New Poll: Are the people who think CO2 warms the Earth at WAR with us?
obozn
Have your say .
September 2 2009
Marc Morano sent me an email today to say Climate Depot Credited With
Helping To Stop Obama From Enacting Climate Legislation!
In short the process to put forward legislation to "Save" the world from
heating up due to "Man Made CO2" has slowed down.
That got me thinking of the following poll.
Are the people who think CO2 warms the Earth at WAR with us?
Let's see what you guys think.
Thanks to those who took part in the "What do people who oppose "Man Made
Climate Change" want to be called?
Climate Realists won!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3969
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
obozn
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"obozn" <o...@u.com> wrote in message news:4a9f11e8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Surfer
Who is behind climate change deniers?
David McKnight
August 2, 2008
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080802-3ou6.html?page=-1
When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who
showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.
It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine
the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to
prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science.
In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil
acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced
that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global
campaign to deny climate change.
Exxon's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the
Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant
to take climate change more seriously. Exxon (once Standard Oil) was
founded by the legendary John D. Rockefeller. Last year, the chairman
of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and
technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to
be an effort to distort public discussion".
The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house
climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific
body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon distributed
nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of
climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse
gases are driving climate change". It asked Exxon to stop the funding
and its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.
The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric research, Dr Jim Salinger, knows all about
misrepresentation. Two months ago, he was named by an Exxon-funded
group, the Heartland Institute, as a scientist whose work undermined
the theory that burning carbon was a cause of global warming.
The Heartland Institute - essentially a free market lobby - emphasises
that "the climate is always changing". Salinger's research studied
variation in climate, so his research was enrolled in the denial
campaign.
Variations in the climate are normal, Salinger said, but this did not
in any way weaken conclusions about the dangers of burning oil and
coal. "Global warming is real," he said, and demanded reference to his
work be removed. The institute refused. The Heartland Institute
received almost $800,000 from Exxon, according to Greenpeace's
research based on Exxon's corporate giving disclosures.
Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is
the "Oregon Petition". This urges the US Government to reject the
Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence"
for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most
of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science.
The petition originated in 1998 with a scientist, Dr Frederick Seitz,
who had been president of the US National Academy of Science in the
1960s (and a tobacco consultant in the 1970s). The petition was
accompanied by a purported review of the science that was co-published
by the George C. Marshall Institute. This institute received at least
$715,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998.
Claims about the world cooling, not warming, are common in the world
of deniers. Cardinal George Pell referred to this possibility
recently.
In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot gives the example of the TV
presenter and botanist, David Bellamy, who is also a climate sceptic.
He told the New Scientist in 2005 that most glaciers in the world are
growing, not shrinking. He said his evidence came from the World
Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland, a reputable body. When
Monbiot checked the service they said that the Bellamy claim was
"complete bullshit". Glaciers are retreating.
In Australia, the main group that tries to undermine the science of
global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with
links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (over $2 million from
Exxon), Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the
Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000).
The Lavoisier group is certainly influential in the Federal
Opposition. A senior figure in the group told Guy Pearse, author of
High and Dry, a study of climate policy in Australia, that there "is
an understanding in cabinet that all the science is crap".
But perhaps the oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for
the success of the climate change deniers. There are at least three
others. First, the implications of the science are frightening.
Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second,
doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all
secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed by the free market
right as a political "orthodoxy" rather than objective knowledge.
The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted
in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas"
on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most
deadly PR campaign.
David McKnight is an associate professor at the University of NSW. He
researches media, including public relations, and is the author of
Beyond Right and Left: New Politics and the Culture Wars.
Last Post
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:46:44 +1000, "obozn" <o...@u.com> wrote:
>
> >My vote is a definite YES!
>
•• AGW alarmists try to discredit any who oppose them
They do not have one scintilla of proof so instead of
dealing with facts (they have none) they attack
personalities. In the meantime nature is discrediting
them day by day.
> Who is behind climate change deniers?
> David McKnight
> August 2, 2008http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-denier...
•• ROTFLMAO - A flack who fled to academia when he
could not hack it in the free world. He is hoping that
bullshit will baffle brains. Of course Fernbach and
Surfer~~ No brains at all.
•• Here is what a real scientist has to say.
www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Climate of Fear:
Global-warming alarmists intimidate
dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past
year's hurricane activity was another sign of
human-induced climate change. Everything
from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in
Buffalo has been blamed on people burning
gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural
gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet
how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase
in the recorded global mean temperature since the
late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance
as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And
how can it translate into unlikely claims about future
catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the
science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate
science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific
statements about climate are
hyped_by_those_with_a_vested_interest_in_alarm, thus
raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide
funds for more science research to feed more alarm to
increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money
into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--
where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the
success of climate alarmism can be counted in the
increased federal spending on climate research from a
few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.
It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar,
wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as
well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen
their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks
or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change
gain credence even when they fly in the face of the
science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about
climate science and the climate of intimidation, one
needs to grasp some of the complex underlying
scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
agreement. The public, press and policy makers have
been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread
scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a
degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the
same period; and CO2 should contribute to future
warming. These claims are true. However, what the
public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute
support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for
the small amount of warming that has occurred. In
fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of
alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the
very science they say supports them. It isn't just that
the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
know must be wrong.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the
temperature differences between the poles and the
equator. When you have less difference in temperature,
you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not
more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.
