Lancer

"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

3,566 posts in this topic

I'm not sure it is 'universally accepted' that most of the 20th century warming is the solar maximum we went through. I agree it is interesting data that needs more looking into compared to the data with it as a factor. If it becomes a consensus opinion (say like the AGW thing) then i'll accept it as such.

 

And yes i completely agree that it's a too way street in terms of the hysteria thing. Having said that, even at the height of miss-information on the AGW side aka your friend Al Gore, his level of out right lying is nothing like what gets pushed by the mainstream parts of the anti-AGW debate, and it's affiliated media outlets like Fox news. Not even close. However i completely agree that there are extremists on both sides of the debate, which is why like MrWhereItsAt, i prefer to follow the scientific consensus, as these guys and their theories are where the real stuff that makes the world go around happens. It's not politcs or uninformed opinion, it's the life work of often gifted people, which doesn't mean mistakes don't happen, just that i'd rather trust their knowledge on the subject than the manipulated opinion of corporations that fear about loss of revenue down the line etc.

 

There has been a huge effort over recent years to discredit 'science' in general, mostly in the sphere around the AGW concerns. The same people that manipulate the religious right in america are behind it. Doesn't that make you think a bit? You know looking at what else these kind of people are closely affiliated with in the world of recent years? But whatever level of depth you wish to look at the issue, the war on science, which is what MrWhereItIsAt was trying to convey, is a very real concern going forward.

 

----------------------

 

It is one extremely blinkered and prejudiced view to say the 'right' is worse than the 'left'. They are literally as bad as each other. Though coming from an extremist 'left' position as impressed on you by the BBC, I am honestly not surprised. You take the word of the BBC as 'gospel' (even though they've been proven wrong on many occasions) and deny any evidence that opposes your view.

 

Hate to say this mate, but IMO you are a perfect example of a Government-fed unquestioning propaganda pawn. Which is quite surprising considering you are the one pushing in many other threads to question Government motives at every step, yet take the Government message on climate change via the BBC without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe the BBC just report more accurately on the scientific consensus around the AGW debate than many other media channels that are currently very 'anti-science'? ;)

 

(as a side note, among many of my 'left-wing' friends, the BBC is viewed as a right-wing voice for the government! Kind of shows you just how far right most other media is these days! I see it as more moderate myself, but for sure i know when it pushes the boundaries, which are very, very slight compared to FOX etc :nod: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look through this thread and re-read the multitude of times you've posted something from the BBC and someone has proven it wrong from the scientific literature.

 

Listen to what you yourself preach constantly. NEVER TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE! All media sources have an agenda, even supposedly "neutral" Government owned media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government-owned media, pretty much by definition, is the most biased form. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this single thread I have wasted more man hours, created more animosity, and achieved less than any other thread on WPC.

 

I'm so proud. :1st:

 

I've also learned a few things, such as not having to worry about living on the ocean, particularly after raising my seawall a meter. :D

 

Anyway, don't mind me, there's still someone who disagrees with you on the internet! Go in and win! :angry:

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've also learned a few things, such as not having to worry about living on the ocean, particularly after raising my seawall a meter. :D

 

Ok, so your house(?) is safe from rising sea...but what about the surrounding infrastructure (roads, supermarket, schools)? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just the point Lemmy, no worries about the sea rising since the high intensity solar max cycles ended. We should slowly see a return of the ice and lowering of the seas, so sleep easy! The purveyors of guilt, such as Al Gore, got it wrong. Also, it doesn't need a consensus of proven corrupt idiots (remember the University of East Anglia emails) to make the above true, its just true because of the science. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is such a stupid argument anyways. Many scientific consensuses get proven wrong all the time.

 

Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for insects as well as for the stars. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance. Albert Einstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific consensus is a fine argument imo, as long as we remain critical of how a consensus is reached. Even if a consensus could be wrong, you can't always wait till you're 100% sure before you act on things..

