Au contrere! Please forgive the constant quoting from wikipedia but I don't have all day to pour over the web!

"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum^[25] written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," the document mentioned:

"A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [which] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"^[26]

Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer-- to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:

"There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. 'Junk science' meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. 'Sound science' meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, 'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'"^[27]

Me again-

What we see here today is pretty much the exact same thing just replicated in another arena, and also this-

"In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an open letter^[58] to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.^[59] For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.^[60] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.^[61] In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.^[62

 

 

This appears to be wishful thinking. The atmosphere has a way of drifting globally.

Just try taking a deep breath in the Mojave when the Santa Ana's kick in.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I find it more than intriguing that it is bad for an oil company to disagree with a position on global warming and want to get people with credentials to support them.

But it is good if you are an environmentalist who recruits credentialed people to push their side of the argument. Based on what you write only the side you favor should be allowed to hire scientists to tout their side and the others should shut up.

Both sides do the exact same thing but only the oil companies are the bad guys. Your logic is faulty, your solutions are impractical. Your slavish belief in man made global warming borders on religion. Even when proof that the data is wrong you still support the data. That is not scientific.

Dr. Spencer has spoken to the oil companies in speeches for no money. He has been recruited by the environmentalist to give them the science of global warming. He is on their payroll. He gets 25 grand for a single speech to them. This would lead me to believe he is highly respected by the environmental lobby yet he strongly disagrees with man made global warming. How do you justify this in your mind?



I know you have not read the IPCC reports so I will assume you have not read the Kyoto accords. If you had you would see that they do nothing to even slow down global warming, or CO2 levels. It is a punitive document that even liberal President Clinton would not sign because of the damage it would do to the nation. I won’t bore you with the details since you have not bothered to read the documents that are the support for all the stuff you believe you would rather believe the propaganda machine of your choice. Let’s just say that if the accords were made law only two countries would benefit from them. India and China everyone that follows the accords would have to shut down most if not all of their industry and India and china both flatly stated that they would not follow them. Since they are the two largest polluters the accords would solve nothing.

I never said that. Any study that is commissioned with the intent to produce a particular result beforehand is bad. If an oil company commissions a scientist to study the effects of solar fluctuations on the climate that's fine. If the same company commissions that scientist with the implied emphasis that he is to find a discernible link between solar fluctuations and climate change that is when you run into trouble. Any environmentalist group that does the same thing the other way is equally to blame.

Fact is that most studies conducted over the last 30 years have not had pre-existing conclusions. But, when a study is commissioned by a non-scientific organization like the Heartland Institute (a pro-business conservative political group) There is a lot of pressure for the scientist to produce favourable results, or at least results that question the other side. His funding depends on it!

That's great, and good on him for doing it! I've repeatedly stated that I admire the work Dr. Spencer does. While he questions the means that other scientists use in their experiments, he has not, in my opinion, proved that there is no link between man-made emissions and climate change.

Actually, I've read both! The IPCC reports are summarized and dumbed-down so that average folks can read them without their eyes glazing over. The down side of this, which I fully believe, is that in doing so they make generalized statements that in order to properly defend or argue against one needs to delve into the world of publications in journals which are quite lengthy, quite wordy, and very boring for the average joe. I've checked out some of the online publications and was reduced to tears of boredom after trying to read through a 50 page document full of pages of calculus I did not understand!

The Kyoto accords I actually disagree with, because they allow China and India to continue spewing massive amounts of emmissions because they are listed as 'developing' countries. While I agree with the sentiments of the Kyoto accords they are going about it the wrong way and will not actually accomplish much I am afraid.

One positive effect that I noticed here in Canada was the creation of the "one tonne challenge"- a challenge to average folks to find ways to reduce their yearly emmissions of carbon by one tonne. It was a very practical program aimed at realistic reductions and steps folks can take in their everyday lives that actually SAVE the average joe money while reducing your emmissions.

Sadly, when the conservative government came into power they scrapped this program and said "all right folks, go buy Hum-v'S!!!"

And yet, ironically, it is in Europe, signers of the Kyoto accords, where CO2 emmissions have gone up the most for the last 8 years.

The reality is, there is no solid evidence to support that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming. And humans produce so little of the CO2 in the atmosphere each year that even if CO2 did promote a measurable effect on temperature change, it would be hard to make a serious case that human produced CO2 is the cause.

Humans have believed that they could control the weather for eons. There seems to be some instinct-level need to believe we can control all the environment if we choose to.  The "global climate change" folks are just the most recent iteration of the this ilk.

This is exactly my point you are ignoring the fact that the producers of the man made global warming reports have that goal in mind before they start the study. The data is corrupted before they begin. Now that the studies are done we are seeing the flaws in them. Your Dr. Hansen quotes from the IPCC as if it is gospel yet it had flaws that even a layman can see.

For the rest of the environmental community they recruit people that will support their view and fund their research. The oil companies as well as the tobacco companies do the exact same thing. They are not asking or dictating what the results are if that was the case then all the damaging reports on tobacco would never have surfaced. In stead they hired people to do the studies and if they don’t like the reports they file them away because they own the reports. It was court orders that got the reports of the tobacco industry out in the open. None of the reports were falsified. It is too easy to spot when that happens. Case on point is the IPCC report, so flawed was it that people ran for the hills. Only the people that want it to be true still support it.

You yourself don’t believe in the report as you stated that it was a political document not a scientific one. You then pointed to Dr. Hansen because there was so much data out there that proved it to be flat out wrong. I then pointed out that your beloved Dr. Hansen uses the IPCC report as his basis for all his rants. By your own admission you are saying his work is just as invalid as the report he uses to support his work.

Independent scientists have come up with proof the work is bad science. I have yet to see independent scientist review the work and support it.



This only works in the basements of conspiracy theorists. If the work is done by credible scientists then the work is valid to a point. Every scientist goes into a study with what he or she hopes will support their theory. If I hire you to do a study on global warming with man as the cause you will look for that. If it is there you will report it, if not and if you are honest then you will report the actual results. The IPCC report was commissioned by the UN. Their goal was to show that man was the cause of global warming. The actual report does not show this so they wrote a summary that supported their goal and published the summary while holding back the actual report. They did the same thing with second hand smoke. The actual report said there was NO evidence that second hand smoke harmed anyone. They did not like that so the produced a summary that said it killed people. Look at the damage that summary has produced. Laws were changed, lives were altered to “save people” only to find out five years later that the actual report did not say what he summary said. The same tactic was then used on global warming. The report clearly states that man is not the cause, and only contributes .05th of a degree over 100 years. In both situations the reports are ignored and the summary is all people that want to believe in use.

So when I read the report when it was finally published by the UN I found what greater scientists than I spotted right away. The summary was written by non-scientists, the press profit from it because it tells of gloom and doom the things that sell papers and advertisement. Vice President Gore profits from it because his new company sells carbon credits to idiots that want to save the planet without crimping their lifestyle. Somewhere on the planet there is a tree planted to offset the carbon of some idiot flying around in a private jet. What you are not told is that trees planted in northern latitudes contribute to the supposed carbon problem. Can you guess where the trees are planted? That’s right folks. Trees in northern latitudes don’t get as much sunlight so they don’t absorb enough carbon to do much more that trap it during the day and release it when the sun goes down adding to the concentration of CO2 in the region. I have a cabin on Big Bear in California. I can see this every day as the smog created by trees hangs over the mountain till just before noon. It takes 8 hours to absorb what was released the night before and process a fraction of that CO2 then the sun goes down and they release it all again. Welcome to photosynthesis 101.

President Reagan pointed this out in one of his speeches and was laughed at by the press and the idiot liberals. It took weeks to explain to these bright people what a 7th grader learned in science class. Once it was found out that the president was correct and they were wrong did they print a retraction? Nope they went on to a new story. People still think that trees don’t cause smog and only man does.

If a scientist produces a paper touting his views above the actual results his reputation is ruined. This is why if you read the IPCC report they say nothing definitive because it is beyond their ability to prove it. You have to wait 100 years to see which scenario is correct. The IPCC report lists at least 5 different scenarios in order to come up with one that shows man at fault by .05 of a degree the UN chose which ones to use and which ones to shelve. So we are seeing the worse case scenario not the mean or least damaging ones. until all of them are released we don’t even have an idea of where to start looking for the truth.

To have everyone on the environmental nut case side scream we have to do something right now to save the planet is insane.



I am so glad you can read both the summaries. Did you bother to read all four reports?



I see, so if the government does not support it then no one needs to follow it? If you believe it is such a good program why are you not setting the example for your neighbors?



Add to that the nations where it has gone up can’t afford the fines so they have sold their industries to people that can afford to pay those fines. Saudi Arabia! So now those countries need the Arabs for there oil to run their industry, and have sold their industries to the Arabs so they need the Arabs to produce jobs. So they can buy the products they no longer control. Yeah, sounds like a winning strategy to me. guess I picked the wrong week to stop shooting heroin.



China announced last week that if it rains during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics they will change the weather to make it stop. I am praying for rain just so I can see this happen.

This is the problem. Liberals ARE obnoxious and they ARE smug. I truly fecking hate them.

What's even worse, is that they are not always wrong. I think you need to be quite narrow minded to think that everything on the conservative side of the fence is true and always will be, and everything on the liberal agenda is wrong and always will be.

I do believe that climate change is real. And its think its extremely sad that because of liberal smugness and conservative revile this issue has become so polarised.

Besides, simply energy security alone, let alone factoring the economic imperative of energy prices in a developing world should be enough to prompt lower CO2 habits regardless.

We should start with a lot more nuclear power. That will piss off the liberals.

Then you are blind as well as hateful. I don’t hate the liberals I understand where they come from on most topics. On this topic if you read both sides of the argument you will find the left will make stupid statements like yours. Global warming is real, and it has been real and documented for over 40 years. The argument is not if there is global climate change which the left wants you to belief the argument is, but rather the cause of the change. Idiot liberals believe man is the sole cause, when proven wrong then man is a major contributing factor. When proven wrong then man should not aid the change.

The other side of the argument is the conservative side. We agree that there is change, and we believe the change has been going on for millions of years with or without us. Every carbon based plant inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen, and mammal inhales air and exhales carbon dioxide. The balance is such that more oxygen is produced than carbon dioxide. Because of this the Coral Reefs are dying. Not enough carbon is being scrubbed by the ocean to provide nutrients for them. The sun is the main cause for the climate change yet the liberals refuse to accept this. No sun no heat, the sun is expanding and getting hotter, this has been measured on Venus Earth, Mars, all the way out to the minor planets like Pluto. All of them are getting hotter but they don’t want to believe that either because then man can’t be at fault.

I'm blind because I don't agree with you?

You don't hate liberals you just think their stupid?

Well all right then lets be pedantic, I don't hate liberals. I hate the effect their misguided attempts to better the world actually end up doing more damage than good.

Most damaging of all you think that there are two 'sides' to the discussion. Liberal and conservative.

Well once you start polarising an issue you effectively take all reason out of it and it becomes a issue of faith. Now that you have declared that man does not have a significant impact on the environment (to be similarly pedantic) is a conservative position. And you also declare yourself a conservative. So what may I ask could possibly change your mind at this point? Nothing most likely. No amount of scientific work could ever change an issue of belief.

If you let the issue become them and us, and you refuse to acknowledge new evidence that does not meet your stance approved viewpoint then you are truly blinding yourself through your own choice.

Plus you skip right over the other point I made. Even without that. Lets even say your right, even then you still want to cut down on C02 emission for reasons of energy security and given the rising cost as fossil fuels run out (unless you actually believe their infinite, which wouldn't wholly surprise me)


P.S The give away that your making this up when you say that Pluto is getting hotter. You actually have good data that the temperature on Pluto is rising. I somewhat doubt that.

Not at all, you are blind because you believe their argument without any proof that they are even close to being correct. Looking at the facts it is plain to see that most of what they try to get us to do is detrimental to ourselves, and our nation. I have yet to see one liberal program that worked, not worked as advertised but worked at all. the intentions are good for the most part until the late 60’s early 70’s when they went communist and socialist.



Far from it, most are most intelligent but cling to their beliefs like a religion. True believers acknowledge the facts but don’t let them get in the way of their beliefs.



This part I agree with.



Then you misunderstand what I am saying. I have no dog in the fight, I point out the inaccuracies of both sides but if you are taking the side of the liberal then I will point out the problems with that side. One of my hobbies is astrophysics and another is astronomy. Been loving the stars since 1966. This is how I seem to spot things that others that argue the other side don’t. My passion is the stars not global warming. Based on what I know as an amateur these things are easy to see. But if there is another bit of information I read it, study it, and accept or reject it based on facts not dogma.



Yeah, that seems too strange, I guess you did not bother to do any research on the matter before you dismissed it. Have you heard of the Pluto Express? It is a mission to Pluto to do the first close flyby of the dwarf planet. The reason there was such urgency in getting the project off the ground and into space was because the atmosphere on Pluto is visible through telescopes like the Hubble. It has started to cool down and when it goes to the outer most part of its orbit around the sun it becomes the 9th instead of the 8th planet in the solar system. When that happens in about 12 years the atmosphere will freeze and fall to the ground as snow and stay there for about 100 years. This is our last chance to see what kind of atmosphere it has in our lifetimes.

As far as the system getting warmer it has been documented by NASA, ESA and JSA. Probes sent to Venus and other measurements showed this warming, the same was seen on Mars, as the Pioneer and Voyager probes set the baseline data we have seen the rise in temp over 30 years. When HST pointed at Pluto we were able to get temps and even locate three moons. So if you had looked it up you might have found out that I did not make it up. Since you did not bother you have proven what you said about the issue becoming us Vs. them and you won’t even entertain the thought that you are incorrect.



Is this the point you are talking about?



Try this on for size. The price of energy is based on supply and demand. China and India both are going through expansion eating up reserves not expected. The price of cement has gone up world wide causing homes to cost more, oil went up for the same reason, no one expected both countries to begin full bore expansion at the same time. In stead of increasing oil production the OPEC nations have chosen to reduce them. If we increase our own production the price will stabilize and then drop about a dollar a gallon.

To a point, yes. Why else is China blowing a hole in the ionosphere?

I know nothing about this please explain.

OOPS, my mistake--written well past my bedtime. I meant, of course the Ozone layer.