Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 4:45:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 21, 2012 4:52:23 PM PST
TS: <<TS: LOL. You said the universe was trillions of years old, instead of billions (14.7 billion)
You would never admit you were wrong, and indeed tried to argue your way out of admitting it.

Now you seem confused the Earth is a lot younger than the universe.
AND, the sun is a lot younger than the universe too....
OOPS.>>

Joe: <<I guess that's why they're called climate clowns.>>

Joshua Feldman: Joe is the only true climate "clown" around here. I can hear the hurdy-gurdy and the scoop-whistle every time he posts. Like a clown he always plays for laughs. In those few instances he tries to play it straight he steps on a banana peel or finds he shoelaces tied together and does a pratfall. What fun!

TS: yeah, I think Joe is trying to emulate... the TeapartyWoman's rants. The use of clown is a clue.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 4:49:16 PM PST
Tea Party Woman: <<There is a thaw in europe right now after a month of polar deep freeze.>>

Joshua Feldman: This is true - but this was apparently the result of a displacement of Arctic air. Temperatures in the Arctic over this period were abnormally high and Arctic sea ice extent growth stalled. Now that the cold snap ended we have seen Arctic temperatures return to closer to normal (but still higher than normal) according to the DMI. Do you think the Danish scientists are lying too?

You point out that almost half the Earth experienced unusual cold. Do you understand that if almost half the Earth was at the same time experiencing concomitant unusual warmth you end up with a wash when you produce a global average? Do you understand the concept?

TS: and do YOU understand the TeaPartywoman is an uneducated clueless near 90 year old -- and couldn't follow you if she tried?

She cuts and pastes her trash... not even noticing when it has contradicted a previous post she cut and pasted (since skeptics have different things they are "skeptical of" which can conflict with others.)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 4:53:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 21, 2012 4:55:09 PM PST
Joe: Amusing. Everyone ignoring except you?

TS: Amazing, I see none of your fellow right wing ideologue comrades posting today. That means YOU are the only one ignoring it.

PS -- I see you ran off when I demonstrated you NOW had the age of the Earth wrong.
And you slipped in the correct age of the universe, after trying to deny you had made a mistake.

Most people would be ashamed of your record. Something about a hard right wing mindset that is PROUD of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 5:00:16 PM PST
Joe says:
Confusing seasons with climate again?

Turned out to be a beautiful warm day after the frost melted. Nothin' better than a little global warming with some greenhouse gases thrown in for good measure.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 6:09:32 PM PST
Joe: By the way, it's frosty here in N. CA. I guess this moring I'll just call it global cooling.

TS: Most people call it ... Winter.

Joe: Confusing seasons with climate again?

TS: HA HA, You think this is ... SUMMER?

And it's WEATHER that is confused with climate.

Two more Fails for you....

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 7:00:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 21, 2012 7:05:04 PM PST
part I
Hockey-stick graph creator talks 'Climategate,' 'Denialgate' and resisting schadenfreude

sent to me by a friend.

<<In 1998, a young climate scientist named Michael Mann published a paper that would change his life forever.

The work by Mann, then a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Massachusetts, and his two co-authors sought to reconstruct the past climate hundreds of years into the past, using information from tree rings, ice cores and other "climate proxies" to peer beyond the modern temperature records that began in the 1880s.
The result was startling: a graph that showed global average temperature ticking up sharply during the second half of the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick.


,,,
In 2005, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation into Mann's work, with lawmakers accusing the scientist of professional misconduct. In 2009, Mann was among the climate scientists whose emails were stolen from a server at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, in an incident now known as "Climategate." More recently, Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (R) started to investigate whether Mann violated a little-used tax fraud statute during his tenure at the University of Virginia.

In his new book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines," Mann recounts his tumultuous life in science.

ClimateWire sat down with Mann last weekend in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

ClimateWire: The hockey-stick work was something you started as a postdoctoral researcher. Nature published the initial study on Earth Day in 1998. Then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] decided to spotlight the hockey-stick graphic in the summary for policymakers that accompanied its 2001 report. Do you ever wonder to yourself, would my career be different if one of those things didn't happen?