But what would you suggest as an alternative? How should policy-makers decide which information/theories/data to use when making policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not critical of how the consensus is reached Lemmy, that's just it. Its a premise of the initial videos I used to start this thread. There are names on the list of 'scientists' of scientists who completely disagree but couldn't get their names off, some of the names are politicians... Scientists who disagree with the smoke and mirrors were ridiculed. Consensus my arse, its like a huge con job, that's what it is, backed by fear mongering which has little truth and isn't backed by the science. Scientists who go against this manufactured consensus are chastised and don't get funding. They have been forced onto websites and out of the view of the masses who are scared into going along with this charade. Watch, soon you will read some dire warning about something like the polar bears. The polar bears thrive, its just fear mongering. There is no consensus, just a system set up to deceive the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientific consensus is a fine argument imo, as long as we remain critical of how a consensus is reached. Even if a consensus could be wrong, you can't always wait till you're 100% sure before you act on things..

But what would you suggest as an alternative? How should policy-makers decide which information/theories/data to use when making policy?

 

Well really, a scientific consensus should only be used if there is no opposition to it. For instance, there is no opposition to the finding that a doubling of CO2 will cause between 1.1-1.2C of warming (in it's raw form). However, there is a LOT of opposition to the claim that climate feedbacks will multiply that warming by a factor of 3. There is no proof, only speculation on the feedbacks. In fact, modern findings are hinting that feedbacks will cause only minor additional warming (a factor of 0.5).

 

So in terms of the AGW debate, it's like I've continuously said. We do need to change, but let's plan this out properly, cost it out properly to not cause major economic issues, and move off fossil fuels. Ultimately they'll run out anyways, so we gotta do it. Better to plan it out properly than panic now due to the exaggerations and alarmism from NGO's and agenda-based scientists or panic too late when it all runs out and there's nothing setup to move to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look through this thread and re-read the multitude of times you've posted something from the BBC and someone has proven it wrong from the scientific literature.

 

If your talking about some of the links you post from whatsupwiththat, well we will agree to differ on what is proving what wrong etc. But just to stop this in it's tracks as i don't want to waste peoples time (or mine) with trawling back through stuff already posted, I freely admit i'm not a scientist, and even less of a climate scientist. So my contributions to this thread have been simply to provide further information that people can look into around the AGW debate and the general scientific consensus around it.

 

You or other anti-AGW folks might not like what i post, or even what i believe on the issue, but that's for each of us to come to a conclusion on. Not everything i've posted is from the BBC, but most is as that is the place i like to go as it provides deep but easy to follow sources of information, often with links to the direct scientific paper it is discusing in a topic (so you can go to the source and make up your own mind), which makes it a better source than say Fox news on many subjects which simply tells you what you should think on a subject.

 

Until i find a better mostly neutral news source than the BBC i'm going to keep on using it, especialy as i pay for it.

 

Listen to what you yourself preach constantly. NEVER TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE! All media sources have an agenda, even supposedly "neutral" Government owned media.

 

And just a minor correction here, the BBC isn't owned by the government, the BBC is owned by the british people that pay for it via their license fee, and is run by a board of directors independant of government (although there are connections as i mention below).

 

Infact various governments have found it's reporting very uncomfortable down the years, culminating in Tony Blairs government that forced the then director of the BBC to resign and made it split it's structure up. Mostly due to the hard questions the BBC had been asking around the war on terror and the 'dodgey dossier' (where Tony Blairs government had been found to be lying to parliment about Saddams weapons of mass destruction to get british support for the war in Iraq etc).

 

What is for sure is the BBC is very closely affiliated with british institutions (like the inteligent services etc), but that is mostly down to a general flaw in british society that sees Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge universities) produce most of the management. I'm sure this kind of thing happens in other countries also, but for sure it is a blemish on a truely free and deomcratic process, where ever it happens (media/government/corporate business etc) and in what ever country. That kind of elitism is the opposite of 'democracy' and free and open systems, but it is the way most of our democracies currently work.

