Cult of Climate Change in trouble..

by AlexinCT

The efforts to keep some stuff of the literature is deplorable.  But there’s little evidence that anything actually happened as a result.  And it’s not as if the global warming skeptics don’t have a platform.  A year or so ago, one session at a conference I was at revisited the connection between solar activity and temperature to see if it can explain global warming.  (Conclusion: probably not, but needs more research).

But much of these stolen e-mails show very little there there. The Right Wing Ecosphere has been erupting over “tricks” that are actually established scientific methods.

It would be interesting to see what a set of stolen e-mails would reveal about the detractors of global warming such as McIntyre.  McIntyre has been repeatedly exposed as a fraud and a liar who mixes up data from different sources and misrepresents published literature in order to “disprove” global warming.  This includes his supposed disproof of the hockey stick.

This cult is based on lies, damned lies, and the IPCC’s lies. This is about faith, not science.

You’re talking about global warming detractors, I’m guessing, who keep dragging out disproved memes like global cooling, 1934 and the the last decade?  Whose skepticism consists—not of doubt—but of absolute certainty that this is a fraud.  Who have persuaded themselves that all this atmospheric CO2 has no affect, none whatsoever upon the climate, no sir nothing to see here?  Who have decided that their political opposition to the stupid idea of Democrats necessitates a political opposition to the science?

In the meantime, from the world of actual science you have:

Debunking of the idea that arctic ice is recovering.

Debunking of the idea that we have been cooling lately.

Destruction (pdf) of the idea that global cooling was ever consensus.

Response to McIntyre’s lies on tree rings.

Warnings about Greenland’s ice sheet.

But keep sticking your fingers in your ears by all means.  Let the Democrats own this issue and ruin the country with their dumbass cap-and-trade policies.

I was at revisited the connection between solar activity and temperature to see if it can explain global warming.  (Conclusion: probably not, but needs more research)

It is painful to watch this sort of ignorance posted by someone that is otherwise intelligent…

McIntyre has been repeatedly exposed as a fraud and a liar who mixes up data from different sources and misrepresents published literature in order to “disprove” global warming.  This includes his supposed disproof of the hockey stick.

You have this backwards - and the hockey stick has been so thoroughly debunked that not even the AGW crowd will use it any longer.

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass…

Who have persuaded themselves that all this atmospheric CO2 has no affect, none whatsoever upon the climate, no sir nothing to see here?

I you had actually done any fucking reading on how CO2 works in the atmosphere you’d realize that essentially this is EXACTLY the truth - CO2 is a greenhouse gas pretty much on a technicality only.  The only thing regulating CO2 does is control industrial activity, which is why it was chosen.

Every time you go posting this crap all it does is show that your understanding of physics is pretty fucking weak.  Weak enough for someone like Gore, who essentially failed all his college science classes, to sell a line of shit.

ITs pretty obvious that these people at the CRU were trying to hide or deletes something.
Not something you do when you are a honest scientist.
There are those that question Why they would do this,it is real easy. right now there is a Butt ass load of money and public fame in global warming research.
Look at Al gore.

Using a “trick” to cover a decline? ....  ok..
Recent Data has shown and it was in Der Spegail, that climatologist were baffled by the platue in average temp in the last 10 years.
How ever im at a loss to understand why warmer temperatures is a bad thing.

I really wish i could find the article i glanced over a few months back a planetary scientist has a new theory supported by data that Venus CO2 was the result of the planets temps, not the cause of it.

But keep sticking your fingers in your ears by all means.  Let the Democrats own this issue and ruin the country with their dumbass cap-and-trade policies.

They are already doing it! And i recall you do/did? support some of these policy’s they are talking about? The carbon Tax ect?

Ok i better make my postilion clear on this.
Global Warming is a fraud.

Climate Change is real,its been happing since the sun birthed light.
Many of these scientists are good people who are probably in some form of peer pressure to conform, the Lefties, have a well leftie mentality that probably does color their work. It happens in every field. science is not above that fray.
A warmign trend is better than a cooling trend, A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which means a more active water cycle, which is good, right?
The Little ice age was not fun for those that lived though it.
We are dumping a shit load of crap into the ocean and atmosphere, which we should do our damdest to reduce, but not at the cost of our economies.

We are dumping a shit load of crap into the ocean and atmosphere, which we should do our damdest to reduce, but not at the cost of our economies.

