Oh, yeah...scientists know mmgw is bogus. It's freakin SCIENCE

[calfoxwc]

1. Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   • History|
   • Mainstream...|
   • Political...|
   • See also

   The Heartland Institute refused requests by scientists to have their names removed, stating that ...

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy - Cached

   More results from en.wikipedia.org »

   ***********************************************

   Weird climate? yep.

    

   But man made from CO2? Nah. Not buyin it, and many scientists don't, either. Like I said, their names were listed with orgs, but they never actually signed on, or changed their minds.

    

   When mmgw became "climate change" .... that is the true indicator that mmgw is in now.

    

   No honest person wants to be controlled, and TAXED, and have their country bankrupted, over a controversy. The moves to quelch scientific dissent speaks

   volumes.

    

   The UN wants their money. It was a great cause that really hasn't panned out.

    

   Now, if they would just talk the destruction of millions of acres of the world's virgin rain forests.....

[calfoxwc]

woodypeckerhead - he asked for sources. How the hell else can I go and find them?

 

you really need to grow up, and learn about things to be able to contribute anything to this

board that isn't wanton, snarky jackass glib comments.

 

You come off as the boards Dom Delouise's dumb little kid next door.

[Osiris]

Please note that Cal is once again employing the tactic of showing a really large number of scientists (in this case, ~17,200) who dispute MMGW, without including the fact that this represents a tiny fraction of the global scientific community.

 

From Nov 2012 to Dec 2013 alone, over 2000 peer reviewed articles on GW were published. Of these, 9000 authors wrote in support of MMGW. One, just one author, disputed MMGW.

 

So what happened to those ~17,2000 scientists who dispute MMGW? Where are their peer-reviewed publications?

 

Ugh, I'm getting sucked in again. Calgon take me away!

[MLD Woody]

"Their work wasn't allowed to be published! The rest of the evil liberal scientific committee shut them down! MMGW is a hoax. It snowed this winter!"

[Westside Steve]

In fact, scientists are trained to be skeptical of each other and any theory that does NOT have significant evidence. You will never convince Cal of this, though, so you'd be better off trying to convince someone a bit more open-minded about the topic.

 

So in this particular case being skeptical is a bad thing? Or good? Which is it guys?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

You're skeptical in the sense you don't just believe things immediately. You need to see the facts, science, evidence etc. Then, you put it all together to get am idea. You don't listen to anyone "just because", you listen to the evidence.

 

That isn't the same as blind skepticism. That isn't the same as refusing to look at the evidence and then not providing any good evidence to a contrary opinion.

 

It shouldn't be that hard to follow.

 

Skepticism in the sense of a peer review process, not a "scientists are all evil liberals" process.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Skepticism in the sciences means that everyone runs their own tests against each other's results. 97% of the published, peer - reviewed articles came to the same results.

 

Instead of trying to plug their ears, mmgw deniers should just accept and change the argument towards "Yeah it is happening but none of the emerging markets are going to dial it back so there is no stopping it". Or they could just continue using the tactic of "nuh uh" as a defense.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Haha Cal, the weather.com link you put up was sarcastically titled. The article talks about how 14,000 articles agree with mmgw and only 24 denied it.

[LogicIsForSquares]

They found only one peer reviewed paper that denied mmgw....over the course of searching science articles for a year.

[calfoxwc]

haha. I didn't read them. I just posted several.

 

All in all, there is a lot of push to force mmgw onto the scene.

 

There is science to contradict mmgw.

 

And thousands of scientists that refute it as fact.

 

And finding one link that doesn't fit.....and ignoring all the others

is typical nonsense.

 

So is the hostility towards anyone who won't buy into mmgw.

 

Now, why would anyone be that outraged at their cherry picked science

is being questioned?

 

Because it's political. That's why. And more and more folks are understanding that.

[calfoxwc]

It's a spread the wealth scheme by the U.N.

 

Buying into mmgw is a political identity thing.

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112113-680267-poor-countries-walk-out-of-united-nations-global-warming-meeting.htm

[calfoxwc]

I've said it now for years.

 

mmgw is bogus.

 

Far too many scientists have gone with it, for

grants, etc.

 

It's a global move to take money from the richer countries,

and spread the wealth to poor countries.

 

It's BS.

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report

[LogicIsForSquares]

Cal, you are implying that the vast majority of the science community is choosing to agree because of....? I really don't know why they would because a good deal of them would kill to be able to accurately discredit their peers and look like the hero. That sort of thing makes careers. Mindlessly agreeing does nothing for scientists.

[calfoxwc]

You guys can agree with mmgw all you want. But the truth is slowly making it's

way across the world.

 

Fraud. Cherry picked data. You mmgw believers can forget it. The tree ring syndrome has

opened the world's eyes to the bogus claim.

 

Whatever else it is, it is also bleeding heart liberal wanting more and more money

for spending on ... utopian goals.

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6820-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death

[LogicIsForSquares]

You actually get more in grants for making the case that you are doing something new. I know this because I have helped some of my friends write grant requests at the University level. That is why you end up with a good deal of university studies where the obvious is tested ("Does putting your face on an a flame hurt?") because they can claim no one has studied it.