 

And yes, we should all question all our media. Don't just believe anything you are being told. Look into the details, find out that there is more to a story, be prepared to change your mind on a subject etc. I do that all the time, including anything to do with the BBC, but i will say on average the miss-information from the BBC is at a much lower rate than Fox news. Infact i'm not even sure what Fox does really deserves the title 'news' at all. It gives a strongly delivered opinion on a subject, sometimes without actualy reporting much detail on the story itself, just a headline perhaps? Then you get the 'What i think is....' That is not news, that's propoganda and social engineering.

 

The BBC News does not do this, ever. So that is a good thing in my book :nod:

 

The articles or blogs in the BBC are more opinionated, but at this level you're obviously going to get the persons perspective on the subject, and to be fair the BBC does provide the links most of the time (used to be all the time before the reorganization of the BBC by Tony Blair) so you can simply follow the source material of the story.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Anyway i saw this article (yes a BBC one Dale ;) ) and thought it could go here as i believe it related to the AGW debate:

 

'Washington DC region swelters after storm cuts power':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18656648

 

"Up to two million people are without power after violent storms hit the region around the US capital, Washington DC.

 

The storms swept across West Virginia, Virginia, Washington and Maryland, with wind speeds of up to 75mph (120 kph).

 

The power outages left many without air conditioning after a day of record-breaking 104F (40C) heat.

 

Authorities were reportedly investigating two deaths linked to the storm.

 

The storm is locally referred to as a "derecho" - a violent, straight-lined windstorm associated with a fast-moving band of severe thunderstorms.

 

It left behind felled trees, streets littered with fallen branches and downed power lines.

 

Services on all Washington metro lines was affected, with trains sent to their end points after trees fell across the tracks and power was lost.

 

The storms started in the Midwest and moved quickly eastward toward the mid-Atlantic states.

 

Nearly two million people were left without power, reported Associated Press, which said that a state of emergency had been declared in West Virginia where more than 500,000 were hit by power cuts.

 

The social network site Twitter buzzed with speculation about how long the power cuts would endure, with one user warning: "Check on your neighbors!"

 

Associated Press quoted police in Springfield, Virginia as saying a woman had died when a tree fell on her home at the height of the storm.

 

The Washington Post said another death in the same Fairfax County had also been attributed to the storm.

 

"High temperatures reached record levels in the mid-Atlantic states today [Friday]," said the National Weather Service.

 

"In fact... new all-time highs for June... and even all-time highs for any year... were established," it said on its website.

 

It said the heat should become less intense over coming days, but warned that thunderstorms and potentially severe weather remained a threat."

 

-----------------------------

 

link in the article proper :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well really, a scientific consensus should only be used if there is no opposition to it. For instance, there is no opposition to the finding that a doubling of CO2 will cause between 1.1-1.2C of warming (in it's raw form).

Yet what if there was a small minority insisting that CO2 has no impact? You say we shouldn't do anything then because there is no consensus? But then you'd be essentially be following that minority. I don't see how that is any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet what if there was a small minority insisting that CO2 has no impact? You say we shouldn't do anything then because there is no consensus? But then you'd be essentially be following that minority. I don't see how that is any better.

 

Well said, and also when we talk of a 'consensus' in the context we are meaning, we are not simply talking about say the consensus of the audience on an Opera Winfrey show about subject X, or the consensus of the republicans candidates vs the democrats candidates on a topic.

 

We are talking about the widely held understanding of a system by some of the most gifted and specialized people that spend their lifes work studying and understanding that system. They then talk amongst each other about any new data or old data that needs updating and they all publish those works for peer scrutiny. They really understand all this stuff at the tiniest level of detail.

 

That does not mean they don't make mistakes, scientific understanding is furthered by the uncovering of mistakes, and in the acedemic scientific peer reviewed community this is fully taken to heart.

 

So yeah, don't take my word for it on the AGW debate, i'm just that guy in the pub spilling beer all down his front; take the word of the vast majority of the worlds scientists that study the subject and are the basis of the 'scientific concesus' around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the opposition to the "consensus" is actual observations, as is the case with the climate?