I’ll sign up for that one.  We can all do with less pollution as a general rule.  However, that does lead me into a little history lesson:  40 years ago when the envirotards first started to get organized and address the issues of litter, smog, and unfiltered stacks pumping out zillions of tons of waste steam, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and assorted poisons, they found out that one thing worked better to get new laws and regulations better than anything else - lying through their teeth with doomsday scenarios. 

They even admitted as much by the late ‘80s, which is why everybody that doubted them previously refused to trust them on their next bout of fear-mongering.  While everyone agreed that clean air and water were a great thing, once you got past that and started stonewalling new power plants and suing endlessly “to save the planet”, most people got off the environmental bus in short order.  Also, the various radical commies needed a new place to roost once the iron curtain fell and nobody took them seriously any longer, and telling lies was their specialty.

Which is exactly where “global warming” came from.  If you can’t control the world by one revolution, come at the same target from another angle.  Control all industrial activity via regulation of CO2 output and you’ve accomplished your takeover in the name of “saving the planet”.  The fact that climatologists have known since the early ‘70s that CO2 emissions aren’t the bogeyman that they were being made out to be wasn’t a problem - all you needed was a few useful idiots like Gore to spread the word to the faithful libtards and the watermelon brigade started to demonize any naysayers as being on the payroll of “big oil” or being “deniers”.  The actual science was swept under the rug in the name of the very non-existent “consensus”.

Enter the bogus “hockey stick”, a documentary with so many holes in it that it was taken to court (where it lost), and a science illiterate media, and you get several years of hysteria and demands for “cap and trade”.

Several things should have tipped off most people that they were being lied to.

1) Science is never run by “consensus” - it is run by data

2) Smear campaigns against opposing opinions is politics, not science

3) Refusal to release data for peer review means that data doesn’t actually exist

4) Faith in computer models given precedence over actual observations

5) Refusal to entertain any possibility that they might be wrong

6) The extreme double standard exhibited by Gore and his ilk

6a) The fact that Gore is, generally speaking, a fucking idiot when it comes to science

7) The constant debunking of all global warming claims by the hoards of “skeptics” and “deniers”, when in theory there weren’t any due to the “consensus”

8) The need to distance themselves (from themselves) from the previous climate scares of “global cooling” in the ‘70s and “global warming” in the ‘30s.

9) The constant moving goalposts and target dates after the “science” was “settled”

10) The denial of the sun’s role in the climate.  As if the earth was just fucking warm all on its own.....

Whose skepticism consists—not of doubt—but of absolute certainty that this is a fraud

Heh, you were trying to be funny with that one right?  Right?  ‘Cause, ummm, there is one side of this debate that has been yammering on that, oh what is the phrase? oh yeah, that the SCIENCE IS SETTLED.  Hmmmm.  Doesn’t sound like a lot of doubt there.  Not a lot of room for debate in that little mental universe. 

Come on Hal, admit it, the global warming alarmists aren’t exactly open to any other interpretation, are they?  Are you? 

There are scientists and spokesmen on both sides.  One side is ready to debate any time any where.  The skeptics are itching to debate in an open forum.  The alarmists run away from such things. 

The alarmists are so rigid that they run out of town people who agree with them but just want a little cost/benefit anlysis to be done (see Bjorn Lomborg). 

The alarmists complain that any who oppose them must be in the pay of big bad energy companies. But billions of government research money goes to alarmists and Al Gore has made tens of millions spewing his little rants.  What side is the money on again (and if Europe’s expiriments is any guide, it is the big bad energy companies that will profit the most from any attempt to clamp down on things.).

Hal, I am happy to admit that I don’t know for sure which side is the truth.  The mini litany I gave above shows that alarmists are not acting like people with confidence in their arguments.  That makes me more suspicious of them.  They are also the leaders of today’s enviroweenie movement.  The modern enviroweenies have been predicting massive destruction, chaos and death for fifty or sixty years.  They have never been correct (remember when we ran out of oil in 1946? Or ran out in the 1960s?  Or in 1985?  Hmmm me neither.) If you want to go back further look at how accurate Malthius was.  A movement with a predictive batting average of zero ain’t one I am going to just give the benefit of the doubt to.