[calfoxwc]

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~ Richard Feynman

“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” ~ Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York

“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2077274-scientists-government-agencies-use-peer-review-4.html#ixzz2xrREFyUj

CAGW asserts that CO2 causes temperatures to rise in the real atmosphere due to the GHG effect. Yes there is a GHG effect but clearly Mother Nature isn't obeying the CAGW Hypothesis as the empirical data shows:

No warming for 17 years and 6 months in the actual real atmosphere even while the Co2 has increased contradicts the CAGW hypothesis.

Which wins in science, opinion or empirical data? The scientific method says that empirical data always trumps claims or opinions or consensus that contradicts it. Data wins. Papers and paper authors lose when contradictory empirical data shows their claims wrong. That is the harsh way of science and why we make progress.

“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.” – Richard Feynman

There are 17 years and 6 months of empirical temperature data (RSS 2014) exception to the CAGW hypothesis claims thus following the rules of the scientific method the claims of CAGW are automatically falsified and all the papers that contradict this empirical evidence are thus Null And Void.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2077274-scientists-government-agencies-use-peer-review-4.html#ixzz2xrRo3bZO

[LogicIsForSquares]

Instead of posting retorts from sites that make money from editorials, why not just find peer reviewed material on the subject that backs your claims?

 

Also, I am no alarmist. I am a realist. I don't make mmgw out to be a bogeyman. I just accept it knowing that jack shit can be done about it.

[calfoxwc]

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to believe that CO2 is a poison.

 

I mean, seriously, stop the nonsense.

 

Stop the destruction of the world's virgin rain forests.

 

That would help the rise of CO2 levels.

 

Which, obviously, proves that since global temps have stopped rising for

YEARS..

 

that the correlation was incorrect at best, and diabolically for trying to establish

a giant gw fraud for more and more and more money from the richer countries in the world.

 

Especially, our country.

[calfoxwc]

The peer review process is controlled by UN funding.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Cal you quoted a random person on a forum who offers no sources so the numbers are gibberish.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Haha peer reviewing is not controlled by the UN hahaha.

[calfoxwc]

haha, to a point it is.

 

You want to buy into it, I'm fine with you being a goof.

 

It's bogus. Not all peer review is controlled by......

 

but it influences the greater political movement which is mmgw.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/31/un-officials-predicted-more-alarming-climate-report-years-ago-flashback-2010-un-next-climate-warming-report-will-be-dramatically-worse/

[LogicIsForSquares]

I can see now why it is easy for you to buy anything your favorite news station tells you is truth. If I believed that the UN runs everything and that everyone I disagree with is some hive mind working to destroy the world, I would probably find comfort in anyone who parrots my opinions. Based in fact or not.

[calfoxwc]

And now, I wasn't trying to bust yer chops, Logic, but my point is valid as the sun shines.

haha right back at you. He who laughs last, laughs best.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/31/un-officials-predicted-more-alarming-climate-report-years-ago-flashback-2010-un-next-climate-warming-report-will-be-dramatically-worse/

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report - Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

******************************************************

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

******************************************************

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

******************************************************

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

******************************************************

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

******************************************************

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

******************************************************

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

******************************************************

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

******************************************************

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

******************************************************

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

******************************************************

“After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

******************************************************

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

******************************************************

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

******************************************************

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

******************************************************

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

******************************************************

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [uN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

******************************************************

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [iPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

******************************************************

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

[calfoxwc]

Now, if you want to believe that those EXPERTS are lying,

because they are paid from Fox News,

 

you go ahead and be a fool.

 

The truth of what I have said is right freakin there.

 

You should argue with me about something else you can back up.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I don't presume anything about them. I just know that I have a pretty good feeling that the other 97% of scientists aren't just making things up.

 

If 9 people in a room see something, I don't turn to the 10th guy who swears it never happened and believe him whole heartedly because the other 9 are saying something I don't want to hear.

[Osiris]

Cal do you actually know how the peer review process works in practical terms?

[MLD Woody]

haha. I didn't read them. I just posted several.

 

All in all, there is a lot of push to force mmgw onto the scene.

 

There is science to contradict mmgw.

 

And thousands of scientists that refute it as fact.

 

And finding one link that doesn't fit.....and ignoring all the others

is typical nonsense.

 

So is the hostility towards anyone who won't buy into mmgw.

 

Now, why would anyone be that outraged at their cherry picked science

is being questioned?

 

Because it's political. That's why. And more and more folks are understanding that.

 

 

 

Coming from the guy that finds an editorial that he agrees with, or one "climate" scientist that he agrees with, and then uses it to discount the mountain of evidence and support for climate change... lol

 

irony defined

[The Cysko Kid]

From the very same Wikipedia article cal posted

 

 

Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, sometimes split along party political lines, especially in the United States. [10] Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them an ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as climate change denial. The sources of funding for those involved with climate science both supporting and opposing mainstream scientific positions have been questioned by both sides. T

[calfoxwc]

it's a theory.

 

You don't establish a global tax on cows farting, etc,

 

on a freakin theory.

 

Plain and simple.

 

If you "follow the money", you see ulterior motives.