 

Do I believe the consensus just because some labcoat says I should? Even though reality is showing something completely different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which reality? ;):p That is i guess the essence of my argument.

 

I find it hard to believe that all data that supports the widely accepted GW-theories is somehow incorrect, nor do i believe that you could apply some objective process of elimination, and only remain with data that does not support those theories.

 

Note that i'm trying really hard not to get stuck in specific details of the GW debate. It's really the decision process that intrigues me here.

No matter what decision is made, there will always be people who think it is the wrong choice, but perhaps we could at least agree on a sort of system by which to make decisions.

 

A bit like democracy, we may not always agree with the outcome, but most people will agree that as a system, it's acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which reality? ;):p That is i guess the essence of my argument.

 

I find it hard to believe that all data that supports the widely accepted GW-theories is somehow incorrect, nor do i believe that you could apply some objective process of elimination, and only remain with data that does not support those theories.

 

Note that i'm trying really hard not to get stuck in specific details of the GW debate. It's really the decision process that intrigues me here.

No matter what decision is made, there will always be people who think it is the wrong choice, but perhaps we could at least agree on a sort of system by which to make decisions.

 

A bit like democracy, we may not always agree with the outcome, but most people will agree that as a system, it's acceptable.

 

My point all along is that not all data that supports AGW is correct because some of that data is output from inaccurate incorrect models. I've said all along that data from models says X will occur, when observations are showing X/2 (50%) occurring. I don't NOT believe in AGW, just that the UN is pushing exaggerated results to Govts.

 

In terms of the decision process, due to exaggerated results from inaccurate incorrect models the decision process has been rushed, badly thought out, badly planned and is being badly implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

If it is that simple though, what i'm wondering then is this. The people supporting those inaccurate models have been able to convince a lot of people that they are correct, their arguments are apparently more convincing than yours. I can accept that there is some pressure on leaders to lean a certain way, but you can't bully everyone into believing one thing or the other. A lot of people are genuinely convinced of one way or the other...how are they supposed to know which version is closer to the truth?

 

You say models are incorrect because the observations dont match the predicted result. Undoubtedly someone else will come along and point out that there is something wrong with the observations. A third person might come along and say those observations aren't really important for the model's accuracy as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough.

 

If it is that simple though, what i'm wondering then is this. The people supporting those inaccurate models have been able to convince a lot of people that they are correct, their arguments are apparently more convincing than yours. I can accept that there is some pressure on leaders to lean a certain way, but you can't bully everyone into believing one thing or the other. A lot of people are genuinely convinced of one way or the other...how are they supposed to know which version is closer to the truth?

 

I think this comes down to the NGO's/lobbyists. For example, if a scientist says the range of warming to 2100 is between 2-4C, the warmist NGO/lobbyist will always say 4C. And on the other side, if a scientist says the range is 0.2-2C, the anti-warmist NGO/lobbyist will always say 0.2C. The scientists themselves are all very similar in their analysis, it's the NGO's/lobbyists who've succeeded in splitting the populace. All scientists agree the world has warmed, that human activities have/will add to the warming, and that additional CO2 is a warming influence on climate. What scientists can't agree on yet, is the influence of feedbacks, specifically the feedback of water. That's all. When you really get into it, it's surprising just how little separates the two sides of the debate. However, as always with NGO's/lobbyists, if they're involved then you know that agendas are in play. There is also another group, which is fairly new. The paid Government shill. These people are paid/funded by the Government to push the Govt's agenda. These are people such as John Cook (Skeptical Science) who is paid by the Govt through the Uni of Queensland as a "Climate Communicator" to push popular opinion in the direction of Govt policies.

 

You say models are incorrect because the observations dont match the predicted result. Undoubtedly someone else will come along and point out that there is something wrong with the observations. A third person might come along and say those observations aren't really important for the model's accuracy as a whole.

