading iraq was a good idea?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

is this the same intelligence and military that gave gwb information that made it sound like invading iraq was a good idea?

Nice try, Chuck. This argument might work if the evidence wasn't on the table that Bush actively cherry picked the very pieces of intelligence he needed to strengthen the case to go to war while ignoring those that would weaken the case.

Remember this claim? The pefect link of Saddam to 9/11? How much better could it get to get the American people into the mood for war against Iraq?

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He made the same claim 8 months earlier. However, the problem with this claim is that is based on cherry picked intelligence. As early as February 2002, the DIA advised the President that the testimony on which particular this claim was based was rather questionable. And the DIA provided good reasons as to why they believed that this supposed link did not exist. Bush never mentioned any caveat but rather pretended that this was established fact when it wasn't. And he knew it. He just chose to take the testimony of the enemy over the evaluation of said testimony by the DIA. Trust your enemy, not your military was Bush's modus operandi here.

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

Faulty intelligence my #######. Doctored intelligence it was.

[Ban Hammer 14,619]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

is this the same intelligence and military that gave gwb information that made it sound like invading iraq was a good idea?

Nice try, Chuck. This argument might work if the evidence wasn't on the table that Bush actively cherry picked the very pieces of intelligence he needed to strengthen the case to go to war while ignoring those that would weaken the case.

Remember this claim? The pefect link of Saddam to 9/11? How much better could it get to get the American people into the mood for war against Iraq?

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He made the same claim 8 months earlier. However, the problem with this claim is that is based on cherry picked intelligence. As early as February 2002, the DIA advised the President that the testimony on which particular this claim was based was rather questionable. And the DIA provided good reasons as to why they believed that this supposed link did not exist. Bush never mentioned any caveat but rather pretended that this was established fact when it wasn't. And he knew it. He just chose to take the testimony of the enemy over the evaluation of said testimony by the DIA. Trust your enemy, not your military was Bush's modus operandi here.

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

Faulty intelligence my #######. Doctored intelligence it was.

and that the same bunch supports global warming, their reports aren't cherry picked either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

is this the same intelligence and military that gave gwb information that made it sound like invading iraq was a good idea?

Nice try, Chuck. This argument might work if the evidence wasn't on the table that Bush actively cherry picked the very pieces of intelligence he needed to strengthen the case to go to war while ignoring those that would weaken the case.

Remember this claim? The pefect link of Saddam to 9/11? How much better could it get to get the American people into the mood for war against Iraq?

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He made the same claim 8 months earlier. However, the problem with this claim is that is based on cherry picked intelligence. As early as February 2002, the DIA advised the President that the testimony on which particular this claim was based was rather questionable. And the DIA provided good reasons as to why they believed that this supposed link did not exist. Bush never mentioned any caveat but rather pretended that this was established fact when it wasn't. And he knew it. He just chose to take the testimony of the enemy over the evaluation of said testimony by the DIA. Trust your enemy, not your military was Bush's modus operandi here.

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

Faulty intelligence my #######. Doctored intelligence it was.

and that the same bunch supports global warming, their reports aren't cherry picked either.

It isn't about cherry picking in this instance but about the realization that climate change has a significant negative impact on our national security. That's the next consensus the deniers will take on. I'm not sure why the concept of sustainable development is creating such a controversy.

[Ban Hammer 14,619]

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

is this the same intelligence and military that gave gwb information that made it sound like invading iraq was a good idea?

Nice try, Chuck. This argument might work if the evidence wasn't on the table that Bush actively cherry picked the very pieces of intelligence he needed to strengthen the case to go to war while ignoring those that would weaken the case.

Remember this claim? The pefect link of Saddam to 9/11? How much better could it get to get the American people into the mood for war against Iraq?

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He made the same claim 8 months earlier. However, the problem with this claim is that is based on cherry picked intelligence. As early as February 2002, the DIA advised the President that the testimony on which particular this claim was based was rather questionable. And the DIA provided good reasons as to why they believed that this supposed link did not exist. Bush never mentioned any caveat but rather pretended that this was established fact when it wasn't. And he knew it. He just chose to take the testimony of the enemy over the evaluation of said testimony by the DIA. Trust your enemy, not your military was Bush's modus operandi here.

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

Faulty intelligence my #######. Doctored intelligence it was.

and that the same bunch supports global warming, their reports aren't cherry picked either.

It isn't about cherry picking in this instance but about the realization that climate change has a significant negative impact on our national security. That's the next consensus the deniers will take on. I'm not sure why the concept of sustainable development is creating such a controversy.

it's funny how you put so much faith in the same organizations that were caught up in the "gwb cherry picking scandal". you didn't have any faith in the reports that were used for gwb's fiasco, but you're on the wagon like no tomorrow with this global warming stuff - again, with reports from the same organizations.......

[HAL 9000 96]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Maybe you should stick to the previous reports on Obama's Turkey Pardon or the one after about the White House State Dinner crashers.

But the public perception is what gives the politicians strength (well, maybe ) to act, and the public perception driven by these items of correspondence is that the science, and the scientists involved, is unreliable, even verging on the fraudulent. The fact that the scientists don't deny that the correspondence is real, but simply try to blow off the inquiries in much the same way the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) crowd do on this forum, by condescending dismissal of the inquirers, only lends weight to the perception that there is something very wrong going on here.

If a climate model doesn't work, you don't fudge the figures, or insert external information into it, just to make it work. You change the model until the information you have works. If you don't trust the data, collect it again. If the data remains the same, it's the model that needs to be changed. In this case the ends do not justify the means, the means justify the ends.

What this will do, especially to those parts of the scientific community that support AGW, is seriously damage public confidence in any scientific opinion on climate change of any sort, which, here in the USA, will kill any chance of this administration passing even a reasonable and well thought-out climate protection proposal (i.e. Cap and Trade is so dead it's already in the crematorium).

So, the health of the scientific community means jack-sh*t, if the public don't believe a word they say. On this subject, the scientists need the public to understand and trust the information for anything substantive to happen as a result. And they are failing, dismally.

'The public' and 'its' perception are definitely important to politicians that care about votes, sure. I wonder though- could 'that' public and the 'perception' you refer to be really a code for people that do not fully comprehend the issue of what it is they are 'doubting'??

Get back to me when you wish to make more substantive, scientific claims. And not pseudo-political ones about fraudulent science being 'apparently' performed by a small group.

Up until now, as I answered Danno's interrogative, is that the scientific community is unfazed by these 'revelations' precisely because they are 100% invested in the political, gossipped, and social aspect of communicating the research some perform. What that has to do with falsification of research is pretty irrelevant, as any respectable researcher has a complete record of data and hypothesis development that would indicate any obvious fraud.

The rest is a politically motivated discourse, and a sensationalist objective to further that political discourse, that has nothing at all to do with science. A dicourse which, for some reason, the crowd that champions obtusive logic and incomprehension seem to be backing.

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

This has already spilled into the lap of politicians who were welcoming this "gift".

DOn't forget.... Monica-gate got limited coverage by mainstream news (some had the story first but sat on it).

we shall see.

Refer to previous post.

I suspect the side that favors ignorance of the actual facts (yours) will once again show the political motivation behind your overrepresentation of the facts and you'll be searching for another exposed thumb to try to hammer at.

[Nessa 23]

global cooling exists, not global warming

Edited November 27, 2009 by Nessa

[HAL 9000 96]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

it's funny how you put so much faith in the same organizations that were caught up in the "gwb cherry picking scandal". you didn't have any faith in the reports that were used for gwb's fiasco, but you're on the wagon like no tomorrow with this global warming stuff - again, with reports from the same organizations.......

I have faith in the reports and the organizations that produced them just not in the particular selections that the war hungry crowd around W made.

[Ban Hammer 14,619]

it's funny how you put so much faith in the same organizations that were caught up in the "gwb cherry picking scandal". you didn't have any faith in the reports that were used for gwb's fiasco, but you're on the wagon like no tomorrow with this global warming stuff - again, with reports from the same organizations.......

I have faith in the reports and the organizations that produced them just not in the particular selections that the war hungry crowd around W made.

selective when it suits you, got it.

[Danno 1,228]

As the fall-out begins.

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, ** metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Of course it's a hoax! We were to die from global cooling when I was a kid. As an adult, we were going to die from global warming. Now, they started calling their manufactured crisis "Climate change" Well, duh! Climate change happens and it always has; get over it. I've always viewed the effort to do something about it as an extreme form of narcissism that I want nothign to do with.

[Pooky 3,930]

'The public' and 'its' perception are definitely important to politicians that care about votes, sure. I wonder though- could 'that' public and the 'perception' you refer to be really a code for people that do not fully comprehend the issue of what it is they are 'doubting'??

Get back to me when you wish to make more substantive, scientific claims. And not pseudo-political ones about fraudulent science being 'apparently' performed by a small group.

Hal, I don't use code. I ask questions.

Every time I am asked to give a report, my practice is to explain in ways that a layman, with no specific knowledge of the subject, can understand what I have written. Nowhere in the AGW debate has this kind of report/summary/explanation been given. The scientific community is hell bent on keeping the jargon scientific, then writing off dissenters as uninformed idiots, rather in the way that you just did.

Hence, the public perception is veering round to doubting the climatologists and believing that they have something to hide. My whole point was that this is rather counter-productive, when the need is to garner public support for measures to protect our environment.

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, is to represent the European parliament at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which opens next week.

Last night politicians and scientists reacted furiously to news that the far-right politician and climate change denier should be attending the summit on behalf of the EU.

Griffin, who was elected to the European parliament in June, confirmed last night that he would attend as the representative of the parliament's environmental committee. World leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, are hoping to forge a new global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

Without such a deal, scientists warn that world temperatures will increase by more than 2C by the end of the century, triggering ice cap melting, sea-level rises, widespread flooding, the spread of deserts and devastating storms.

In a speech in the parliament last week, Griffin denounced those who warn of the consequences of climate change as "cranks". He said they had reached "an Orwellian consensus" that was "based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics".

"The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."

Griffin will be one of 15 representatives chosen to speak on behalf of the EU in Copenhagen. The shadow climate change secretary, Greg Clark, condemned the move last night. "It is utterly ridiculous that someone who doesn't even believe in climate change should be seeking to represent Europe in Copenhagen. The BNP does not command the support of the people of Britain, let alone of the rest of Europe," he said.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Membership of the European parliament's delegation to Copenhagen is a matter for the European parliament. Its delegates do not represent the UK government or its views. Nick Griffin will not be part of the UK delegation."

Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons environmental audit committee, said the decision to choose Griffin showed the "bizarre way" the parliament operated. He added: "If the future prosperity of the human race, in the face of climate change, depends on the contributions of people like Nick Griffin, there is little hope for any of us."

Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, said Griffin's claim that thousands of scientists dispute the existence of man-made global warming was simply not true. "The intergovernmental panel on climate change draws on the views of most of the world's leading climate scientists and they have been quite clear that the evidence shows, with a high degree of certainty, that human activities are now having a substantial effect on the climate. It is simply not the case that there is a substantial number who do not accept a link."

Bob Ward, of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: "Griffin denies the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. This appears to be driven by a dogmatic strand of right-wing ideology that opposes any form of environmental regulation, usually hidden behind the dishonest claim that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman and a former MEP, said the European parliament always divided up positions on such delegations according to the parliament's political balance. "Griffin was bound to get something at some stage. It is just a shame they didn't send him to Iceland instead."

Critics say Griffin addresses environmental issues when he believes he can use them to advance anti-immigration policies. His party claims that it would improve Britain's transport infrastructure and reduce carbon dioxide levels by reducing the number of immigrants in Britain using roads, cars, trains and buses.

Gerry Gable, publisher of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, said Griffin once tried to win over environmentalists in the 1980s. "His core beliefs – that the white race is being threatened by an invading minority – are the so-called principles that have run through his nasty career."

Edited November 29, 2009 by Madame Cleo