Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Vancouversailor]

And a professor of history would know what about climate science, could she handle a debate with professor Judith Curry on this subject?

That's a professor specializing in the history of science, not just a general historian. And yes, last I heard Harvard University is not in the habit of hiring amateurs to teach their students and lead research nor does the New York Times print guest editorials and columns from anyone but the best in their field.
And yes, this debate reminds me very much of the dying days of the tobacco industry, where paid stooges would throw out any argument to discredit the real scientists, including, but not limited to, on occasion claiming that a tobacco company had definite evidence that it was not tobacco that caused lung cancer but the particular glue used in cigarette papers, and since they had changed to a different glue their smokes were now safe to smoke. Not any more ridiculous then some of the arguments being thrown out by the current big oil apologists.

 

[Debateable]

That's a professor specializing in the history of science, not just a general historian. And yes, last I heard Harvard University is not in the habit of hiring amateurs to teach their students and lead research nor does the New York Times print guest editorials and columns from anyone but the best in their field.
And yes, this debate reminds me very much of the dying days of the tobacco industry, where paid stooges would throw out any argument to discredit the real scientists, including, but not limited to, on occasion claiming that a tobacco company had definite evidence that it was not tobacco that caused lung cancer but the particular glue used in cigarette papers, and since they had changed to a different glue their smokes were now safe to smoke. Not any more ridiculous then some of the arguments being thrown out by the current big oil apologists.

Proof? Maybe that was happening back in the 70's but today, where is the proof? I have heard a lot of Professors talk on this subject that explicitly come out and say they aren't being paid by anyone (oil specific) and said they refuse to so that people cannot make that argument against them. The idea gets thrown around a lot by accusers, but not once have I seen actual proof.

There IS however, lots of evidence that the oil industry supports AGW. Why? Well you'd have to speculate. My guess is that they have found a way to profit from it AND they realize that the won't be the one's penalized. The consumer will be.

Shell backs climate change resolution filed by shareholder activists | Climate Home - climate change news

BP embraces climate change risk resolution | Climate Home - climate change news

Subscribe to read

Edit: Not sure why the last link is broken... but it talks about Exxon support as well.

Rockefeller's back Climate Change as well, which make it's billions in oil.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's a professor specializing in the history of science, not just a general historian. And yes, last I heard Harvard University is not in the habit of hiring amateurs to teach their students and lead research nor does the New York Times print guest editorials and columns from anyone but the best in their field.
And yes, this debate reminds me very much of the dying days of the tobacco industry, where paid stooges would throw out any argument to discredit the real scientists, including, but not limited to, on occasion claiming that a tobacco company had definite evidence that it was not tobacco that caused lung cancer but the particular glue used in cigarette papers, and since they had changed to a different glue their smokes were now safe to smoke. Not any more ridiculous then some of the arguments being thrown out by the current big oil apologists.

Haha...the NYT nowadays is fake news, I thought everyone knew that?

Regurgitating old pc stories about big tobacco, big oil, melting glaziers, dying polar bears, etc., (here is a more complete list - warmlist), that hack leftie journalists regularly promote in the msm fake news is not scientific evidence that proves agw, do you understand? Emotional stories that influence belief in some claim is not the way science works, the scientific method is. It matters not if the whole world believed in agw, if the present climate science community can not predict the future global temperature factoring in the necessary degree of human caused GHG to prove agw, then it is not credible science and the science is not settled.

Can you show me the data wrt the IPCC GCMs that have been tracking the historical recorded temperature data accurately?

 

[siti]

Yes, I agree, that most of those if not all of those are facts. What is debatable are the degree to which those are facts. That's the discussion here.

The degree to which those...(those presumably meaning 'facts')...are facts...erm...er...the degree to which facts are facts...no, not getting it...is this some kind of weird application of the uncertainty principle or, maybe fact 'duality'...it is a fact and is not a fact at the same time - does factuality have a probabilistic wave function perhaps, so it is a fact at one point in the debate but fails to be a fact at another? This is a very interesting turn. What units do you propose for measuring the degree of factuality of a fact? Or maybe its just a dimensionless constant - maybe it was pre-ordained by an omniscient creator and is a necessary precondition for unintelligent human life to emerge. Or perhaps its just the ratio of actual evidence/blind credulity. Or maybe, just maybe - facts (such as the ones I mentioned) are just facts - and you actually have no argument at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you want to see the link between the fossil fuel industry and global warming denialism, just follow the money....

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you want to see the link between the fossil fuel industry and global warming denialism, just follow the money....

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

Fake news...besides, none of that is scientific evidence that humans are the predominate, not alone the absolute 100% cause of global warming.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fake news

Great, another baseless accusation. Now let's see if you can do better than Debatable at providing actual evidence for your accusations. So where is your evidence that the material in those articles is fake?

...besides, none of that is scientific evidence that humans are the predominate, not alone the absolute 100% cause of global warming.

And just like a creationist, when presented with evidence of X, you say it doesn't count because it's not Y, hoping all the while that no one noticed your dishonest goalpost moving.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Great, another baseless accusation. Now let's see if you can do better than Debatable at providing actual evidence for your accusations. So where is your evidence that the material in those articles is fake?


And just like a creationist, when presented with evidence of X, you say it doesn't count because it's not Y, hoping all the while that no one noticed your dishonest goalpost moving.

Union of Concerned Scientists is an activist organization that even has dogs as members....fake!
Wikipedia is controlled by activists who can edit at will to suit their agenda, and when it comes to agw entries, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley is the responsible culprit...fake!
Scientific American is a leftie rag that used Greenpeace as a source in that piece, laughable....fake!

Wrong. I have shown logically that the suggested evidence for X is flawed, the data shows there is no disastrous GHG warming happening due to human derived CO2 emissions or any emissions for that matter, while the models predict the human derived CO2 emissions should be causing disastrous GHG warming!

AGW is a false religion!

 

[Vancouversailor]

Haha...the NYT nowadays is fake news, I thought everyone knew that?

Regurgitating old pc stories about big tobacco, big oil, melting glaziers, dying polar bears, etc., (here is a more complete list - warmlist), that hack leftie journalists regularly promote in the msm fake news is not scientific evidence that proves agw, do you understand? Emotional stories that influence belief in some claim is not the way science works, the scientific method is. It matters not if the whole world believed in agw, if the present climate science community can not predict the future global temperature factoring in the necessary degree of human caused GHG to prove agw, then it is not credible science and the science is not settled.

Can you show me the data wrt the IPCC GCMs that have been tracking the historical recorded temperature data accurately?

What I and he rest of the world (i.e. not including the US) knows for a fact is that in the runup to the recent presidential election in the US social media including but not limited to Facebook were absolutely flooded with fake news, lies, urban legends and BS put out by the Trump election team, not rivalled since Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister launched the initial anti jewish propaganda machine in 1933. Scrutiny by the newspapers quickly revealed that Trump and his coherts were lying most of the time and of course they responded by attacking the media including the New York Times. Consequently I find it difficult to believe most of what is said these days in these forums by right wing, American reactionaries like you.,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Jose Fly, in anticipation that you will not follow my leads and instead will come back with a request for me to prove those points I made above, I will help you out...

Concerning the Union of Concerned Scientists....

Green ‘scientists’ lobby group gave membership to dog

First there was the Climategate scandal, and then the UN IPCC errors over disappearing glaciers that weren’t disappearing, now it turns out a well-known lobby group supporting the UN’s call for swift action on climate change has been selling membership to “scientists” like some websites sell fake degrees.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a climate change lobby group purpoorting to represent the views of concerned scientists around the world. It has made newspaper headlines in Britain’s Guardian newspaper and elsewhere as a credible scientific organisation.

However, the whistle was blown this weekend by the WattsUpWithThat climate science blog, after Anthony Watts successfully registered his dog “Kenji” as a “concerned scientist”, purely on the basis of buying a membership online with a credit card.

Watts was tipped off by one of his readers that the Union of Concerned Scientists appeared to be fooling the news media into thinking it was a group of scientists, while it was really just selling memberships to anyone who would pay the fee.


Kenji the canine concerned scientist.. haha

Green 'scientists' lobby group gave membership to dog - InvestigateDaily

Concerning Wikipedia and Global Warming, please read the whole article...

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

...excerpt.

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists.

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.


Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.


All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement..

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
https://ep.probeinternational.org/2009/12/22/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

 

[psychoslice]

I believe no matter how we look at it religion knows nothing about global anything.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I first became aware of the science supporting man made global warming back in the 1960s and have added to my knowledge on the subject since. In 1980 while working as a journalist for Reuters news agency I attended a UN sponsored conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the subject of global warming. The facts were on the table then as they are now, though the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians over the years mean the public still is left somewhat confused.
Anyhow the conclusion I have reached is that we are past being able to reverse the process that is being driven by the billions of gas guzzling SUVs clogging the roads of all continents. Estimates put the sustainable lifetime of the planet Earth at anywhere from 70 to 120 years from now, at which time our water will be undrinkable, air unbreathable, and life as we know it will end. In the meantime there will be a lot of suffering from everything from respiratory diseases to skin cancer, as the ozone layer that filters out the dangerous radiation from the sun continues to be depleted.
Fortunately my wife and I will by then be long gone but it is somewhat sad to think of the fate that I leave my grandkids to.
So enjoy life while you can, fire up your gas guzzler and drive it all the way to hell.

Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing and get past "the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians" comment. You guys just can't stop making stuff up when you don't have the evidence--which is always.

 

[Vancouversailor]

Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing and get past "the millions of dollars that oil companies have spent on bribing journalists and politicians" comment. You guys just can't stop making stuff up when you don't have the evidence--which is always.

Well you can laugh all the way to grave as the pollution being spewed out by the goddam SUVs in America, China and Europe slowly but surely make the planet unable to sustain human life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I and he rest of the world (i.e. not including the US) knows for a fact is that in the runup to the recent presidential election in the US social media including but not limited to Facebook were absolutely flooded with fake news, lies, urban legends and BS put out by the Trump election team, not rivalled since Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister launched the initial anti jewish propaganda machine in 1933. Scrutiny by the newspapers quickly revealed that Trump and his coherts were lying most of the time and of course they responded by attacking the media including the New York Times. Consequently I find it difficult to believe most of what is said these days in these forums by right wing, American reactionaries like you.,

Haha....this is a science and religion forum, it is not a forum for the sore losers of a democratic election to hijack a reason based debate in order to vent their hatred against the winner. Learn to forgive others and you will simultaneously forgive yourself, for your present hatred for humanity in its yet not completed evolutionary state, is a form of self righteousness that will keep you chained to the wheel of suffering. Aumm Peace Shalum Salam Namaste

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I and he rest of the world (i.e. not including the US) knows for a fact is that in the runup to the recent presidential election in the US social media including but not limited to Facebook were absolutely flooded with fake news, lies, urban legends and BS put out by the Trump election team, not rivalled since Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister launched the initial anti jewish propaganda machine in 1933. Scrutiny by the newspapers quickly revealed that Trump and his coherts were lying most of the time and of course they responded by attacking the media including the New York Times. Consequently I find it difficult to believe most of what is said these days in these forums by right wing, American reactionaries like you.,

Wow...you and metis are a great match, no direct presentation of climate science, just ranting against those who have a more deeper understanding of the science Talk about shooting from the mouth, its a measure of your undeveloped intuitive faculty and general ignorance to not realize I am not American, nor right wing, nor a reactionary. I have been posting on this forum for 10 years, and my posting record is there for all to see, check it out. It is an interesting tendency though, for extreme lefties to view any opinion right of their position as right wing and reactionary, fascist even. Please, be kind to yourself and get a life, a life free from the doom and gloom generated by the leftist conditioned neuron firing patterns in your brain, the brain exhibits neuro-plasticity, check it out, the Pavlovian conditioned traits can be overcome

 

[Debateable]

The degree to which those...(those presumably meaning 'facts')...are facts...erm...er...the degree to which facts are facts...no, not getting it...is this some kind of weird application of the uncertainty principle or, maybe fact 'duality'...it is a fact and is not a fact at the same time - does factuality have a probabilistic wave function perhaps, so it is a fact at one point in the debate but fails to be a fact at another? This is a very interesting turn. What units do you propose for measuring the degree of factuality of a fact? Or maybe its just a dimensionless constant - maybe it was pre-ordained by an omniscient creator and is a necessary precondition for unintelligent human life to emerge. Or perhaps its just the ratio of actual evidence/blind credulity. Or maybe, just maybe - facts (such as the ones I mentioned) are just facts - and you actually have no argument at all.

Just to clear this up. Stating that man is causing warming is a fact. Within that fact you can have varying degrees of which that is true. It could be that man is causing 5% of the warming, or it could mean that man is causing 90%. Both of those scenarios are covered under the initial statement of fact. I can't believe I had to spell that out to you...

 

[Debateable]

If you want to see the link between the fossil fuel industry and global warming denialism, just follow the money....

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

Well, one link is about something being known over 40 years ago, so not credible because we still don't 100% know. If we did, we could model it accurately. Another is Wiki which was covered above. The other is interesting, accept I literally have not heard of any of those organizations but 1 and very very few people I have heard speak was linked to them.

 

[metis]

Wow...you and metis are a great match, no direct presentation of climate science, just ranting against those who have a more deeper understanding of the science...

I've posted this many times but maybe you were out to lunch and didn't notice: Global warming - Wikipedia [links direct you to studies]

From NASA: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes

From National Geographic: Global Warming 101

From Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

From Scientific American: Trump Day 1: Global Warming's Fate

From Discover Magazine: Discover Magazine: The latest in science and technology news, blogs and articles - global warming

From the National Academy of Sciences: Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

Union of Concerned Scientists is an activist organization that even has dogs as members....fake!
Wikipedia is controlled by activists who can edit at will to suit their agenda, and when it comes to agw entries, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley is the responsible culprit...fake!
Scientific American is a leftie rag that used Greenpeace as a source in that piece, laughable....fake!

Wrong. I have shown logically that the suggested evidence for X is flawed, the data shows there is no disastrous GHG warming happening due to human derived CO2 emissions or any emissions for that matter, while the models predict the human derived CO2 emissions should be causing disastrous GHG warming!

AGW is a false religion!

Never mind.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, one link is about something being known over 40 years ago, so not credible because we still don't 100% know. If we did, we could model it accurately. Another is Wiki which was covered above. The other is interesting, accept I literally have not heard of any of those organizations but 1 and very very few people I have heard speak was linked to them.

Just like a creationist.....excuses to wave away inconvenient facts.