Mann: You know, I do think about that sometimes. What if I had just stayed in theoretical physics and gone on studying the theory of liquids and solids? Then, obviously, I would've had a much different career. I wouldn't have had to deal with a lot of the nonsense I've had to deal with. But I also wouldn't have had the opportunity to try to engage the public in what may be the greatest -- the science underlying what may be the greatest threat that has ever faced civilization. And so, while I was sort of a reluctant entrant into the public discourse, I have sort of embraced that role and done my best to use it as an opportunity to communicate the science and its implications. Looking back, given the opportunity, I'm not sure I would have done things differently.

ClimateWire: You mentioned in the book and you mentioned just now that the way you deal with climate skepticism and the attacks directed at you has changed over time. Was there a particular turning point where you decided to focus more on outreach, on defending your work and climate science in general?

Mann: I get into this issue in the book about skepticism -- our detractors, I wouldn't reward them with that term. This has become almost a mantra of mine: One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all.
I think early on in my career I was very much of the mindset that a scientist stays in their lab or behind their computer screen, and you do the science, and you publish it, and it's the responsibility of everybody else to make whatever use of that science they may. Discussions of implications and policy should all be left to others. The scientist's role is just to do science.

And I think it was because of the crescendo of attacks that I was subject to -- I'm not sure I can look back at any one episode, although there are a couple that I do talk about in the book. I do talk about that crescendo. Early on, our work was attacked by [climate skeptics] Fred Singer and Pat Michaels. Not having had any experience with the world of climate change denial, and being a scientist who was raised to believe that people deal with each other in good faith, and arguments are in good faith, and criticisms -- which are very important in science -- are done in good faith, it took me some time to realize that these people are not engaged in a good-faith debate with us. They're trying to smear us and discredit us. I guess I slowly awoke to that.

Early on, I even responded to one of the criticisms. There were a series of criticisms after our first '98 Nature article was published in the World Climate Report, which is Pat Michaels' effort. And I treated that as if it had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I asked him if I could publish a response, and he did [say yes]. I figured, "OK, well, these guys, they're OK." It took a while for it to sink in that, no, they are not looking to have a fair and honest debate with us. They are looking to discredit us.

I'm trying to think if there was a critical juncture -- I think it was more cumulative.

ClimateWire: You mention in the book the attacks on Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, after he helped write a sentence in the IPCC's 1995 report that said there was a "discernible human influence on climate." You also allude to the attempt by the George W. Bush administration to muzzle NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen. Have you had any particular role models for dealing with the attacks on your own work?

Mann: There are so many heroes that I have. One of the real silver linings in all this is that I've gotten to meet a lot of those heroes. I just had dinner with Bill Nye last week. And he's a hero -- he's somebody who knows the science but who has such an amazing ability to communicate it, and to get people excited about it, and to understand the culture of science.

I think it's so important to understand how science works, because it's so easy to vilify us if you don't understand that we don't get rich on government grants, and you don't get ahead in science by engaging in a massive conspiracy to prove the other person right.

But some role models do come to mind, one of whom I'm going to get a chance to meet this week -- David Suzuki, just a great scientist and a wonderful communicator of science. Carl Sagan, of course, was a hero of mine, one that I didn't get a chance to meet. He passed away before I got into this field.
One climate scientist you didn't mention who was an inspiration, for certain, was [Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider. It was very sad when we lost him a couple years ago, not just because he was such a great person and he was a friend, but because he had no equal when it comes to being able to engage the public and explain science and its implications -- to talk about every facet of the climate change problem in a way that is both informed and very open.

[Schneider] came to me early on, in fact. I think I allude to this in the book. When we were under attack, Steve Schneider came to me, and he said, "Well, understand that these attacks that you're being subject to are in fact a testament to the importance of your work, and the fact that it's threatening to some very powerful vested interests. Wear that as a badge of courage. We're behind you."

He didn't use those exact words, but that was the meaning. And that meant so much to me to have someone like him or [former Stanford University president and Science editor] Donald Kennedy or [Stanford University biologist] Paul Ehrlich -- heroes -- come to my defense and actually become friends in the process, along with the support of letters I often get. Emails from people who say, "Keep going. Thanks for what you're doing." That more than offsets all of the bad stuff. It's part of what keeps me going.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 7:01:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 21, 2012 7:04:40 PM PST
part ii.

...

