Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 26-02-2015, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Step outa line & the man will come & take you away...or what?

The man is right wing. The man kills innocent people. The man is a fraud..

**Boon Mee** · 27-02-2015, 12:46 PM

Barack Obama Goes Full Stalin

An actual email from the “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any
anti-science organization?” department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.

The level of Soviet style criminal activity at the White House has reached spectacular new lows. On February 20, The White House sent out this E-mail announcing that they were going to start attacking individual scientists who dissented from the White House global warming agenda."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...s-full-stalin/

**Neo** · 27-02-2015, 01:15 PM

You got any real facts there Boon.. instead of pretend facts.?

**bsnub** · 27-02-2015, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The level of Soviet style criminal activity at the White House has reached spectacular new lows.

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2015, 06:10 AM

bsnub seen nodding in approval...

**pseudolus** · 28-02-2015, 08:17 AM

The sea is frozen in Nantucket. This is GLOBAL COOLING and they now need some GLOBAL WARMING to thaw it out. What would really help is if the people of the world was taxed with the money going directly to a Private Bank and the Bankers can create another derivative bubble to steal another trillion dollars from the people of the world.

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2015, 08:54 AM

The cartoon below aptly sums up this Globul Warming BS:

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2015, 11:00 AM

MORE BAD NEWS FOR ALARMISTS: POLAR BEARS DOING JUST FINE

The latest figures from a GWPF special report by Dr Susan Crockford appear to confirm the bears are doing great!

On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears. Scientists are finding that they are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice. Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey. It really is time for the doom and gloom about polar bears to stop.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...kford-2015.pdf

**Boon Mee** · 28-02-2015, 11:05 AM

Did you know 99% of all climate study funding goes to alarmists rather than skeptics?

On Funding and Bias in Climate | Coyote Blog

**koman** · 28-02-2015, 11:20 AM

One of the propaganda photos often used by the climate alarmists shows a polar bear standing all alone on a small ice-floe...as if that was something new and unheard off.

Bears have been standing on, or hitching rides on the bloody things since time immemorial, but suddenly the sight is part of a poster campaign for these clowns. Works for the ignorant mass that gained their wildlife expertise via Disney studios I suppose.....

Remember the reporter who stood up and asked Al Gore why he kept saying the Polar bears were endangered, when the latest counts showed that they were thriving and the numbers in some places had actually increased a bit too much.

He was immediately pounced upon by Gore's goon squad (sorry security guards) and dragged out of the room before he could get another word in.

Polar bear populations (like many others in the wild) go through cycles, and always have; but the decline that occurred before the recent recovery had to be blamed on something... so naturally the climate groupies jumped on the chance.

PS Did you check to make sure this Susan Crockford babe is not paid by the Koch brothers or any oil outfit.....

**bsnub** · 28-02-2015, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The sea is frozen in Nantucket. This is GLOBAL COOLING and they now need some GLOBAL WARMING to thaw it out. What would really help is if the people of the world was taxed with the money going directly to a Private Bank and the Bankers can create another derivative bubble to steal another trillion dollars from the people of the world.

Once again taking the side of big oil. What a hypocrite.

**bsnub** · 28-02-2015, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

MORE BAD NEWS FOR ALARMISTS: POLAR BEARS DOING JUST FINE

The latest figures from a GWPF special report by Dr Susan Crockford appear to confirm the bears are doing great!

On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears. Scientists are finding that they are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice. Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey. It really is time for the doom and gloom about polar bears to stop.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...kford-2015.pdf

Once again you post up junk science. This woman is on the payroll of The Heritage foundation. Another shill for big oil and the Koch brothers.

Susan Crockford | DeSmogBlog

https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ndermine-ipcc/

Can you find one source to quote that is not in someway connected to Big oil or the Koch brothers? I think not.

**pseudolus** · 28-02-2015, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The sea is frozen in Nantucket. This is GLOBAL COOLING and they now need some GLOBAL WARMING to thaw it out. What would really help is if the people of the world was taxed with the money going directly to a Private Bank and the Bankers can create another derivative bubble to steal another trillion dollars from the people of the world.

Once again taking the side of big oil. What a hypocrite.

Umm now why would you say that? Tri lateral commission set up and run by big oil is in my view one of the arch enemies. Just because I don't believe for one second that climate change is anything other than an excuse to remove wealth from people to the bankers, does not mean that I back big oil.

You are the hypocrite - you pretend to be what you are not - you are a corporate bankers shill so brainwashed that you fall hook line and sinker for every scam the globalists let you believe.

**bsnub** · 28-02-2015, 01:10 PM

^ What a moron you are. The conspiracy of science denial is backed by the banksters and big oil who work hand in hand. What a clown you are not to be able to see that.

Take sides with the morons who deny science in the name of profits. Make no mistake that is exactly what you are doing.

**Neo** · 28-02-2015, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just because I don't believe for one second that climate change is anything other than an excuse to remove wealth from people to the bankers, does not mean that I back big oil.

Please explain how that would happen.

**CaptainNemo** · 28-02-2015, 04:24 PM

Climate change is not as simple as a dimmer switch in your lounge turning up the temperature.

New Satellite Maps Reveal Global Ocean Alkalinity | Geography, Geophysics | Sci-News.com

Temperature changes prompt interactions between different systems, with not yet fully understood effects, which is why we do climate research - to understand those effects, so that we can plan for the future. This is just sensible risk-management, to manage and allocate the finite resources on the planet so that we don't end up shit creek as a species.

I can tell you from experience, as someone who used to be in an oil company, that when I went to the big boss at the top of a big building in central london once upon a time and asked him to his face for some research funding to fit sensors to tankers he wasn't aversed to it at all. He may have passed because of not wanting to be asked awkward questions about his spending and what the company was getting for that money, or maybe because he was running a very high profile LNG project, and had plans to move to a sweeter luxury semi-retirement style gig in Jakarta.

Similarly, funding for research is bid for at the director level, licking on the windows of the political sphere, and themes are vague and able to be divvied up to teams, and more defined projects slotted in under the theme, and then lower down, precise projects served to the academics as "you get what yer given" slices of research to do to maintain their career momentum, but it's pretty flexible.

Researchers have to put a stock phrase in about "anthropomophic climate change" as standard to fit within the political-driven theme, driven in turn by the media, who then go and attack the results!
It's not a lie, because a drop of water in an ocean or drop of water in a teaspoon is still a drop of water, and has still changed the environment it entered, and researchers have to be really careful about what they put because damage to their reputation is a real concern, they don't want to be hauled over the coals in the hysterial trolling press.
The extrapolation and exaggeration of this is generated on crackpot banjo-bashing blogs and hysterical trolling newspapers, by and large. As must people should know, climate has always changed, and quite dramatically in the past and we wouldn't be here if it hadn't.

I note that bankers are the common bad guy in both sides of this "debate", and it's interesting initself how they can be thought of as funding the pro and against sides of the same issue... it suggests that different bankers may be taking different positions to achieve different ROIs on different scales.

It is all about following the money, and justifying your investment, whether its shareholders or taxpayers, it's the same deal.

Of course climate scentists have to go for high profile stuff that's arguably low impact (like the recent fetish for robots), to sustain funding for the unsexy stuff that may have bigger impact on understanding. That's just like if you were working in an office, you have to do a higher profile project to build reputation and get funding and maintain career momentum - that's just being pragmatic.

Ultimately all of us share a common problem, which is on of resources and economics. We can do very clever thngs to sustain growth and maintain our standard of living, and I agree that the Green Party is offering nothing but a slow apocalypse.
What we actually need is vision and direction from engineers and artists to inspire people to see humanity's future beyond this planet, and that way we can have continued economic growth... but to do that we need to learn a lot more about climate science, because even if we can devise clever ways of getting to other planets, we are going to need to analyse their atmospheric chemistry, and geology, and hopefully oceanography (because we need water), and may need to engineer these worlds, if not our bodies, in order to achieve that objective of continued human economic prosperity, which underpins every aspect of quality of life.

Climate science is not just about the Earth, and "climate change".

The lack of vision alluded to in articles like this below is quite depressing:
The dark future of American space exploration: NASA's golden age is about to come to a thudding halt - Vox

**Boon Mee** · 01-03-2015, 09:35 AM

WashPost says Global Warming Tides Will Carry Screaming Eskimos Out to Sea!

This tiny and isolated town of 400 cannot be reached by road. It lies on a fragile barrier island along the Chukchi Sea, 83 miles above the Arctic circle. But in recent years, climate change has thinned the ice so much that it has become too dangerous to hunt the whales.

The only problem: there is no "climate change", or, as they used to call it, global warming. There is no global warming, not man made, not nature made, as in no global warming of any kind. Unless you believe falsified temperature figures, there has been no global warming in 17 years. An individual region may get warmer or colder, but that has nothing to do with some global effect.

Soon, the U.S. government says, it may be too dangerous to live here at all, with less sea ice to protect the barrier island from powerful waves that wash across the village."

The remote Alaskan village that needs to be relocated due to climate change - The Washington Post

"The giant 600 foot tidal wave roared large over the remote Eskimo village of Kivalina. Kumaglak's infant son Inuksuk gave a whimper of fear as he clung tighter to her bosom. Kumaglak heard the screams of her fellow villagers as the tidal wave started to descend on the small Eskimo village. As the giant wave of water was about to hit her, her last thought was not of the hot spicy kisses of her boyfriend Umlaut, or the tasty walrus tusks she had boiled for dinner, but rather an odd pang of regret for holding on to her coal fired stove when Al Gore had offered her a perfectly good solar cooker for her igloo.."

http://newsmachete.com/?news=452

**koman** · 01-03-2015, 03:06 PM

Another snipped from the epicenter of global warming....

Ottawa Citizen
Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen

Frozen pipes all over town, shattered plastic bumpers, a month without a thaw, and we’re tired of hearing that each day brings another record for canal skating. It’s just nasty.

And March? More cold on the way.

This is the point in the year when winter’s grip is supposed to be easing.
Increased sunshine usually makes the end of February milder. On Friday, Ottawa got 11 full hours of daylight for the first time this winter.

The winter began with just eight hours and 43 minutes of daylight, and we’re gaining more than three minutes a day. The sun is higher in the sky, too. It reaches 36 degrees above the horizon at noon now, compared with just 21 degrees when winter began.

All that extra energy from the sun is supposed to translate into at least some warmth. Our normal temperature range now is about five degrees above the norms for late January.

The normal average high for the month of February is -3.4 C. This month, we have averaged -11.2 C, or nearly eight degrees below the norm.

Nights have been even worse. The normal low for the month should be – 12.8 C, but the reality has been lows averaging -21.3 C, or 8.5 degrees below the norm.
There have been 19 nights in February that dipped below -20 C, and just two nights milder than -15 C.

Our last thaw, if you can call it that, was way back on Jan. 23, when the high reach 0.1 C. That’s one tenth of a degree above freezing.

There will be panic at the Gore mansion if this kind of thing keeps getting in the news...especially after the latest polar bear counts.....

**bsnub** · 01-03-2015, 05:13 PM

^ Once again the science denying knuckle draggers posting up dribble about how cold it is. I used to respect you koman but you have proven yourself to be a moron the same as boon mee.

**koman** · 01-03-2015, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

dribble about how cold it is

How's that Snubbie.....it is fucking cold in a lot of places. Much colder than "normal". This is actually happening....it's not from one of your "models"

The reports are everywhere.....except maybe on your climate groupie sites. They tend to ignore stuff like "The normal low for the month should be – 12.8 C, but the reality has been lows averaging -21.3 C, or 8.5 degrees below the norm".

Still, it will be getting a lot warmer in a few months, so everybody can claim to be right in this debate at one time or another....

Originally Posted by bsnub

you have proven yourself to be a moron the same as boon mee.

More original and scintillating thoughts from Snubbie.....he can always be relied upon for quality input....at least for an eight year old...

**Boon Mee** · 01-03-2015, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by koman

More original and scintillating thoughts from Snubbie.....he can always be relied upon for quality input....at least for an eight year old...

Heh...well, gotta give 'ol snubby a break. He's been owned on so many threads it's almost embarrasing!

**koman** · 01-03-2015, 05:52 PM

^

He's at his best when drunk. Snubbie needs to drink more....

**Boon Mee** · 01-03-2015, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by koman

^

He's at his best when drunk. Snubbie needs to drink more....

Snubbie is why they invented the Budwiser 24 Pack

**bsnub** · 02-03-2015, 11:17 AM

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” - NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, to the New York Times

Recent revelations regarding Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon's financing and coordination with fossil fuel companies for studies undermining the science of climate change has received quite a bit of attention. Our friends at the Climate Investigations Center have links to source documents, letters to the IRS and Congress, letters to journals that Soon appears to have mislead, and some of the press covering all of this.

The drama has largely outshone the main point among most scientists: Willie Soon's work is vastly discredited. For those who aren't familiar with Willie Soon's fossil fuel company contracting over the last fifteen years, there is probably a legitimate question of whether or not this guy deserves to be in his current pinch.
Frankly, he had it coming.

Scientists and science reporters have often had to waste their time addressing the interference of Soon and his cohorts, who take advantage of the public's general unfamiliarity with scientific nuance.

But scientists too are talking about Dr. Soon's work and what it means for the troubled peer-review process that the most stringent journals usually adhere to. Here is a summary of some of the most interesting conversations in science publications about Willie Soon's #Fakexpert scandal.

First, Soon's manager at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Charles Alcock, has time and time again said that neither he nor Smithsonian support Soon's fossil-funded conclusions. From E&E Publishing's ClimateWire:

“I'd have to say that I've reached my conclusions independent of Dr. Soon's work,” Alcock said. “Dr. Soon is not actively engaged in actually gathering new data. He's principally disputing the interpretation of data gathered by other people. And I think this is an area where most of the progress will be made by people who collect new [climate] data or who build new models.”

Soon's industry-financed papers have been debunked by climate scientists over and over. Just last month, Soon co-authored a paper claiming to debunk decades of science using a “simple” model of long term temperature projections. Scientists worldwide noted that Soon's methodology was grossly oversimplified, ignoring key factors that scientists have warned will lead to unprecedented temperature increases in the coming decades.

The Heartland Institute, a think tank with ties to the fossil fuel industry, paid to promote this paper in Science Bulletin, a journal published by the Chinese National Academy of Sciences. Heartland has misrepresented the Chinese NAS for political purposes before, and Science Bulletin was the latest victim of Dr. Soon's serial lack of disclosure of fossil fuel funding to science journals. Science Insider - published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) - interviewed editors at science journals who appear to have been fooled by Dr. Soon's non-disclosure of his industry payments. But Soon's work was widely disregarded before his controversial 2015 paper in Science Bulletin. The prestigious science journal Nature notes that Dr. Soon's haggard relationship with science isn't new:

The scientist has published numerous papers that go against mainstream climate science. Most famously, in 2003, Soon co-authored a paper in the journal Climate Research that questioned the standard interpretation of climate change over the past millennium and argued that recent warming is not unusual by historical standards. Subsequent controversy led to the resignation of several of the journal’s editors. In that case, the controversy revolved around scientific issues, not disclosure of funding sources. [More on this scandal in our profile of Willie Soon]

NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt for RealClimate re-starts, giving Soon the benefit of the doubt (select clips):

However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. […]
It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:

The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero.

If you're feeling masochistic enough to read more from scientists into the documented gap between reality and Willie Soon's research, check older RealClimate posts on Dr. Soon here, here, and here, and this generously-detailed debunk of Soon's presentation at the latest Heartland Institute climate denial conference by ecologist Richard Telford.

Telford isn't the only scientist baffled by Soon's awkward presentations. University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank details his “depressing” encounter with Willie Soon, at an event and a personal encounter, from NPR:

When it was announced that Soon was giving a talk at the University of Rochester, I knew it would be interesting. I was more than willing to hear what the man had to say. The whole point of being a scientist is, after all, to try to leave your preconceptions at the door and let the work speak for itself. I also wanted to understand Soon's own thinking about the role he was playing as a public skeptic.
On all counts I was disappointed.
Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon's presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It's part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, “Is that the best they have?”

The presentation that Prof. Adam Frank found depressing was focused on Soon's long-since-discredited thesis that the Sun, not industrial pollution, is responsible for climate change. Citing peer-reviewed material on Skeptical Science, science reporter Chris Mooney re-examines how Soon's primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post:

[T]he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”
The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.” […]

A recent scientific review article on climate and the sun similarly notes “the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades,” and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

So in sum: It’s not that the sun can’t influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.

Discover Magazine has a similar rundown of Soon's debunked “it's the sun” thesis, based on a video of a presentation Soon gave to a Koch-funded student group.
Even Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller has abandoned Soon's solar theories in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, as Brad Friedman reminds us, in a study that Charles Koch Foundation itself helped finance (oops).
While most scientists may agree that Soon's work is nothing to bat an eyelash at, Soon's corporate funders aren't trying to influence scientists - they're trying to influence policymakers, and the people who vote for them. has a brilliant summary of why these climate deniers matter, when their work is so discredited and marginalized in the scientific community:

Yet unlike 9/11 trutherism, and Obama-is-a-Muslim trutherism, the Climate Truther campaign has an air of respectability, a unanimous adherence among Republican presidential candidates. How is that possible?
The answer is money. Lots of money. Billions of dollars, in fact, spent to create an entire industry of scientists, publicists, think tanks, and legislative organizations.

Willie Soon, for example, should never have been given much credence in the first place. Like nearly all of the Climate Truthers’ scientists, he is not a climate expert. He’s not even an astrophysicist, as he is often presented. As the New York Times revealed, “He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.”

This type of industry-funded public relations has frustrated legitimate climate scientists for a long time. Science writer Greg Laden sought comment from renowned climate scientist Michael Mann, whose work has been attacked by Soon and just about every other person in the fossil fuel rolodex. Quoting Mann:

“Willie Soon (as amply documented in my book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”) was instrumental in the early attacks on the Hockey Stick by James Inhofe and other fossil fuel industry-funded politicians. Now we know for certain that his efforts were a quid pro quo with special interests looking to discredit my work as a means of calling into question the reality and threat of climate change.”

Most of this denial is implemented through the vast web of Koch-funded front groups in the State Policy Network, with presence nationally and in all 50 states.

For a look at how SPN uses science denial in the policy arena, check out Willie Soon's climate denial testimony to Kansas legislators from January, 2013. This dismissal of climate science to Kansas legislators marked the opening of a nationally-coordinated attack on Kansas' clean energy incentives by SPN members. In that case, Dr. Soon failed to disclose his payments from the nonprofit Charles Koch Foundation for his work, which he cited in the Kansas statehouse.

Hence our letter to the IRS, asking about potential violations of law. The Charles Koch Foundation funded most of the groups working to attack the clean energy law, Koch Industries itself was lobbying against the law, and rumor has it that Willie Soon was flown in on the dime of Americans for Prosperity, a group founded, financed and governed by the Kochs.

PolluterWatch has more on the history of Willie Soon, whose denial isn't limited to temperature changes, but the hazards of mercury pollution from burning coal, ocean acidification and polar bears' increasing struggle to survive as their habitats melt. I'll leave you with an image from InsideClimate News, which has done in-depth reporting on Soon:

Link

**bsnub** · 03-03-2015, 05:38 AM

If you read the piece above then clearly you can understand that the scientific community has completely rejected this mans claims. He is a scientific heretic, a snake oil salesman and a peddler of junk science.

The right wing propaganda machine simply spins faster than the scientific community who are not prepared to deal with the onslaught of lies.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Willie Soon's Climate Science Denial Wasn't Ever Credible: Climate Scientists

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions