Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Curious facts about Climate Change denial.

Did you know that one of the foremost cliamte change denial bodies in fact commissioned a study that explicitly acknowledged the effect of green house gases and its effect on the climate ?

. The now-defunct Global Climate Coalition (GCC) included Exxon-Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, American Petroleum Institute, Shell, Texaco, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, and the American Forest and Paper Association. The GCC, established in 1989, operated from the offices of the National Association of Manufacturing. The GCC hired a PR firm which produced a video to combat the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. However, some of its member companies left the GCC; they thought it too risky to be publicly identified with global-warming denial, and feared the fate of Big Tobacco; it had ended up losing lawsuits for health-care costs of smokers, ultimately settling for damages of $251 billion. Beset by the defections, the GCC disbanded in 2001.

During its lifetime, the GCC established a research arm, the Science and Technology Assessment Committee, which was staffed by industry scientists. A committee led by Mobil Oil chemical engineer L. C. Bernstein produced a confidential 1995 report which was circulated to the members of GCC: oil and coal companies, electric utilities, attorneys, National Mining Association, etc. In a stunning admission, the Bernstein Report concluded that “the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” The report knocked down one of the most popular contrarian arguments: that global warming could be attributed to changes in the Sun’s brightness. In opposition to the contrarian view, the Bernstein Report stated that changes in the brightness of the Sun were too small by at least a factor of five to cause the temperature change observed in the last 120 years. It pointed out that the deniers had no alternative theory of their own, saying “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”

Thus, while the oil companies and their hired hands were proclaiming in public that global warming was not caused by burning fossil fuels, their own scientists were saying exactly the opposite in private. If you have never heard of the Bernstein Report, you have lots of company. It did not surface until 2007, a dozen years after it was written, during a discovery process in a California court proceeding.

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

 

[wayneL]

Curious facts about Climate Change denial.

Did you know that one of the foremost cliamte change denial bodies in fact commissioned a study that explicitly acknowledged the effect of green house gases and its effect on the climate ?



http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda

basilio claims to have a sound scientific undersatnding of climate science, yet comes on here playing an obnoxious political hand.... and there is that putrid "denier" name-calling again.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Surely you are are not "denying" natural and non-co2 anthropogenic factors in climate change?

After all the more recent science on solar vectors, you won't accept the same?

The more you write, the further down the slippery slope, of sleazy sloppy non-science you slide basilio.

Here's a challenge for you, set aside you self centered mercantile interests and consider science in toto.

Go ahead and shock us all with some balanced scientific analysis.

 

[basilio]

basilio claims to have a sound scientific undersatnding of climate science, yet comes on here playing an obnoxious political hand.... and there is that putrid "denier" name-calling again.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Surely you are are not "denying" natural and non-co2 anthropogenic factors in climate change?

After all the more recent science on solar vectors, you won't accept the same?

The more you write, the further down the slippery slope, of sleazy sloppy non-science you slide basilio.

Here's a challenge for you, set aside you self centered mercantile interests and consider science in toto.

Go ahead and shock us all with some balanced scientific analysis.

I wasn't calling you a denier Wayne ? How could I given you are such a gentleman.

What I was drawing attention to was the fact that in 1995 a group of science experts were commissioned by an oil funded group to present a report on the causes of global warming and the probable significance of the the event. Sort of like trying to see what they were up against when they had to had to produce their spiel.

Unfortunately for them the scientists who did the research came back and said "Well actually the Greenhouse effect is very real, CO2 is most definitely a major cause and frankly all the other possible causes are just relatively too small to be considered as significant" - or words to that effect. [B](So one don't have to ignore other contributors to CC Wayne. You just have to see them in perspective ie as very small fish indeed)
[/B]
Of course that report was not what they wanted to hear so they promptly buried it (very deeply) and begin the doubt and confusion model that was used so successfully for years by the Tobacco industry to stall action against the promotion of smoking.

So what part of denial is absent when a body chooses to bury its own report which says Global Warming is real and CO2 is the main driver and then propagandizes the opposite statement ?

If anyone else is interested in reading just how the Fossil fuel industry systematically deceived the world through it's various paid shills check out the review of the book below. It's an excellent summary of the book.

Cheers

The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry
John W. Farley
more on Environment/Science
Print | Email | PDF

John W. Farley teaches physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “Our Last Chance to Save Humanity?” a review of James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, appeared in Monthly Review in September 2010. He blogs at rabett.blogspot.com.
James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 232 pages, $27.95, hardcover.

James Powell was inspired to write this important new book because of a remarkable paradox: among climate scientists, there is a near-unanimous consensus that global warming is occurring now, is largely human-made, and will cause very severe environmental problems if humanity continues business as usual. However, among the lay public the picture is much more mixed: only about half of the U.S. public agrees with the climate scientists. Why the enormous discrepancy?

