Climate change hoax exposed? - Page 5

djmb74 · 12-07-2009, 03:49 AM

Speaker Thor Pedersen (Lib) "Scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’"

djmb74 · 12-07-2009, 03:50 AM

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Quote:

The Fiction Of Climate Science
Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM ET

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.

djmb74 · 12-07-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

But I guess we should all enjoy being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed...whatever.

Nice one Harvey! :-)

And please I love science, most of the programming I watch on TV is either science related or history related as well as Science Fiction... haha

SBL I did not mean that all scientist are greedy I was just pointing out that greed is a huge motivating factor and can affect science as well.

Richard you are being just as bad as when you take a hard stance to one side and think those that are skeptical are being ignorant. If everyone acted as you think they should based on those that are yelling the loudest on what they think is the truth then we would still be scared of falling off the end of the earth!!!

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

sbl · 12-07-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djmb74

Nice one Harvey! :-)

And please I love science, most of the programming I watch on TV is either science related or history related as well as Science Fiction... haha

SBL I did not mean that all scientist are greedy I was just pointing out that greed is a huge motivating factor and can affect science as well.

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

You are right, there are greedy and evil people in all areas and on both sides of every issue, But the vast majority of climate scientist support the current man made global climate theory.

As I said before, nobody KNOWS what will happen, but you do not even need to know which side is right to make an intelligent decision on which path we should take when it comes to trying to reduce the potential effects of greenhouse gasses. Just think about the consequences of choosing either path if it is the wrong path.

I am far more knowledgable that the average person on this issue and I have no axe to grind here. In fact, I own far more oil stocks than I do "green" stocks. I think the data is pretty clear and I know it is much warmer here now than it was when I was a kid, so just on the science issue I tend to think the majority is right.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 12:09 PM

I do agree, sbl, that we should be prudent in our use of energy.

Our first frost this year was about a month earlier than normal (average first frost date is 12/15) and we've had seven days with frost. There was a forecast for a chance of snow here this morning at sea level, which would be the first time in 30-35 years when we had a dusting. Global temperatures have been colder the past couple of years. So all of this really makes me wonder if we are getting warmer at all. Did global warming just take a break?

Richard · 12-07-2009, 12:32 PM

This thread proposes that there is a widespread conspiracy among climatologists to fool the population into believing the world is undergoing climate change.

The "widespread conspiracy" part of this claim seems very far-fetched to me. It is the very sort of claim you find in tabloid journalism and political blogging in order to sell controversy.

Of course, pop culture has far more of an appetite for controversy and drama in sports and politics than for any sort of accurate "review of the literature" which you would find in a science monograph. What I particularly disdain is discussion of "controversy for the sake of controversy" and "arguing for the sake of anger and disagreement". Just take a look around and you'll see it popping up everywhere.

In response to Harvey:

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

... If it wasn't for these blogs, we wouldn't know that NASA had repeated Russia's September 2008 data for October 2008. Or that many sensors have been located through the world in some very poor locations to be considered meaningful. ...

If blogs and Google searches are your only source of information, then I guess that's true. The issue with sensors and repeat reporting has been otherwise known (even in mid-school science classes) since the 1980's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djmb74

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

Definitely. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

If blogs and Google searches are your only source of information, then I guess that's true. The issue with sensors and repeat reporting has been otherwise known (even in mid-school science classes) since the 1980's.

No, these are not my only sources but they are useful as checks and balances to the the crap we are sometimes fed by so-called scientists, thus avoiding the mushroom syndrome that some seem to enjoy.

While the issue with these sensors and repeat reporting are known, bad data continues to be reported and decisions get made based on poor information. Knowledge is only good if you use it.

Richard · 12-07-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

No, these are not my only sources ...

I never said they were.

Go look at some budget details. In the U.S., money allocated for "climate change research" includes equipment and salaries. NASA's budget is about 20 times that of the National Science Foundation. Nearly all of NASA's budget in this category is spent on equipment. Further, the National Science Foundation funds nearly all the salaries of the researchers (through grants). So the concept that billions of federal dollars are going into researchers salaries is incorrect, it is actually going into NASA's subcontractors who of course are the biggest lobbyists of "global change research" in Congress.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 01:37 PM

I never said you said they were.

I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA. Richard, can you give me a precise figure on how much is being spent for researcher's salaries?

Richard · 12-07-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA.

True. But the concept that billions of federal dollars are going into researchers salaries is a main tenant of this thread.

sbl · 12-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

I do agree, sbl, that we should be prudent in our use of energy.

Our first frost this year was about a month earlier than normal (average first frost date is 12/15) and we've had seven days with frost. There was a forecast for a chance of snow here this morning at sea level, which would be the first time in 30-35 years when we had a dusting. Global temperatures have been colder the past couple of years. So all of this really makes me wonder if we are getting warmer at all. Did global warming just take a break?

