Businesses that profit from failure to halt CO2 emissions deny science of climate change
Harry Hope
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
Saturday, January 2, 2010
By FRANKE WILMER
The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
ago.
Everyone with a high school education should know that skepticism �
research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
researched hypotheses � is built into the process of scientific
inquiry.
The best science aims to disprove or �falsify� a strong hypothesis �
almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
of being true.
Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
Scientific knowledge where probabilities affect human health and
safety is routinely used in engineering and medicine.
Building safe bridges means knowing the probability that based on
engineering science, a structure will safely hold a certain amount of
weight.
Medical patients are told their chances of surviving cancer with
different treatment alternatives, none with 100 percent certainty of
success.
Statistical probability
The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth�s land
base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
With statistical confidence of 90 percent the IPCC predicted
increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
Bozeman temperatures now average 7 degrees higher than in 1950, 26
glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850, and
pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
acres.
Over 90 percent of the world�s scientists agree that we are
experiencing effects of human-induced climate change, including the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, International
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences,
American Geophysical Union, World Meteorological Organization,
American Academy of Pediatrics, World Federation of Public Health
Associations, American Institute of Physics, and 69 other national and
international science organizations. Only six scientific organizations
take a noncommittal position.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
for climate researchers to mislead the public.
It�s easy, on the other hand, to see a motive for denial � short-term
profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
global warming.
Most Montanans wouldn�t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that�s not
what the science is about.
It�s about the extinction of species that, according to Nobel Laureate
Dr. Eric Chivian of the Harvard Medical School, may provide medically
valuable knowledge, like treatments for peptic ulcer disease affecting
25 million Americans, end stage renal disease that kills 80,000
Americans a year, osteoporosis that kills 70,000 Americans a year,
Type 2 diabetes killing a quarter of a million people each year, and
arrhythmias.
90% of scientists agree
It�s about the economic and geo-strategic impact of regional climate
change on agriculture and energy.
It�s about migrations of species like bark beetles and their impact on
forestry and wildfires.
In impoverished countries it�s about more death and suffering from
increases in malaria and water and air-borne diseases.
It�s about increased radiation and corresponding increases in skin
cancer and melanoma, particularly in higher altitudes.
Knowing that 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 80 percent in
women are caused by smoking, most of us don�t smoke and encourage our
loved ones to quit.
When 90 percent of scientists agree that the effects of climate change
put us all at risk, and that there is a high probability that failure
to change our behavior by 2015 will make those effects difficult or
impossible to reverse, we should take that just as seriously as other
scientific facts regarding risks to our health and lives that we
routinely accept and, accordingly, change our behavior.
______________________________________________________
Harry
Monkey Clumps
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>
> Saturday, January 2, 2010
>
> By FRANKE WILMER
>
> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>
> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> ago.
>
> Everyone with a high school education should know that skepticism —
> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
> researched hypotheses — is built into the process of scientific
> inquiry.
>
> The best science aims to disprove or “falsify” a strong hypothesis —
> almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
> of being true.
>
> Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
> treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
Of course the probability calculations themselves can be severely
flawed due to incomplete knowledge. In 1300 some mathematician may
have determined there is a 95% probability that the world is flat.
>
> Scientific knowledge where probabilities affect human health and
> safety is routinely used in engineering and medicine.
>
> Building safe bridges means knowing the probability that based on
> engineering science, a structure will safely hold a certain amount of
> weight.
No, structural design is not based on probability and statistics.
Maximum stresses in critical components are calculated and significant
factors of safety against the material failure stresses are required
by the design codes. Its not a guessing game.
>
> Medical patients are told their chances of surviving cancer with
> different treatment alternatives, none with 100 percent certainty of
> success.
>
> Statistical probability
>
> The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
> statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth’s land
> base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
Big deal. That number was generated by the same flawed computer models
that can't recreate the past, much less predict the future.
>
> With statistical confidence of 90 percent the IPCC predicted
> increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
What happened to all the droughts they were predicting? Who cares
anyway? Its just more computer generated BS.
>
> Bozeman temperatures now average 7 degrees higher than in 1950, 26
> glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850, and
> pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
> acres.
>
> Over 90 percent of the world’s scientists agree that we are
> experiencing effects of human-induced climate change, including the
> American Association for the Advancement of Science, International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences,
> American Geophysical Union, World Meteorological Organization,
> American Academy of Pediatrics, World Federation of Public Health
> Associations, American Institute of Physics, and 69 other national and
> international science organizations. Only six scientific organizations
> take a noncommittal position.
>
> The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
> dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
> become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
>
> Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
> for climate researchers to mislead the public.
The motive for climate researchers is clear: more research funds to
study the impending disaster. The motive for politicians is also
clear: an excuse to levy massive new taxes and expand bureaucratic
control over huge portions of the economy. Whoever wrote this article
was a stupid fuck.
>
> It’s easy, on the other hand, to see a motive for denial — short-term
> profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
> global warming.
>
> Most Montanans wouldn’t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that’s not
> what the science is about.
It should be what the science is about. Why aren't slightly
increasing temperatures a benefit? Common sense suggests they are.
>
> It’s about the extinction of species that, according to Nobel Laureate
> Dr. Eric Chivian of the Harvard Medical School, may provide medically
> valuable knowledge,
That's a pretty big *may*. Is it worth spending a trillions dollars
on that possibility that some special creature that has yet to be
discovered and *might* cure a disease will be wiped out by global
warming? Talk about the slimmest of threads.
>like treatments for peptic ulcer disease affecting
> 25 million Americans, end stage renal disease that kills 80,000
> Americans a year, osteoporosis that kills 70,000 Americans a year,
>
> Type 2 diabetes killing a quarter of a million people each year, and
> arrhythmias.
What do these diseases have to do with global warming? Thats the
rationale for spending a trillion dollars to reduce carbon emissions?
What a joke.
>
> 90% of scientists agree
>
> It’s about the economic and geo-strategic impact of regional climate
> change on agriculture and energy.
First off, they can't predict what is going to happen where.
Secondly, why are the changes bad? For the most part warmer
temperatures mean more moisture and that should be a benefit.
>
> It’s about migrations of species like bark beetles and their impact on
> forestry and wildfires.
Natural habitats will shift slowly towards the poles. Big deal.
>
> In impoverished countries it’s about more death and suffering from
> increases in malaria and water and air-borne diseases.
For an area that already has malaria (most of the third world) why
would global warming mean more malaria? It makes no sense.
>
> It’s about increased radiation and corresponding increases in skin
> cancer and melanoma, particularly in higher altitudes.
What does this have to do with global warming?
>
> Knowing that 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 80 percent in
> women are caused by smoking, most of us don’t smoke and encourage our
> loved ones to quit.
What does this have to do with global warming?
>
> When 90 percent of scientists agree that the effects of climate change
> put us all at risk, and that there is a high probability that failure
> to change our behavior by 2015 will make those effects difficult or
> impossible to reverse, we should take that just as seriously as other
> scientific facts regarding risks to our health and lives that we
> routinely accept and, accordingly, change our behavior.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Harry Hoax
Fuck that and fuck you.
Peter Franks
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
> ...
Do skeptics hide their data?
Do skeptics destroy their data?
Did you analyze the other half of your premise? Have you studied
businesses that profit from the halting of CO2 emissions that promote
science of climate change?
Well?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>
>> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
>>
>> Saturday, January 2, 2010 By FRANKE WILMER
>>
>> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
>> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
>> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>>
>> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
>> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
>> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
>> ago.
>>
>> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
>> inquiry.
>
> ..
>
> Do skeptics hide their data?
Nope, the global warming cranks don't have any data.
> Do skeptics destroy their data?
No, they just 'cherry-pick the data that they want..
> Did you analyze the other half of your premise?
Yes, it was false..
> Have you studied businesses that profit from the halting
> of CO2 emissions that promote science of climate change?
Yup..
--Apparently, you haven't..
mrbawana2u
> On 1/2/2010 11:00 AM, Fetid Crank was writhing in denials:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
>
> >> Saturday, January 2, 2010 By FRANKE WILMER
>
> >> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> >> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> >> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>
> >> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> >> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> >> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> >> ago.
>
> >> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
Peter Franks
That's all you have? A couple of off the cuff responses?
That isn't a suitable answer. Post a legitimate response with
references, otherwise you, along w/ the OP are nothing more than pawns.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was laughing, at the expense of:
Nope, but that's all your counter-argument warranted..
> That isn't a suitable answer
TFB, it's all your false counter-argument deserved..
> Post a legitimate response with references
I have, and will again, when it suits me, Fetid Crank..
--You have yet to present a valid counter-argument..
Last Post
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
•Wilmer either is illiterate or his editor is lazy
but his lead article makes no sense.
>
> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> ago.
• 1- There is NO "science of climate change".
2- Climate change is all natural.
3- "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for
5 million years or more.
> Everyone with a high school education should know that skepticism —
> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
> researched hypotheses — is built into the process of scientific
> inquiry.
• That is true, but almost all of the researchers
are starting with false premises and lookiing
for what-ifs
>
> The best science aims to disprove or “falsify” a strong hypothesis —
> almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
> of being true.
• True none of the cabal's researchers could pass
a legitimate peer review which requires 95%
'confidence'
> Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
> treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
• That only applies when the underlying data
is accurate
> Statistical probability
>
> The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
> statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth’s land
> base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
• Their computers project those 'probabilities'
but the reality is BSI = BSO
> With statistical confidence of 90 percent the IPCC predicted
> increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
• Some of that is true but has zero to do with
global warming. None of their forecasts have
panned out, so the give themselves more time.
Some of their forecasts are impossible on the
face of it. Like during Copenhagen they
forecast sea levels rising 3mm pa to a
minimum level that would take 886 years to
reach — Beyond Bizarre
>
> Bozeman temperatures now average 7 degrees higher than in 1950, 26
> glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850,
• That was at the end of the 'Little Ice Age'
and
> pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
> acres.
• Most of those trees were dying and should have
been harvested 100 years ago.
>
> The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
> dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
> become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
>
> Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
> for climate researchers to mislead the public.
• The quartet at the center of the 'science'
reaped several million dollars each
• Those who attempt to associate climate
skeptics with Nazi Holocaust deniers must
themselves be 'Nazi'.
> It’s easy, on the other hand, to see a motive for denial — short-term
> profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
> global warming.
• It is scientifically impossible for the greenhouse
gasses to influence the climate. There is NO
global warming.
>
> Most Montanans wouldn’t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that’s not
> what the science is about.
• They will have to wait another 100,000 years
— —
| 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
dkat
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
Ask someone if they are told buy a credible source "there is a 95%
chance that you will be shot and killed if you walk out your front
door today", will they walk out their front door?
My guess is that they might then get it.
Edmund Kerendian
will almost always be making money from carbon fuels. What do you
think? You really think these guys will care about anything?
It's all about profits and bottom line, and out there its a dog eat
dog world.
Check out this article on businesses that help out the environment
I M @ good guy
<edmundk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know if CO2 emissions will ever stop since these businesses
>will almost always be making money from carbon fuels. What do you
>think? You really think these guys will care about anything?
Stop breathing, breath contains a high
percentage of CO2.
>It's all about profits and bottom line, and out there its a dog eat
>dog world.
What is your job, is it more important than
keeping me warm?
>Check out this article on businesses that help out the environment
>
>http://businessesthatprofit.com/industrial/carbon-co2-emissions-business-entrepreneurship-opportunities-greencareersguide/
Do you have a link about businesses that
consider humans as important as trees or ice?
Last Post
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
> By FRANKE WILMER
>
> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
øø The so-called "science of climate change" is
not science at all. Rather it is a political myth.
A variant of fascism ...
> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> ago.
øø So far there has been no definitive proof that
tobacco is a carcinogen. That does not include
the chemicals that the US government has
required to be included in cigarettes.
øø Real science has been perverted and twisted
to deny nature. The IPCC has ignored or
twisted basic physics with terms like feedbacks
etc. The need to look really hard at the
lessons of Newton and Tyndall which when
applied outside the lab prove that the green
house effect is a non sequitur.
ø 1- There is NO "science of climate change".
2- Climate change is all natural.
3- "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for
5 million years or more.
— —
Last Post
> Ask someone if they are told buy a credible source "there is a 95%
> chance that you will be shot and killed if you walk out your front
> door today", will they walk out their front door?
>
> My guess is that they might then get it.
øø NONSENSE
Last Post
wrote:
> I don't know if CO2 emissions will ever stop since these businesses
> will almost always be making money from carbon fuels. What do you
> think? You really think these guys will care about anything?
øø 1- Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to less than
3.5% of the total
2- CO2 has little or no effect on climate.
3- Global warming does not exist.
4- Sea levels are not rising
5- Reglaciation will commence before 2100