 

I say models are inaccurate/incorrect due to over-estimating the feedback of water. We're also past those other two points, where there is now constant manipulation of historical data, and NGO's/lobbyists saying that observations are not important, "it's the science and models that are important". Computer games over observations. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what is interesting in this whole 'real world observation' vs 'predicted/moddeled' results, is that i can say with 100% correctness that my real world observations show that the weather is different now compared to when i was growing up and a number of generations before me (when you speak to older people etc). If there is anything to take from real world observations of weather from around the world, it is that weather behaves in a much more extreme many now. Be it snap cold winters, your local cooling in australia, local warming in most of western europe, heat waves and violent storms across the usa, even basic temp ranges over a single day etc.

 

So from my personal experience of it, just going on the weather i experience these days compared to what i expereinced growing up, i'd say if anything direct observation chimes exactly with the AGW message of a general rise in temp AND more extreme/variable weather patterns through the year. I don't need a scientists computer model to tell me something is changing. And one issue i see down the line is about food production, our whole agricultural system depends on the weather and insects(bees etc) to function. I didn't get any cherries this year due to an early heat wave that brought out the tree blossom early, which then got storm damaged, so resulted in a very short window for pollination. Added to that was a right mix of very wet/and very hot dry days, one after another, that resulted in a mold issue and black fly infestation on the leave tips.

 

Now that's just a couple of cherry trees. Extrapolate that kind of issue on a global scale around food producing regions and that means you'll have issues, especially if things carry on in the current pattern they seem to be going re AGW and weather changes.

 

So again i'll just iterate, all the observable data you care to use (agriculture sector is a good one to data mine as they are intouch and intune with the weather more than most) just indicates the AGW concern is real, and thus the scientific consensus is what it is for a reason.

 

The whole smoke-screen about UN control is just that, and really very obvious when you know the kind of people and industries that would push that 'fear' anyway. It's the equivalent of 'reds in the bed' kind of social engineering that went on during the cold war. And it's pushed by all our old 'usual suspects' that are at the root of most of the bad stuff in the world, and they tend to come in on the right of the political spectrum (it's just a fact, rather than a judgement on people that are right wing themselves, you are in general just being exploited by these people for their personal financial gain).

Edited by El_Cid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have to post the observations showing your claims to be wrong AGAIN? I'm getting rather bored with it TBH. :rolleyes:

 

Temps have risen, but extreme weather has not.

 

Point.

Blank.

Absolute.

Fact.

 

EDIT: For your benefit, from the Reserve Bank of Australia, global food yields. Note how it's constantly increased, despite what alarmists say.

 

graph-0611-3-02.gif

Edited by Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientists themselves are all very similar in their analysis, it's the NGO's/lobbyists who've succeeded in splitting the populace. All scientists agree the world has warmed, that human activities have/will add to the warming, and that additional CO2 is a warming influence on climate. What scientists can't agree on yet, is the influence of feedbacks, specifically the feedback of water. That's all. When you really get into it, it's surprising just how little separates the two sides of the debate.

 

So you do follow the scientific consensus! :cute:

 

Anyway, thanks for indulging me, you appear much less extremist than my initial impression. Part of it may be how you're experiencing the AGW debate in Australia (and my lack of reading the entire thread :p)...for reference our government has no plans for a carbon tax or other such controversial measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: For your benefit, from the Reserve Bank of Australia, global food yields. Note how it's constantly increased, despite what alarmists say.

 

graph-0611-3-02.gif

 

Of course yields have increased. A lot of people have been putting a lot of money into getting more out of every hectare of farmland. It would be an interesting comparison to see the differences between the crops and farming techniques of the 1960s and today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course yields have increased. A lot of people have been putting a lot of money into getting more out of every hectare of farmland. It would be an interesting comparison to see the differences between the crops and farming techniques of the 1960s and today.

 

El_Cid was saying that because he didn't get any cherries this year, that the world's agriculture is failing. That graph shows the logical common sense fact that it is in fact growing very healthily, regardless of alarmist claims that global warming will kill off food production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is its been raining here for more than 40 days and 40 nights global warming I want some of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now