Harvey, That is the difference between climate and weather. Climate is long-term, weather averaged over years. As I said in an earlier post, there are many factors involved in our climate, some are driving it toward a warmer average, some toward a cooler average temperature. Some factors have short-term effects (like day and night, winter and summer), some have longer cycles--like sun spot activity and the southern ocillation, some have very long-term effects or cycles--like orbital changes and greenhouse gasses. In the end it is the balance of these effects that controls the climate. If you look at the graphs of global average temperature it is not a smooth line--it has ups and downs, but the overall trend in the last 50-60 yrs has been a dramatic increase in temperature.

Richard, I couldn't agree more. It is a shame, but what passes for news now is purely stirring the pot of controversy. There is no such thing as honest news anymore, no attempt to sort out the truth and help the average person understand the consequences.

sbl · 12-07-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

I never said you said they were.

I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA. Richard, can you give me a precise figure on how much is being spent for researcher's salaries?

I can. Here is the GS pay scale (annual) for government scientist. Salary Table 2009-GS

Typical BS degree scientist (more accurately technicians) are usually GS 5 to 9--some make it to GS-11 or 12.

MS degree scientist, typically start at GS-9 and usually end around GS-12

Ph.D. Scientist usually start at GS-11 or 12 and unless they are considered a national expert, usually end around GS-13.

University professors can be above or below the government scale, but industry generally pays the highest salaries.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 02:00 PM

sbl, I understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, when NASA used bad data for October 2008, it sure jumped on "warmest October on record". Scientists like to stir up controversy just as much as bloggers.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 02:01 PM

sbl - total salaries, not an average salary.

sbl · 12-07-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

sbl, I understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, when NASA used bad data for October 2008, it sure jumped on "warmest October on record". Scientists like to stir up controversy just as much as bloggers.

Depending on where you live it may have been one of the warmest Octobers on record. I haven't looked at the record, but it certainly felt like the warmest one I can remember. Scientist do not "like to stir up controversy", they debate the data and the theories, in most cases based on honest differences in opinions or interpretations. Errors do creep into data, sometimes from instrumental problems, sometimes from human error, but just because someone makes an error does not imply intent.

harveyc · 12-07-2009, 02:24 PM

sbl, this was last year, not this year, and it was global temperatures that were being talked about. I have never seen someone at NASA in recent years point out a month that was colder than normal, even though many have existed. When they only point out what appears to be warm months, that seems to be a sign of being less than objective.

Richard · 12-07-2009, 02:48 PM

So far, the proponents of this thread "Climate chang hoax exposed?" claim that
1. there is a widespread conspiracy among climatology researchers to extort public money with lies about "global climate change".
2. billions of U.S. federal dollars are being spent on researchers of global climate change.

The 1st is false by counter-example: although the majority of climatologists agree that "global climate change" would not be good for humans, a sizable minority feel that there is no significant evidence of global climate change. For more details, go read one of the monographs from one of the recent peer-reviewed conferences on climate change.

The second is false by budget: the billions being spent by the U.S. federal government is going to engineering contractors, not researchers. The researchers only get a few crumbs of the whole pie. Or as the famous quote goes: add a billion here and a billion there and now you've got some real money.

I would also warn you about how NASA totals up numbers of researchers. 20 years ago I worked as a civilian scientist for the U.S. Navy. We obtained data from a NASA "Earth Observing" sensor and processed it rather meticulously in comparison to the standard release from NASA. The chief scientist on the NASA sensor project liked our results better, and thus paid our department about $10k a year for operating a data server on darpa.net. Humorously, everyone in the department was listed by NASA as a researcher on the project, although none of the $10k went towards our whopping $32k annual salaries.

sbl · 12-07-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

sbl, this was last year, not this year, and it was global temperatures that were being talked about. I have never seen someone at NASA in recent years point out a month that was colder than normal, even though many have existed. When they only point out what appears to be warm months, that seems to be a sign of being less than objective.

I don't remember what the temperature was more than a yr ago, but I could certainly look up the data if I wanted to. Anyone can find a point out warmer or colder months, days or yrs if they want. The data is objective and it does not lie. Eventhough we are predicted to have a cooler than normal winter here due to El Nino, that is not a climate change. BTW--the "cooler than normal" prediction came from NOAA --maybe they will point it out to you after it happens.

damaclese · 12-11-2009, 09:09 AM

wow i go away for a few days and look at what you all have been up to. it will take me all day to read from my last post forwerd!

djmb74 · 12-11-2009, 10:39 AM

Richard its not the climatologist, its the ones handing them their paycheck. Their corporate boss and politicians.

Also that guy that is always smoking a cigarette. Mulder can't stand that guy even though he may be his father!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

So far, the proponents of this thread "Climate chang hoax exposed?" claim that
1. there is a widespread conspiracy among climatology researchers to extort public money with lies about "global climate change".
2. billions of U.S. federal dollars are being spent on researchers of global climate change.

The 1st is false by counter-example: although the majority of climatologists agree that "global climate change" would not be good for humans, a sizable minority feel that there is no significant evidence of global climate change. For more details, go read one of the monographs from one of the recent peer-reviewed conferences on climate change.

The second is false by budget: the billions being spent by the U.S. federal government is going to engineering contractors, not researchers. The researchers only get a few crumbs of the whole pie. Or as the famous quote goes: add a billion here and a billion there and now you've got some real money.

I would also warn you about how NASA totals up numbers of researchers. 20 years ago I worked as a civilian scientist for the U.S. Navy. We obtained data from a NASA "Earth Observing" sensor and processed it rather meticulously in comparison to the standard release from NASA. The chief scientist on the NASA sensor project liked our results better, and thus paid our department about $10k a year for operating a data server on darpa.net. Humorously, everyone in the department was listed by NASA as a researcher on the project, although none of the $10k went towards our whopping $32k annual salaries.

12-07-2009, 03:49 AM	#81 (permalink)
djmb74 djmb74's Photo Gallery Location: Longwood. Florida Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Martin Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 631 BananaBucks : 230,376 Feedback: 1 / 100% Said "Thanks" 334 Times Was Thanked 642 Times in 243 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 130 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? Speaker Thor Pedersen (Lib) "Scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’" __________________ PEOPLE WILL FORGET WHAT YOU SAID. PEOPLE WILL FORGET WHAT YOU DID. *BUT PEOPLE WILL NEVER FORGET HOW YOU MADE THEM FEEL!

12-07-2009, 12:09 PM	#85 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,989 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? I do agree, sbl, that we should be prudent in our use of energy. Our first frost this year was about a month earlier than normal (average first frost date is 12/15) and we've had seven days with frost. There was a forecast for a chance of snow here this morning at sea level, which would be the first time in 30-35 years when we had a dusting. Global temperatures have been colder the past couple of years. So all of this really makes me wonder if we are getting warmer at all. Did global warming just take a break? __________________

12-07-2009, 01:37 PM	#89 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,989 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? I never said you said they were. I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA. Richard, can you give me a precise figure on how much is being spent for researcher's salaries? __________________

12-07-2009, 02:00 PM	#93 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,989 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? sbl, I understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, when NASA used bad data for October 2008, it sure jumped on "warmest October on record". Scientists like to stir up controversy just as much as bloggers. __________________

12-07-2009, 02:01 PM	#94 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,989 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? sbl - total salaries, not an average salary. __________________

Members currently in the chatroom: 0
	The most chatters online in one day was 17, 09-06-2009. No one is currently using the chat.

12-07-2009, 02:24 PM	#96 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,989 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? sbl, this was last year, not this year, and it was global temperatures that were being talked about. I have never seen someone at NASA in recent years point out a month that was colder than normal, even though many have existed. When they only point out what appears to be warm months, that seems to be a sign of being less than objective. __________________

12-07-2009, 02:48 PM	#97 (permalink)
Richard un-Retired Richard's Photo Gallery Location: Vista, CA Find me on the map! Zone: USDA 10b Name: Richard Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 9,674 BananaBucks : 508,581 Feedback: 9 / 100% Said "Thanks" 3,636 Times Was Thanked 12,543 Times in 4,721 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,685 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? So far, the proponents of this thread "Climate chang hoax exposed?" claim that 1. there is a widespread conspiracy among climatology researchers to extort public money with lies about "global climate change". 2. billions of U.S. federal dollars are being spent on researchers of global climate change. The 1st is false by counter-example: although the majority of climatologists agree that "global climate change" would not be good for humans, a sizable minority feel that there is no significant evidence of global climate change. For more details, go read one of the monographs from one of the recent peer-reviewed conferences on climate change. The second is false by budget: the billions being spent by the U.S. federal government is going to engineering contractors, not researchers. The researchers only get a few crumbs of the whole pie. Or as the famous quote goes: add a billion here and a billion there and now you've got some real money. I would also warn you about how NASA totals up numbers of researchers. 20 years ago I worked as a civilian scientist for the U.S. Navy. We obtained data from a NASA "Earth Observing" sensor and processed it rather meticulously in comparison to the standard release from NASA. The chief scientist on the NASA sensor project liked our results better, and thus paid our department about $10k a year for operating a data server on darpa.net. Humorously, everyone in the department was listed by NASA as a researcher on the project, although none of the $10k went towards our whopping $32k annual salaries. __________________ Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

12-11-2009, 09:09 AM	#99 (permalink)
damaclese Living in Exile damaclese's Photo Gallery Location: Henderson NV Find me on the map! Zone: 9 Mediterranean climate Name: Paulo Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,767 BananaBucks : 283,392 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,352 Times Was Thanked 1,620 Times in 706 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 101 Times	Re: Climate chang hoax exposed? wow i go away for a few days and look at what you all have been up to. it will take me all day to read from my last post forwerd! __________________ Helping to foster understanding for the learning disabled

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UK climate zones may be useful	jmoore	Main Banana Discussion	2	08-09-2009 05:42 AM
climate change gardening...	51st state	Cold Hardy Bananas	1	07-28-2009 06:21 PM
Change	Plantaseeds	Other Plants	2	04-05-2009 10:13 PM
Worsleya for change	Plantaseeds	Other Plants	3	10-21-2008 10:11 AM
sudden move to new climate	Zacarias	Main Banana Discussion	7	05-27-2008 07:59 AM