<<ClimateWire: Earlier this week, several documents purporting to show budget and "climate strategy" information from the right-leaning Heartland Institute were leaked online. In some ways, it seems like a mirror of Climategate. How do you view that?

Mann: My understanding is that I know the Heartland Institute was challenging the authenticity of one of the documents. But now my understanding, from reading news reports, is that pretty much everything said in that document is independently verified from other documents. So it would appear the charges are true.

I would never support hacking or criminal efforts to get a hold of those sorts of materials, whether it's scientists or organizations funding climate change denial, although my understanding is that they actually sent out those materials mistakenly to an individual who is not part of their inner circle, and that's how the materials came out. So unlike the hacked [Climategate] emails, there doesn't appear to have been any criminal component to these materials getting out. It was basically a whistle-blower, as far as I understand it.

There was a part of me that found this remarkably ironic that this came out right at the time that I'm going on tour and lecturing about my book, because it really does independently reinforce everything, things that we sort of knew anyway, that there are these front groups funded by -- increasingly less so by the fossil fuel groups like Exxon Mobil directly, and more by private fossil fuel interests like Koch Industries.

What was shocking to me was a description of an effort to indoctrinate children in K-9 grades in school with climate change disinformation, with anti-science propaganda. It's outrageous.

I think somebody said, "The curtain has finally been lifted." The public has now been able to look behind and see that seamy underbelly of climate change denial.
There's an irony to the fact that this all happened as I was talking about all this stuff anyway in the context of the book. I've resisted the temptation to feel schadenfreude over this. But I do think it's useful that the public had an opportunity to see what a lot of us already knew.

[Two days after this interview, Mann was part of a group of seven climate scientists who released a letter discussing the Heartland Institute incident. It reads, in part: "Although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting e-mails stolen from scientists." Yesterday, climate scientist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, said he obtained and leaked the Heartland memos.]

ClimateWire: One last question: What's your "elevator speech" on climate change?

Mann: What I'd say to somebody in that 30-second interval I have in the elevator is that the basic physics and chemistry underlying the greenhouse effect and human-caused climate change is irrefutable. Most people don't realize, but we've known about it for two centuries.
Gases like CO2 have a warming influence on the lower atmosphere. We've understood that property of these gases for nearly two centuries. We're increasing them through fossil fuel burning, the globe is warming, and we know that the impacts will be much greater than anything we've seen thus far if we continue on the course that we're on.

While the science is often framed purely in terms of scientific issues, or economic issues, or maybe political issues, it's also deeply an ethical issue, because it's about the planet we choose to leave our children and grandchildren.

We can still preserve the planet we grew up with for them if we reduce emissions, but there's not a lot of time left. We need to act now."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 8:04:06 PM PST
Joe says:
I agree, that's why I'm cranking up the furnace to attempt to combat all this global cooling.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 8:58:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 21, 2012 9:00:55 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
In spite of the protestations of the AGW Headbangers here yesterday, it looks like my assertion that liberal scientists are 'liberal' idealogues first and 'scientists' second, has been born out to be 100% true.

read the truth here --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-scientist-admits-duping-skeptic-group-to-obtain-documents/2012/02/21/gIQAr7aGRR_story.html

...I'm not gloating...really... I assume however that the AGW Headbangers will forgive Peter Gleick since his motives were noble.... Basically everything written below by Truthseeker seems so shallow now...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 9:28:32 PM PST
barbW says:
You aren't biased much, are you?

What matters to me is, how much climate change will there be and when, and how much will governments and the voters understand? I don't care who thinks they're winning the bickering. That's fleeting, Mark. What do you care about?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 9:31:12 PM PST
A customer says:
I certainly wouldn't try gloating in your position. The Heartland documents are genuine and show genuine evildoing. And since you've already endorsed the theft of private e-mails which did not even show any wrongdoing you've established in advance that you do not even believe your own objections. You also routinely parrot the likes of the likes of Fox News, whose reporters routinely lie about their identities to obtain access to material, like any other investigative reporter or undercover cop.

Basically, you are just another hypocrite.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 11:06:30 PM PST
Smallcat says:
In reference to my own personal opinion, yes, I am using "lacking" in a more negative sense. Statistics are extremely important on learning about global warming and climate change.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 11:18:19 PM PST
A customer says:
Smallcat - "Statistics are extremely important on learning about global warming and climate change."

A good thing there are enough to fill 4,000 pages of reports every few years, then.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2012 11:29:39 PM PST
ML: <<...I'm not gloating...really... I assume however that the AGW Headbangers will forgive Peter Gleick since his motives were noble....>>

As EB notes, you're not gloating because you're admitting the Heartland documents are genuine and have already established via the "climategate" precedence that the morality of stealing confidential information isn't germane to the issue of using the content of that information... Unless you are a total hypocrite.

Posted on Feb 22, 2012 1:24:05 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
Deniers always alter the hockey stick and other graphs to back up their lies

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 1:24:35 AM PST
ML: read the truth here --> http://www.washingtonpost.com

BPL: "[T]he truth???" In the Moonie-owned, far-right-wing Washington Post?

If you want to know the truth about AGW, why don't you try reading a climatology textbook instead?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 4:03:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 4:04:21 AM PST
BPL, you are confused with the Washington Times.

And if you read ML's reference in the Washington Post (which I saw yesterday) it is a very balanced assessment,

<<Scientists need to get out the truth, but we should not be playing games," Wuebbles wrote in an e-mail. "So it is inappropriate to try to get information in an illegal manner, no matter how strongly we feel these groups out there are misrepresenting the science and how they are being manipulative of the public."

Gleick, who studies the hydrological cycle, serves as president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland, Calif. He said he used someone else's name to obtain internal documents from Heartland after receiving an anonymous memo containing information about its funders and about its "apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy." Gleick said he then passed the documents on to journalists and climate experts. The DeSmog Blog posted the documents last week. >>

========================================================
And Golly GEE: Heartland had NO PROBLEMS when CRU was hacked and their e-mails released in a way to grotestquely distort them out of context.

***HOW ABOUT THAT!***

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 4:06:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 4:07:31 AM PST
ML: <<...I'm not gloating...really... I assume however that the AGW Headbangers will forgive Peter Gleick since his motives were noble....>>

TS: I think his motives were just as noble as when an FBI investigor infiltrates a right wing racist or crime organization.

Michael Mann still has a lawsuit to make his emails public. Shouldn't Heartland be support Mann?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 4:36:04 AM PST
A customer says:
Quite. Heartland have already established in advance that they can have no objection, as have all our "hide the decline" crowd here who have trademarked data theft.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 5:12:31 AM PST
TS,

Sorry about that. I did indeed confuse the two newspapers. Apologies to ML.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 9:04:02 AM PST
Joe says:
From the Washington Post article cited, "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts - often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated - to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved," Gleick wrote in a post on his Huffington Post blog."

At least the climate clowns are starting to come clean. It was a fun circus while it lasted.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 10:42:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 12:57:04 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
ML: OK, I don't want to appear as a hypocrite and argue one way for Heartland, and another for East Anglia or another for Mann's emails...... but I have to ask if the cases are comparable.

It seems scientists should be willing to release information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, when that research was sponsored by Government grants. But, should FOI requests be thought of in the same way as a private corporation or Charitable 503(c) corp?

It seems Mann has an obligation to release under FOI.

East Anglia was indeed a hack, and seems like the theft was clearly a dishonest act.

Heartland was also a theft through impersonation and a dishonest act.

In all 3 cases, the aggrieved party seems to feel justified in their desire to keep the information out of the public's view...

...but I have a hard time thinking Mann is justified in resisting the FOI request... am I missing something in my ethics logic here??

Posted on Feb 22, 2012 1:11:18 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
What is this science fiction topic of AGW doing in the science forum?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 1:41:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 1:41:54 PM PST
Smallcat says:
It's probably important to have that many reports because even one or many inaccuracy can be fatal-for example, oil spills, destroying beaver dams, or cutting down too many trees which can lead to more animal deaths or human accidents/surgeries/or accidental deaths; and on and on. For example, the Brooklyn oil spill in the 50s.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 5:29:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 5:33:14 PM PST
Joe: From the Washington Post article cited, "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts - often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated - to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved," Gleick wrote in a post on his Huffington Post blog."

At least the climate clowns are starting to come clean. It was a fun circus while it lasted.

TS: I don't think you are reading well. He was saying it is right wing ideological groups like Heartland who are attacking climate science who has the lack of transparancy. Pay attention.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions