The Great Global Warming Swindle

[kandrathe]

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

Well, greater asia is doing a much better job than countries like the US, canada, australia and the Netherlands....yes they have more people of course but per person they are not even close to what we polute.

Doing, no. What they are doing is catching up to our consumption. Buying automobiles, building coal fired plants, routing power lines to their populace. The US and Europe consumer portion per person is higher, but declining.

On a 12-month rolling total basis, electric power sector CO2 emissions are now regularly below transportation sector CO2 emissions for the first time since the late 1970s.

Peak energy consumption is here

More than 98% of serious scientist agree. The 2% that don't usually have a hidden agenda. Most of those people are sponsored by big oil or coal.

This is more of a political statement, as is the funding of climate scientists. The whole kit is rife with confirmation bias. Science, as you know, is the pursuit of truth, even when it runs contrary to your hypothesis. Is it not disengenuous to imply the scientists funded by private industry are in the pocket, but those funded by the opposition are not? Are not scientists and the pursuit of truth equally incorruptible, or as you infer corruptible?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmicha...e-science/

I'm not a climate change skeptic. I am a climate scientist skeptic. I have little trust of this incestuous mob of witch burners. If they were truly scientists, they would fully embrace the contrary views, and the opportunity to disprove them with the power of science. But, the whole mess is more reminiscent of the inquisition out to purify the faithful.

[Jester]

I have little trust of this incestuous mob of witch burners. If they were truly scientists, they would fully embrace the contrary views, and the opportunity to disprove them with the power of science. But, the whole mess is more reminiscent of the inquisition out to purify the faithful.

So, um, just to point out, you were the one calling for compromise and cooperation in the other thread. And yet, here you're calling climate scientists (as a group, not just some individuals) an "incestuous mob of witch burners." Either we can be cooperative, acknowledge contrary viewpoints, and encourage open debate focusing on the science, or we can call each other rude names. But it's both nonsensical and hypocritical to throw out statements like this on one hand, and then call for transcending the political mudfight on the other.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I have little trust of this incestuous mob of witch burners. If they were truly scientists, they would fully embrace the contrary views, and the opportunity to disprove them with the power of science. But, the whole mess is more reminiscent of the inquisition out to purify the faithful.

So, um, just to point out, you were the one calling for compromise and cooperation in the other thread. And yet, here you're calling climate scientists (as a group, not just some individuals) an "incestuous mob of witch burners." Either we can be cooperative, acknowledge contrary viewpoints, and encourage open debate focusing on the science, or we can call each other rude names. But it's both nonsensical and hypocritical to throw out statements like this on one hand, and then call for transcending the political mudfight on the other.

-Jester

First, if you are a climate scientist, I apologize for calling you incestuous. Second, the truth about the dismal state of climate science hurts. Finally, there is no ability to compromise when even disagreeing with the percentage of adherents to the religion of climate science brands you a heretic, ousts you from any professional positions, rescinds your funding, and bars you from being allowed to publish in your discipline.

For example, https://judithcurry.com

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

Or, http://www.thegwpf.com/roger-pielke-jr-m...e-heretic/

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

[FireIceTalon]

to the religion of climate science

You seem to have a habit of equating well-established scientific theories to religion. Climate science is not a religion. It's not even close. Stop equating the two, please.

[DeeBye]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[LavCat]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Northwest passage really open? That's neat! And this past year they found the HMS Terror.

[kandrathe]

to the religion of climate science

You seem to have a habit of equating well-established scientific theories to religion. Climate science is not a religion. It's not even close. Stop equating the two, please.

I am not equating them in fact, I admire science when it is evidence based. The adherence of the faithful, and the persecution of the heretics is reminiscent of the inquisition hence the metaphor.

While I'm fully behind the seriousness of actual climate science, I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs. I am also not such a fan of when compiling a statistic on scientists, any opinion has equal weight irregardless of their qualifications, because they tacked "scientist" on the end of their discipline e.g. Political scientist.

[kandrathe]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Northwest passage really open? That's neat! And this past year they found the HMS Terror.

Time to move to Iqaluit before the rush.

[Occhidiangela]

While I'm fully behind the seriousness of actual climate science, I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs. I am also not such a fan of when compiling a statistic on scientists, any opinion has equal weight irregardless of their qualifications, because they tacked "scientist" on the end of their discipline e.g. Political scientist.

I think you forgot that you are dealing with a demagogue. That isn't anyone you can have a conversation with. Demagogeus operate on transmit only mode: their radios do not have a receive option.

[FireIceTalon]

While I'm fully behind the seriousness of actual climate science, I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs. I am also not such a fan of when compiling a statistic on scientists, any opinion has equal weight irregardless of their qualifications, because they tacked "scientist" on the end of their discipline e.g. Political scientist.

I think you forgot that you are dealing with a demagogue. That isn't anyone you can have a conversation with. Demagogeus operate on transmit only mode: their radios do not have a receive option.

I'm quite certain that you do not know what a demagogue is. Here, let me help you:

Our new current president, would be the definition of a demagogue.

[Ashock]

to the religion of climate science

You seem to have a habit of equating well-established scientific theories to religion. Climate science is not a religion. It's not even close. Stop equating the two, please.

I am not equating them in fact, I admire science when it is evidence based. The adherence of the faithful, and the persecution of the heretics is reminiscent of the inquisition hence the metaphor.

While I'm fully behind the seriousness of actual climate science, I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs. I am also not such a fan of when compiling a statistic on scientists, any opinion has equal weight irregardless of their qualifications, because they tacked "scientist" on the end of their discipline e.g. Political scientist.

There is no reason to be surprised. Notice how the usual response by progressives to someone who does not agree with them is immediately accusatory. Nazi, racist, misogynist, homophobe etc etc. They don't argue your points, they simply accuse.
They are very tolerant... as long as you agree with their views. When you don't, you are Hitler.

This is no different.

[FireIceTalon]

Riiiiiight, because pointing out the fact that people who deny climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence and data are wrong is the same thing as calling them misogynist, or a racist. You in particular are those things, but that's neither here nor there regarding your untenable denial of climate change.

Climate change deniers are like the 21st century version of flat earthers.

[Archon_Wing]

Bruh, how dare you assume that planet's temperature? Have you considered that's just your perspective of them! What about its feelings?

[FireIceTalon]

Bruh, how dare you assume that planet's temperature? Have you considered that's just your perspective of them! What about its feelings?

[Ashock]

Riiiiiight, because pointing out the fact that people who deny climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence and data are wrong is the same thing as calling them misogynist, or a racist. You in particular are those things, but that's neither here nor there regarding your untenable denial of climate change.

Climate change deniers are like the 21st century version of flat earthers.

This is in reference to the post above, which correctly stated this:

"I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs"

They are being attacked for having a different point of view, nothing more.

But you already knew that, didn't you. You are continuing to propagate the usual methodes used by totalitarian societies throughout history.
Everyone who disagrees needs to be shut DOWN. Aren't you, murderer?

Just for your reference, I feel that I have a right to call you that. Both nazis and communists have killed millions, thereby fully deserving of being called murderers. You call me nazi, without proving that I am one.
OTOH, I don't need to prove anything, as you identify yourself as a communist.

[FireIceTalon]

Riiiiiight, because pointing out the fact that people who deny climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence and data are wrong is the same thing as calling them misogynist, or a racist. You in particular are those things, but that's neither here nor there regarding your untenable denial of climate change.

Climate change deniers are like the 21st century version of flat earthers.

This is in reference to the post above, which correctly stated this:

"I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs"

They are being attacked for having a different point of view, nothing more.

But you already knew that, didn't you. You are continuing to propagate the usual methodes used by totalitarian societies throughout history.
Everyone who disagrees needs to be shut DOWN. Aren't you, murderer?

Just for your reference, I feel that I have a right to call you that. Both nazis and communists have killed millions, thereby fully deserving of being called murderers. You call me nazi, without proving that I am one.
OTOH, I don't need to prove anything, as you identify yourself as a communist.

I don't need to prove you are one. You do a fine job of that all on your own. You can hardly go a single post without saying something discriminatory about some group, whether its minorities, Muslims, disabled persons, women, LGTBQ persons or whomever else you view as a scapegoat for the worlds problems.

[Ashock]

Riiiiiight, because pointing out the fact that people who deny climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence and data are wrong is the same thing as calling them misogynist, or a racist. You in particular are those things, but that's neither here nor there regarding your untenable denial of climate change.

Climate change deniers are like the 21st century version of flat earthers.

This is in reference to the post above, which correctly stated this:

"I'm appalled by the zealous (non-climate scientists) who attack anyone, including other climate scientists, when criticism of climate science results occurs"

They are being attacked for having a different point of view, nothing more.

But you already knew that, didn't you. You are continuing to propagate the usual methodes used by totalitarian societies throughout history.
Everyone who disagrees needs to be shut DOWN. Aren't you, murderer?

Just for your reference, I feel that I have a right to call you that. Both nazis and communists have killed millions, thereby fully deserving of being called murderers. You call me nazi, without proving that I am one.
OTOH, I don't need to prove anything, as you identify yourself as a communist.

I don't need to prove you are one. You do a fine job of that all on your own. You can hardly go a single post without saying something discriminatory about some group, whether its minorities, Muslims, disabled persons, women, LGTBQ persons or whomever else you view as a scapegoat for the worlds problems.

Find me a quote, murderer.

[eppie]

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

Well, greater asia is doing a much better job than countries like the US, canada, australia and the Netherlands....yes they have more people of course but per person they are not even close to what we polute.

Doing, no. What they are doing is catching up to our consumption. Buying automobiles, building coal fired plants, routing power lines to their populace. The US and Europe consumer portion per person is higher, but declining.

On a 12-month rolling total basis, electric power sector CO2 emissions are now regularly below transportation sector CO2 emissions for the first time since the late 1970s.

Peak energy consumption is here

More than 98% of serious scientist agree. The 2% that don't usually have a hidden agenda. Most of those people are sponsored by big oil or coal.

This is more of a political statement, as is the funding of climate scientists. The whole kit is rife with confirmation bias. Science, as you know, is the pursuit of truth, even when it runs contrary to your hypothesis. Is it not disengenuous to imply the scientists funded by private industry are in the pocket, but those funded by the opposition are not? Are not scientists and the pursuit of truth equally incorruptible, or as you infer corruptible?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmicha...e-science/

I'm not a climate change skeptic. I am a climate scientist skeptic. I have little trust of this incestuous mob of witch burners. If they were truly scientists, they would fully embrace the contrary views, and the opportunity to disprove them with the power of science. But, the whole mess is more reminiscent of the inquisition out to purify the faithful.

China is doing much more on renewable energy than we are doing. Of course they are also catching up and consuming more and more but next to that they do much more than most western countries (except for countries such as Sweden and Denmark).

The lobby against climate change is only about 800 times bigger than the total funding for scientists that are working on serious climate change.

It is also not even a very difficult piece of science....if there wasn't such a big interest of old money to keep digging cole and oil we would have had consensus already in the beginning of the 90s.

Most people working on climate change are working on estimating how much the temps will rise when we do thing a or thing b. Nobody is working on evidence because it is already as clear as is gravity......there might be some details slightly of but it is a solid piece of work.
Again.....climate science is not the most difficult thing scientists are investigating...far from that.

---

There is no reason to be surprised. Notice how the usual response by progressives to someone who does not agree with them is immediately accusatory. Nazi, racist, misogynist, homophobe etc etc. They don't argue your points, they simply accuse.
They are very tolerant... as long as you agree with their views. When you don't, you are Hitler.

This is no different.

Ashok, not ''someone''......you! And I dont think someone is far off when he calls you any of these things.(I mean I only base myself on what you write on this forum.....maybe in real life you are actually a very nice considerate person).


That said, this doesn't have anything to do with climate change which to me doesn't need to be up for discussion.....apart from when we disagree on what to do about it.

Or maybe do you want to start discussing the speed of light next? Evolution? Gravity? Periodic Table of the elements?

[eppie]

It's been proven by one side of the scientific community, using at best selective data. The other side has been silenced by the media and the first half.




The fact that you choose to be on the side that gets all types of grants based on the whole Global Warming craze, does not make you right.

Maybe you are not so old as I am, but the first decades of climate research were suffering heavily from the big oil lobby. (which at any moment in time has always been at least 100 times bigger (richer) than the grants researchers would get. Still now the lobby of old energy is still far far more powerful.

Do you seriously believe a country like the US in which basically the last 50 years oil companies ruled the country there would be more grants for pro global warming scientists?
(which anyway is a strange name as the scientits usually only forms an opinion and sticks with it when he has proof).

The reason I follow global warming is because I understand quite a bit from it. It by the way is not a crazily difficult to understnad concept....I mean it is no relativity theory or so.

[kandrathe]

Anyway, back on track... The 'inquisition' has escalated to wielding the power of government;

Exhibit:
The Exxon Climate Change Case Is Outrageous

The alleged offense is having less alarmist views on global warming over the years than the green clerisy deems acceptable. How this would constitute fraud is unclear.

Investors would have found Exxon Mobil alluring even if the company had maintained that the planet was in danger of becoming uninhabitable, for no other reason than oil is a miraculously efficient source of energy that we aren’t close to replacing. Consumers would have filled their cars with Exxon Mobil’s product regardless, and surely felt defrauded only if the gasoline didn’t get them to work or to their kids’ soccer practice as advertised.

That is correct. 20 State's AG, and Loretta Lynch were going after Exxon for not believing in climate change in the way Micheal Mann would define it. Is it any wonder why the puppet masters (e.g. Rex Tillerson), usually content to fund campaigns of their political puppets are stepping out from behind the curtains.