Powell argues that “in the denial of global warming, we are witnessing the most vicious, and so far most successful, attack on science in history.” Although Powell himself is not a climate science researcher, he has an appropriate background to understand the field: he holds a doctorate in geochemistry from MIT and became a geology professor, teaching at Oberlin College for over twenty years. He has been a college president at three institutions, and served for a dozen years on the National Science Board. Powell’s book is a sharp attack on the global-warming denial “industry,” a network comprised of corporate funding, think tanks, popularizers, and propagandists, who all work with a compliant mass media.

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

bumpity bump.

 

[basilio]

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

 

[cynic]

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

 

[wayneL]

Basilio you have disingenuously and dishonourably ducked the issue I've raised and requested you respond to - that you have made a political point with>20 year old documents that do not reflect the current state of science.

I ask again, do you reject the influence of solar cycles on our climate, at least in part?

 

[basilio]

Basilio you have disingenuously and dishonourably ducked the issue I've raised and requested you respond to - that you have made a political point with>20 year old documents that do not reflect the current state of science.

I ask again, do you reject the influence of solar cycles on our climate, at least in part?

I agree that solar cycles have a small impact on the climate. It is however totally dwarfed by the impact of Greenhouse gases CO2, methane ect.

Like almost scientific issues it's worth investigating because it adds to our knowledge of what is happening. But in the context of explaining current GW it has been exaggerated into just another red herring floated to create uncertainty.

And your right about the fact that the 20 year old documents don't reflect the current state of science. In 2014 the Climate scientists are even more certain about the cause and effects of climate change. In 1995 they were only 80% sure. But it's interesting how the Oil Funded think tank decided to bury the actual report they commissioned in favour of doubt, uncertainty and arguing about the locations of weather stations which of course they knew was not true.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/15jan_warming/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/10mar_greenhouseshift/

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

Around we go again!

bump.

 

[Logique]

The climate models are correct, it's just that it's so darn windy over the ocean.

How could we have missed this.

 

[wayneL]

Badilio,

Scientists cannot be more sure, if they are considering science in toto. More shrill, certainly, but not more sure.

The IPCC is hoist by its own petard, for instance. The purported 95% certainty skewered by its very own document, the gap in logic rendering the latest document no better that toilet paper and an acute embarrassment to true scientists.

 

[ghotib]

Badilio,

Scientists cannot be more sure, if they are considering science in toto. More shrill, certainly, but not more sure.

The IPCC is hoist by its own petard, for instance. The purported 95% certainty skewered by its very own document, the gap in logic rendering the latest document no better that toilet paper and an acute embarrassment to true scientists.

Good gracious Wayne, what on earth are you talking about these days? This is complete nonsense. You used to be quite sensible - wrong, but sensible. What's happened??

 

[wayneL]

Good gracious Wayne, what on earth are you talking about these days? This is complete nonsense. You used to be quite sensible - wrong, but sensible. What's happened??

What happened? Well, nothing happened, apart from the completion of your indoctrination at the Ministry of Truth.

Re being wrong - I can state with a genuine 99% confidence interval that most of us across the whole spectrum of climate discussion are wrong. We are not in any way dealing with a deterministic topic, we are dealing in a chaotic system, hence from that point of view the IPCCs 95% confidence drivel can only be that - drivel.

An email from Monkton to Borenstein: Doesn't matter what you think of him, but his comments on stats apply.

Dear Mr. Borenstein, - It would be appropriate to assign a statistical confidence interval as part of a statistical analysis of data, and only then. As you will know, a confidence interval of .95 corresponds to two standard deviations from the mean, and .99 to three standard deviations. However, there was no statistical analysis of the question whether most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us: therefore, no statistical confidence interval was appropriate, and the IPCC's attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible.

As you will also know, the IPCC was rightly criticized for having assigned a 90% confidence interval (not even a standard interval) to its "consensus" proposition in the Fourth Assessment Report. On that occasion, the political representatives of governments took the decision. Many nations wanted to plump for 95%, for purely political reasons (for there was and is no scientific basis for assigning any quantitative value to such a proposition), but China, for purely scientific reasons, wanted no confidence interval at all. In the end, 90% was settled upon as a compromise, and by no more scientific a process than a show of hands. And these people expect to be taken seriously when they demand the shutdown of the West in the name of Saving The Planet.

By the same token, Mr. Severinghaus' assertion of a 99% confidence interval to the proposition that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect is meaningless. It is demonstrable by simple experiment that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to an atmosphere such as ours will cause a radiative forcing that, ceteris paribus, can be expected to cause some warming.

However, temperature feedbacks, non-radiative transports, temperature homeostasis, and chaos in the climate object are among many complicating factors that make it near-impossible to determine with any reliability - even using probability density functions - how much warming will result from a given quantum of forcing, or when it will result, or how long-acting any temperature feedbacks will be. These and many other uncertainties - including the use of a feedback-amplification function at the heart of the climate-sensitivity equation that manifestly has no physical meaning in the real climate - render it impossible to determine whether most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Accordingly, the IPCC's pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence.

Frankly, this entire business of the fictitious confidence intervals has become a joke, particularly now that it transpires that just 0.3% of 11,944 papers on global climate change published since 1991 explicitly state support for the IPCC's version of "consensus".

In any event, only a Socialist who placed politics before science would believe or assert for an instant that scientific results are determined or reinforced by any form of mere head-counting among scientists. Aristotle demonstrated that argument by mere head-count was a fallacy 2350 years ago. The sheer dumbness of the IPCC's approach should at least be questioned by journalists, not merely paraded as though it were some sort of Gospel truth. The Holy Books of IPeCaC are no Bible.

There is a huge and fascinating story behind the loutish distortions of scientific, mathematical, physical, and statistical method that have led today's scientifically-illiterate classe politique to place their faith in propositions - such as the "95% confidence" proposition - that are obvious nonsense. Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game. This once-fashionable scare is going down and you don't want to be dragged down with it. Global warming is no longer cool. It is no longer a happening thing. Indeed, it is no longer happening. - Monckton of Brenchley

 

[basilio]

Wow Wayne. And you really and truly put forward Monckton as a reliable authority on this subject!

The man is a proven liar. His extensive stories of CC have been dissected and practically every assertion comes from a bodgy graph, a cherry picked quote, mistakes or delibrate lies.

That particular piece you quoted had one of the best examples of Moncktons bare faced BS. Can you spot the line or do you need someone to point out obvious?

Just bumf Wayne. Thats all he offers and all you repeat.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Now would I expect anyone here to accept my assertion that Monckton is an accomplished but proven liar without evidence ?

Of course not.

So check out the details of just how this piece of merde willfully trashes science to destroy the work of thousands of climate scientists.

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html

 

[wayneL]

Basilio misses the point and just goes ad hom, true to form. Moncktons broader level of mendacity is neither here nor there - several from your side have been caught out as pathological liars and borderline criminals also. But I refer to a specific, objective point he makes regarding statistics. As for the rest of it... I am also not keen on his modus operandi so lets disregard that.

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

bumpity bump.

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

Around we go again!

bump.

bumpity bump.

 

[basilio]

Basilio misses the point and just goes ad hom, true to form. Moncktons broader level of mendacity is neither here nor there - several from your side have been caught out as pathological liars and borderline criminals also. But I refer to a specific, objective point he makes regarding statistics. As for the rest of it... I am also not keen on his modus operandi so lets disregard that.

What a load of rubbish... Don't feel personally attacked there Wayne. I was just noting that using anything Monckton produced as part of a credible argument on CC is a joke.

And why is it a joke? Because as I pointed out and evidenced he just lies, cheery picks and BS.
His "specific objective point "is just another example of his cherry picking dribble. Did you notice for example his efforts to show that almost no climate scientists actually explicitly support GW? Does anyone actually think that is true ? You wouldn't want to ask them directly of course would you because you might get the truth.

As for the line on "pathological liars and borderline criminals" in CC science? Typical cheap shot. But of course you don't want to give names or quote examples. Far easier and safer to slag the lot isn't it ?

Just for interest there is a court case coming up soon where the people like you who have defamed climate scientists are being sued for libel/slander. They will be brought before the law to prove their allegations. I am so looking forward to this case.

For myself I don't use the term liar and deceiver lightly. I reserve it for particular specimens like Monckton whose work has been forensically dissected. I would be absolutely confident that court of law reviewing what he says and the basis he uses for those statement would support assertions of lies and deception.

A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.

””By Mariah Blake
| Fri Jan. 24, 2014 3:00 AM GMT

Tweet

OklahomaHorizonTV/YouTube

In 2012””after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky””climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.

Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

bumpity bump.

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

Around we go again!

bump.

bumpity bump.

bumpity bump bump.

 

[Calliope]

Climate change is pretty "ho-hum" except for a few diehards who are still waxing hysterical.

People won’t panic! Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, February 6:

AUSTRALIANS rank climate change well down on their list of concerns ... according to an annual survey ... by the CSIRO. On a list of 16 issues ... climate change came in at just 14th.

On a lighter note:

SCIENTISTS say a temporary increase in cat fertility in the Pacific is the explanation for a pause in global warming ... an Australian-led team ... has found that an uptick in the breeding of cats in the Pacific region is most likely to be behind the hiatus. The study found that the cats were spewing fur balls like a washing machine, insulating the Earth from the warmer climate and burying the excess heat in the fur balls ... Professor Gatto said. “ ... We’re about 12 to 13 years into the most accelerated part of the cat breeding spurt. It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse ... we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise ... We want the community to have confidence in the climate models. They are very good, but in this instance the cat breeding acceleration has been ... much stronger than what the models projected ... The CSARO’s Mike Mensonge said understanding the cat-breeding cycle was the key to understanding climate change. “What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean cat breeding. Over the last 50 years, 90 per cent of the extra heat stored by the Earth is found in fur balls. So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking at fur balls.”

www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cu...-of-civilisation/story-fn72xczz-1226826512332