Climate Deniers

The repeated refusal of Global Warming Alarmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data:

"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science. But Warming Alarmism cannot survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on.

This Climate Science you speak of was 'classified' by Bush.

It's a secret, stop talking about it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.globalchange.gov/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

I had no problem finding a mountain of available scientific material.  I can't believe you're still referencing some old right-wing talking point memo from way back when Calperson.

Its not us who are denying Global Warming, its the data:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-war...

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

The government taking over science and inevitably politicizing  and corrupting it is one reason for my sig:

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!

Yeah, but The Daily Mail and batshit crazy Alex Jones know better.

Daily Mail Fabrication

 

Martin Sandberg makes another down is up post from the sound bite pr factory and expects us to take it seriously.  It is dangerous nonsense.  Tell it to the Maldivians.

That is a quote from the British Met Office & the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit via the Daily Mail. Also take a look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for more information on the global warming hoax.

This hoax is finished. The emails and code that were released by somebody at East Anglia’s climate research unit that had integrity show clearly that it is a hoax. There’s another interesting fact that has come to my attention. The researchers are claiming that their climate models are proprietary and hence aren’t releasing them http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/al_gores_last_theorem.html:

 “Second, we learn that the proprietary ”greenhouse gas“ climate data and models behind the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming -- computer codes and measurements that serve essentially as the mathematical and empirical proofs of ”Climate Crisis“ -- have NOT been fully published. The US Dept. of Energy is complicit (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-u... ) in this reprehensible circumstance, which is at odds with the scholarly traditions of integrity, honesty and openness.”

 Dr. Fred Singer has this to say http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html

 “As is evident from the Climategate e-mails, a small group of scientists, mainly in the U.K. and U.S., have managed to freeze out contrary evidence from being published in the scientific literature or in IPCC reports. The self-described ”Team“ members brazenly discuss strategies and action plans to further ”The Cause.“ Unfortunately, they have largely succeeded -- and continue to influence publications, thanks to some key journalists and editors.”

 

Both articles are worth reading in their entirety.

 

Gotta love all these free marketers who think greed and profit is king that come on here and just expect scientists to hand over all their research to the world for free.  I though competition was the only thing to bring us progress?  Right?  Profit breeds innovation and progress right?  If the government has no right to tax you what right do you have to tell some scientist in the UK to hand over the product of their life's work?

 

 Climate change is humanity's ultimate crime, our ultimate sin. It is the epitome of hubris that drives our cancerous viral infection precipitating in the planet's sixth mass extinction.

A week or two ago I viewed some stupid conservative (redundancy, I know) bitch on Real Time with Bill Maher and she was squaking about sun spots causing the changes....wtf? like so many, she had no clue about green house gasses which is the big problem driving up the temp.

My major was geology so I've taken my share of college math and science courses. Yeah, when I left college I was worried that we were headed for another ice-age. It looked like we might be a little overdue. If we're lucky, natural trends and anthropogenic trends could mitigate one another. It's wishful thinking, I know.

 

Tell it to the glaciers, and to the Maldives, and to the grape growers, and to everyone other than your Climate Denier petroheaded goons, Martin.  They will kick your ass into the rising sea.

The whole Environment Section is now filled with crap from trolls and spammers delusional programmers....

Nature is rather unpredictable:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071025/full/news.2007.198.html

but God works in mysterious ways.

Greenhouse gases aside, it could be game over: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

Here's an interesting article, which uses Pascal's Wager to argue for belief in Global Warming:

http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/pascals-wager-and-the-global-warming-debate/

Yeah, god damn nature for publishing such drivel, Laborisgood.

The methane releases are very very scary, thanks Garrett.

And this is why Alarmist get thier asses handed to them on a regular bases. 

Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify Climate Concerns

So sad...

Imagine that, the liberal bastion NY Times calling out overzealous climate scientists (right in front of God and everybody) for overplaying their hand in order to keep the whole discussion on an honest and level playing field.  That reminds me of the time the National Review called out some blatant lies from climate change deniers ......... oh wait a second, that was a dream I had.

Denial is still the favorite tactic for people who don't want to worry or get upset until the disaster actually happens.  It works until it doesn't.  How do you beat that for a tactic?

And Propaganda is still the favorite tool of alarmist.   You beat that by posting the Story the directly qoutes the orginal authors the alarmist articles refer to and listen to what they have to say.   so then is boils down to what you want to believe.   Alarmist Articles or  the Scientist directly. 

All else fails...   Just go look up methane reading for the last 30 years.

I prefer the Scientist directly.

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Ya see Capital, instead of posting about the one question of methane, I was dealing with the larger issue where those who find one incorrect point use it to discredit it all and go harrumphing around about propaganda and how environmentlists have made so much money from the scare.  The fact that establlished entropy is defending its pile and has oodles more money to pay its 'tobacco scientists' is ignored because somebody is actually funding some climate research. 

You choose a provocative handle and then keep riding the same tired horse.  You do not bring enough to make us pause and think about something we might have missed.  What about the way denial works did I get wrong?  I can understand why addicts use it.  That includes petroheads.  Were it only about you, I would let you crash and burn because you can only change if you want to.  Unfortunately, you are dangerous to the rest of us.  It is not going to be fun to deal with the damage your ilk is visiting upon the earth.  Very sad, but I do understand why denial is attractive.

If recent methane emissions are not the result of recent climate change, great. I guess. Of course, methane emissions are occuring and we don't know that continued warming won't increase emissions.

And, as DRC points out, a misinterpretation of one study regarding methane in the Arctic does not somehow refute anthropogenic global warming. Only greed or ignorance can lead one to deny the latter given all we know at this point.

There is no such thing as fossil fuel.

Methane is abiogenic in origin, and is leaking from every pore on our planet.

Read The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold.

What you think you know about hydrocarbons was placed in your head to prevent you from realizing that we have an endless supply of methane and that our oil and gas wells were spontaneously refilling.

If you realized this, you might wonder why energy is so expensive, and why we burned any coal or oil or nuclear fuel at all.

We exist in a time of geologic crisis, and methane release into the atmosphere, 200 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, is a symptom, as is climate change.

How do you stop a geologic crisis? Impossible, of course, so the powers that be decided to give us the 'task' of saving the planet by reducing our CO2 emissions.

This was meant to keep us busy and fulfilled, working together for the common good.

What a great cartoon!

All one has to do is read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to see his comparisons between  Germany at the time of the Gallic Wars (58BC), and of 18th century Canada. Global warming has been happening for centuries, even before the advent of the industrial revolution. The debate is whether or not it's man-made. Deforestation may have contributed to the warming of Northern Europe. Reindeer, which were common in Germany at the time of Julius Caesar, dissappeared at the forests in Northern Germany were removed to create agricultural centers. Of course, this can be construed as man-made.

I saw a story on LINK TV about Japan mining methane hydrate ... here is a news item on that ...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120215p2g00m0dm089000c.html

I also found this item ...

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

How much of this stuff will leak while they are mining it, contributing further to global warming ?

I've heard of gas releases on the sea floor off the California coast; its probably this stuff.

I prefer survey newer than 4 year ago.   Lots of things have changed since the Height of the global warming frenzy of 2007.  

The survey itself is too ambiguous for they never ask the defining question between Believers and Skeptics.    Is Man’s contribution “significant” to Global warming.    I don’t know a single skeptic that would deny that Man has at least a minor contributing influence on global Climate.  

As of the end of 2011 the numbers remain the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Do you beleive a High rise building can stand on its own without a foundation.   Can you beliefs defy gravity? 

While I generally enjoy the liberal capacity to ignore the foundational fact of any issue and retain the no longer factual supported larger picture.  The rest of the world requires a solid foundation in which to build ideas and solutions.  

 

What I brought you was the truth.   If the  truth isn’t something that gives you pause to think about what is true and what is false.  Then frankly that is your fault and no amount of truth will ever persuade you.   Perhaps you should spend some time reflecting upon issue and why you believe them to be true.  Believing in Catastrophic Man-made Global warming is one thing.   Knowing why you believe it is far more important.    

 

Nope, finding one false alarm does not prove your case even if it is false in the one instance.  I really find this kind of "truth telling" disingenuous and blind to the bulk of the evidence.  It is a lot like that false flap about the British scientists supposedly faking the data.  Denier propaganda does not prove its case, but it gets press from parties whose interest it serves.  Bill McKibbon makes a lot more sense than you do.  Try taking on his work instead of claiming victory because science can follow some false leads.

 

It could be because it's the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I'll let you read GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%  Then you can decide whether the George Mason survey is credible source.  There is a reason "2011 the numbers remain the same"

Argumentum ad populum

During the Murdoch phone hacking scandal publicity last summer, I saw an item or two linking "Climategate" to Murdoch's hackers ... one guy in particular that went thru a revolving door period (Murdoch to Scotland Yard and on and on) that was linked to the East Anglia email hacking.  Does not surprise me one bit ... Murdoch did not call his guys 'plumbers' like Nixon's people did, his people probably have another code name for these guys.  

I must have missed something because GMU looks like a very credible source.  If it's the Lawrence Solomon editorial that's attached to the page that you are referring to then I would remind you that Solomon is  "writer", not a scientist and he's another climate change "denier" and skeptic.  If you will refer to the wikipedia page there are hundreds of resources that actually back the studies.

Please don't take this wrong,  I don't give a crap what your opinion of me are, so you could keep them to yourself......   The topic is Methane in Russia,  Therefore this topic is only about one instance.  If you would like to get into larger, broader issue.  Bring them up. 

  I appreciate your link to Wikipedia, but did you actually believe that the right wing climate hog earth pigs would lend any credence to a socialistic non-profit treasure trove of information like Wikipedia, or was that just bait for rebuttal? Besides that they probally think that it's run by Julian Assange.                                                                                                                   

As long as your opinion is informed opinion.  if you really think there are "hundreds"  of resources...   I suggest to research the footnotes.   I find the 97% charge bogus,  other beleive it implicitly..   Hell... its on wiki,  must be true. 

Either way consensus argument are all fallicious anyway  Argumentum ad populum . 

Capital, your post and every single post deniers have posted to counter any single instance or to correct any mistaken study has leapt to the generalized assertion that this is a huge myth and that concern about climate change and human, industrial impact is misplaced and not worth any attention.

Were you folks only trying to correct the minor notes while paying respect to people like McKibbon and the scientific consensus on the body of work, we would have no debate, only a healthy and balanced discussion of the science.  I think it is totally objective to note the hysteria raised by the petroheads to keep any science out of the debate and to demean the motives of those who express real concern based in real studies.  The old line about money swearing rather than talking is exactly the case here.

To pretend that you were only raising the one instance and were respectful of the larger scientific community while criticizing one or even several studies, is to go to the Gingrich, those who quote me are lying.  Read your own posts and own them.

Yet here you are posting drivel after drivel.. 

I can't help but laugh at you noting that this thread was not based on Science but alarmism.  I bring science to the debate and all I get to crap like this.  

 

Poly replies: You do realize that global warming is melting Russia's permafrost don't you....releasing Methane. The same thing is happening in Alaska and Canada's far north. Methane  is even more of a global warming gas than CO'2 The release will accelerate global warming beyond previous projections.

Deniers should click their heels three times repeating, " the ice shelves aren't melting".. Maybe it will be so if they  believe in magic.

The dead mountain sides of Colo. are a direct result of global warming.  Milder, shorter winter resulting in survival of beetles that are killing the trees. 'Tis a pity the government has shoved so much money at banksters that ,it can't afford the removal of the dead trees and replace them with more adaptable species to save our watershed.. Floods alternating with drought are Colorado's future. Farming in this state will become as dead as it's mountains.

The ski resorts have at least have a wee bit of sense...relocating to higher altitutudes to prolong the years that skiing will still be available in this state. Their economic survival trumps denying climate change. They see the results of it annually.

In 5 years global warming will be irreversible. I guess the ski resorts get it. Nothing will be done. An environmental collapse seems to be the chosen course. As with all crises, there will be a bundle to be made. Invest like the Big Boys.. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. That 50 cent tomato will be worth $20. Invest accordingly.. .

The Assassinator-In-Chief single-handedly sabotaged the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen. The die is cast. Global warming deniers won. We'll have to suffer the results of their victory.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".