Finally they get a big boost from the press.  The press is generally liberal (with a few exceptions).  But more importantly the press has a disaster bias.  “HOLY SHIT YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE” sells a lot more ink than “Hey everything’s cool today” SARS, Y2K, bird flu, etc all were going to be big global disasters (there have been many many more).  Shit the US wierd reluctance to use nuke power comes from that stupid Michael Douglas movie and breathless coverage of Three Mile Island. 

And the last ties in to what really gets me about enviroweenies.  They don’t really want to create viable alternative energy.  They want to just stop using energy.  France has safely and effectively prodcued the majority of their power from nukes for a generation of more.  But we can;’of safe cheap power then idiot hippies won’t be able to tell us what to do.

I you had actually done any fucking reading on how CO2 works in the atmosphere you’d realize that essentially this is EXACTLY the truth - CO2 is a greenhouse gas pretty much on a technicality only.

Well, whether or not this is true, it’s turning out to be a right little nasty in the sea.

Ocean water is mildly alkaline by nature, but when the amount of carbon dioxide in seawater increases, the water becomes less alkaline. On the pH scale, ocean water is usually about 8.1, which is alkaline. Depending on location, however, seawater alkalinity is getting closer to the neutral figure of 7.

getting closer to? Notice how the words are used.  So what is the Ph number?  7.9?
If i recall Carbon is not the only driver of that in water, I am willing to bet that other chemicals that are man introduced and more fresh water runoff, can casue that too.

Just to be clear, I’m furious with these guys.  They are clearly part of the “we can not allow any doubt” school when it becomes to AGW.  That’s not trusting the science.

The 10 things you list, SO, are why I retain some skepticism.  Although it’s inaccurate to say they are “ignoring” the role of the Sun.  The Sun just can’t do what you want it to do, which is erase the effects of greenhouse gases.

I find your post curious though because you admit that some environment dangers—smog, acid rain, pollution—were real if exaggerated and needed real solutions (to which conservatives contributed the best and most effective).

The Sun just can’t do what you want it to do, which is erase the effects of greenhouse gases.

The AGW crowd keeps trotting out that one study that gave them the “correct answer” and keep ignoring all else.  It’s bullshit - the sun drives 100% of the planetary climate.  Everything that the sun does affects us here one way or another.  The trick is to figure out how, not just determine the correlation.

I’d also like to point out that “coral bleaching” turned out to be a non-issue (as a diver I get lots of info on the health of coral reefs around the world). 

Coral bleaches when stressed, but it turns out that it quickly gains another batch of symbiotic bacteria that withstands the new environment.  The amount of coral that dies in the process turns out to be no big deal in the long run.  Apparently, this is how coral always deals with cyclical oceanic temp variations, but we just haven’t really been poking around underwater enough to know this until the last 30 or 40 years.

t’s bullshit - the sun drives 100% of the planetary climate.

Poppycock.  Vulcanism and flora/fauna can have a dramatic effect.  You’re not seriously suggesting that every ice age, every warm period was caused by solar changes?

You’re not seriously suggesting that every ice age, every warm period was caused by solar changes?

You’re right Hal, but given that the changes wrought by vulcanism are mainly the effects of plate tectonics, and given that the current locations of Antarctica and Greenland, and the narrow Beiring Straits prevent much thermal conveyance from the equatorial regions to the polar, we are locked into an overall glacial epoch in the Earth’s history, which is only one reason that - regardless of the cause - it is physically impossible for the Earth to experience the kind of warming that the alarmist camp warns us about.

At least for the next few tens of millions of years that is.  Until the Atlantic Ocean closes up again and Antarctica moves on up into what is now the Indian Ocean.  Then the thermal mixing of the oceans might allow for ice free poles and significantly warmer temperatures than what we are experiencing right now.

I’ll put it this way - if it wasn’t for the sun this planet would be a frozen rock a few degrees above absolute zero.

Stating that the sun’s variances during the short and long term solar cycles doesn’t affect the climate is just fucking asinine - the only way that little puff piece they called a study said that it didn’t was because they limited it to studying a very narrow portion of the sun’s energy output and claimed it was the final word.

The world’s global warming supporters are rapidly running away from the stench of fraud.  AGW will be a dead issue in mere weeks now instead of months.  Calls for criminal prosecution are now going out from various government officials and even the press is going “shit! we’ve been lied to!”.