Alarmists have drawn some support for increased
claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by
Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world
would have more evaporation, with latent heat
providing more energy for disturbances. The problem
with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive
tropical storms relies not only on temperature
but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid
air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based
upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a
case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists
speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief
that many scientists have been cowed not merely by
money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas
Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist
Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the
details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed
the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998
the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's
concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had
singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage
policy makers to take action. And they did so before
his work could be replicated and tested--a task made
difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had
refused to release the details for analysis. The
scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was,
nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of
the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the
American Meteorological Society and the American
Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that
Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked
of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the
scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the
crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two
congressional hearings during which he tried to bully
dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our
views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the
scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice
president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to
discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr.
Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were
mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross
Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with
Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil- fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg.
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as
research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological
Society after questioning the scientific
underpinnings of global warming. Aksel
Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World
Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert
Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal
industry for questioning climate alarmism.
Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and
Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in
1991, apparently losing climate-research funding
for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in
scientific journals for articles submitted by those who
raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At
Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused
without review as being without interest. However, even
when such papers are published, standards shift. When
I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to
determine how clouds behave under varying
temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris
Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with
increased temperature, providing a very strong negative
climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response
to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears
in the form of letters to the journal to which the original
authors can respond immediately. However, in this case
(and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared,
claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed
months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be
commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a
strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really
behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National
Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our
knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research
Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of
the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears,
is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most
senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist
gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists,
advocates and policymakers.
--==0==--
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Last Post
> On Sep 3, 4:01 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:46:44 +1000, "obozn" <o...@u.com> wrote:
>
> > >My vote is a definite YES!
•• NO scientific justification exists for emissions
regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity
of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading
scheme) will exert no measurable effect on
future climate.”
> > Who is behind climate change deniers?
•• Right off the top the real "deniers" show their
colours. They say "climate change" when they
mean "global warming" to confuse the public
a la Josef Goebbels.
•• Global warming is a myth and does not exist.
On the other hand "Climate Change" is
functioning as it has for 5 million years or more.
> > David McKnight
> > August 2, 2008http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-denier...
>
> > When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who
> > showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.
>
> Al Gore was a tobacco farmer at that time I recall.
>
> [Watermelon conspiracy fantasy snipped]
>
> -------------------------------
> July 23, 2009
>
> Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
>
> Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the
> dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-
> regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study
> little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can
> be attributed to human activity.
>
> The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the
> University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob
> Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern
> Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric
> temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence,
> intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the
> atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
>
> "The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a
> 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño
> conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and
> cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de
> Freitas.
>
> "We have shown that internal global climate-system variability
> accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation
> over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of
> influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the
> corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
>
> Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence
> global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in
> 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also
> well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is
> well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic
> eruption.
>
> The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and
> shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern
> Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a
> major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-
> atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
>
> According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El
> Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving
> warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions
> the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east
> in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
>
> "When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the
> temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences
> of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean.
>
> "The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO
> conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the
> output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were
> being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by
> those influences. It's no wonder that model outputs have been so
> inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the
> ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful."
>
> Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the
> justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme,
> says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate
> policy.
>
> "The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as
> described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by
> human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that
> future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in
> response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
>
> “Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that
> no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that,
> irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission
> trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
>
> --
>
> McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of
> the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of
> Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
>
> Plenty of peer reviewed publications are appearing, de-bunking the
> silly "CO2 did it!" theory of climate change. It's about bloody time.
>
> Mark Addinall.
Ouroboros Rex
...washed up tobacco denialist. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Sep 3, 5:08 am, addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 4:01 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:46:44 +1000, "obozn" <o...@u.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> My vote is a definite YES!
>
> �� NO scientific justification exists for emissions
> regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity
> of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading
> scheme) will exert no measurable effect on
> future climate.�
>
>>> Who is behind climate change deniers?
>
> �� Right off the top the real "deniers" show their
> colours. They say "climate change" when they
> mean "global warming" to confuse the public
> a la Josef Goebbels.
>
> �� Global warming is a myth and does not exist.
> On the other hand "Climate Change" is
> functioning as it has for 5 million years or more.
>
As usual, lenny just maes some shit up.
Last Post
> On Sep 3, 7:08 pm, addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
>
> > -------------------------------
> > July 23, 2009
>
> > Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
>
> > Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the
> > dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-
> > regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study
> > little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can
> > be attributed to human activity.
>
> statisticians and climatologists as a collection of "old news and
> nonsense" which doesn't relate to what was in the actual published
> paper.
•• BULLSHIT!!!!
> The paper itself says nothing about global warming, it's the PR
> where they've slipped in their ridiculous assertions in order to avoid
> the embarrassment of peer review.
•• ROTFLMAO — the fool in the tinfoil
hat makes his usual nonsense claims.
Insanity is no excuse.
> > The research, by Chris de Freitas,
>
> ...who admits:
> "The paper ...does not analyse trends in mean global temperature
> (MGT); rather, it examines the extent to which ENSO accounts for
> variation in MGT'"
>
> BWAHAHAHA - nice source. You sure know how to (cherry-)pick them...
•• More nonsense claims from the fool in the
tinfoil hat.
Insanity is no excuse.
>
> > finds that the El Niño-Southern
> > Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric
> > temperatures seven months later.
>
> > As an additional influence,
> > intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the
> > atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
>
> > "The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a
> > 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño
> > conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and
> > cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de
> > Freitas.
>
> Yeah - that El Nino is a real bugger melting all that arctic ice:
>
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
>
•• Except that did not happen
> > "We have shown that internal global climate-system variability
> > accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation
> > over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of
> > influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the
> > corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
>
> What a load of crap - they've shown nothing of the sort.
•• Since when does your insanity provide
accreditation for any science?
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.