Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

[RamonR]

My opinion is yes they should be prosecuted. They have perpetuated a massive fraud and enriched themselves at the expense of a trusting public.

Now if you guys would like to talk science, I'll see you on another thread.

In what way have they perpetrated a massive fraud.
One department in East Anglia has been accused of dishonest practice but this has been address also one study was based on faulty data.
But what about all the rest of the scientist in the world.
This thread is about how they are wrong so perfectly on thread to show us the proof that they are all fraudsters

 

[SmellyTerror]

Uh, you don't think that the issue of guilt is relevant when calling for prosecution?

Me: "We should prosecute the Prime Minister for murder!"

You: "WTF?"

Me: "Discussing the reason is off topic! This thread is purely for agreeing and sharpening the pitchfoks".



You also think that giving you the actual definition of ad hominem, a logical fallacy, is an interesting twist of logic? WTF do you think it means?

I'm reading back through the other thread, but so far your posts are comments about other posts. Be nice to get an idea what it is you actually think, instead of needing to answer everyone else's stuff. And saying "look, somone else doesn't believe it either!" isn't actually an argument.

Don't for a minute think they are defeated. They are just reworking the propaganda. Expect an onslaught of BS at any moment.

--
The Fabians are on a roll and they won't toss in the white towel so easily.

---
Even if it's true?

---
Perhaps penicillin would be more appropriate.

---
Thanks Smurf, an excellent and logical rant.

---
A letter sent from Lord Monckton to Dear Leader

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/0...onal-briefing/

Comments please.

Ok, I'll skip back to the start of the thread...

I hear that Al Bore has become the first person to become a billionaire from climate change alarmism.

Draw your own conclusions.

---
It is. If you see a post you think is off, you can report it via the report post icon on every post.

Nice arguments.

Oh, hurrah!

If only bodies like the IPCC would be honest enough to put it across like this (and the other side for that matter), people would probably be more willing to embrace caution on co2 emissions.

If only bodies like the IPCC would be more holistic on a range of issues, more environmental problems would be addressed.

If only bodies like the IPCC would lay off the alarmist propaganda, there would be less reactive anti-propaganda, less suspicion of an ulterior political agenda.

If only the likes of Gore weren't massively profiteering from CC fear, ordinary folks might get behind efforts to reduce co2.

Still, the exclusive focus on co2 I maintain is extremely wrong headed and counterproductive. Let's deal with more demonstrable and easily provable human induce climate change factors, such as land use and general pollution.

As it stands, ACC is a religion. It is no longer a subject of proper science.

Oh wait, not a single word on how the science is actually wrong.

Ok, here we go:

So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.

There are various areas that are much colder and wetter than predicted and by that standard could be used to "prove" (LOL) that the next ice age is on its way.

It still says nothing about co2 - nothing!

Ok, that's nice (even though other responses from you do discuss the weather at a small scale, but whatever).

The issue of colder and wetter IS one that I spoke about above. So is that the ball? Are you playing?

Really, is it too much to ask you to simply sum up what you think? You've made a statement (that Climate Science has been debunked) but you think it's off topic to ask you to justify that?

C'mon.

 

[wayneL]

In what way have they perpetrated a massive fraud.
One department in East Anglia has been accused of dishonest practice but this has been address also one study was based on faulty data.
But what about all the rest of the scientist in the world.
This thread is about how they are wrong so perfectly on thread to show us the proof that they are all fraudsters

Ramon, there is stuff coming out thick and fast now.

One example here (of many)from the very heart of IPCC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

 

[wayneL]

Smelly,

Cherry-picking is another skill you people have developed.

People prepared to consider my posts in their entirety will make their judgements one way or the other. However I must point out that one must discern between hyperbole, black humour, retorts and actual statements of position.

Context is everything.

I must also point out that you're still not playing the ball.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that co2 based AGW science has not been conducted honestly or fairly. The proponents have enriched themselves at the expense of the public.

That's fraud and should be prosecuted.

 

[IFocus]

I don't understand the CC debate over all so have stayed out of it. The range of parties (affected, with money ) and incomplete science, populist politicians always meant it would get messy.........unfortunately.

To be honest I didn't care less if the science was even remotely correct as its relatively unimportant.

What is important is that it could be / could have been a vehicle for change.


The world population has increased from a estimated 1 billion 1800 to 2.5 billion 1950 and accelerating to 9.5 billion 2010 give or take a few %.

I would have thought this would an affect on some thing?

The increase in consumption pumping more stuff into the environment I would have thought would affect some thing?

Unfortunately the arguments discussed I see here misses the big picture. Either way whether its CC or simply the competition for resources change is coming.

If there is not a vehicle for change of direction soon such as taxes etc then the old proven method will come soon enough..................war

Generally change only comes through trauma so I guess its war.

In the mean time like the rest of the world keep arguing the detail guys and prosecute.

 

[RamonR]

So if I can find proof that a climate change skeptic has used faulty or dishonest figures does that mean I have debunked the whole climate is not changing argument

 

[SmellyTerror]

Ramon, there is stuff coming out thick and fast now.

One example here (of many)from the very heart of IPCC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

Hey, that's a good one! One bit of dramatic fluff was wrong - and it's wrong even though global warming is correct. Even with projected warming, the glacier thing was wrong.

Even WITH projected warming.

So it's not really relevant, from a scientific point of view, to most of the planet.

Fraud? Let's see:

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit

How was he informed?

a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The gist of what the journo was saying?

Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

So a journalist is asking the head of the IPCC about something he says a single scientist had told him. He does this while the IPCC is getting ready for Copenhagen. The IPCC doesn't deal with it quick enough.

And then we find out that this bloke was right, and the IPCC was wrong. We find that out due to the efforts of the scientists who you are ready to dismiss when they're saying things you DON'T like. Note that the science you are using to point and laugh at - these glaciers are not melting as fast as we thought - is coming from the SAME PEOPLE who are saying that CO2-related global warming is happening.

The theory then (?) is that they were hiding something they knew was true and that they KNEW THE MEDIA HAD, as an exercise in propaganda. Because of course it wouldn't be of any media interest for the IPCC to apparently "lie", and certainly wouldn't make them look like ****. If it's a conpsiracy it certainly isn't a smart one.

An overworked suit screwed up about a single region. Who was it who said this?

So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there

PS:

Cherry-picking is another skill you people have developed

Mate,I am not intending to suggest this is the entirety of your argument. What I'm trying to point out is how hard it is to see what you actually mean if you won't just say it. do you actually want people to understand what you're saying, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

 

[wayneL]

you have to be very carefull in prosecuting someone for being wrong in a democracy. However if you can prove that they used the misinformation on purpose for personal gain that is probably fraud particularly if they knew it was wrong info

Indeed.

There is good research, there is research that though subject to bias is not fraudulent, then there is fradulent research. This should be caught via the peer review process, but this is where the more serious fraud begins.

The worst fraud is the use of research that is not peer reviewed and research known to be wrong and using that research as the basis of policy and/or for some other agenda.

The latter category is the easiest to prove and there is a lot of evidence coming out now.

 

[RamonR]

. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.

Plus there are a number of other ways we damage the environment in an unsustainable way.

While the co2 gravy train continues, doable mitigation and moves to a more sustainable resource management is ignored.

I guess I will leave it at this.
We both seem to agree that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it.

 

[wayneL]

PS:

Mate,I am not intending to suggest this is the entirety of your argument. What I'm trying to point out is how hard it is to see what you actually mean if you won't just say it. do you actually want people to understand what you're saying, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

Fine.

• Climate Change is real
• Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors
• Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales
• There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both.
• The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques.
• Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated
• Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age
• Ocean acidification is a furphy
• Land use changes have a significant effect regionally.
• Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally.
• There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity.
• These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy
• We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

There is more, but that's most of it off the top of my head, and I reserve the right to change my views as information come to hand.

 

[Sean K]

Fine.

• Climate Change is real
• Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors
• Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales
• There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both.
• The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques.
• Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated
• Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age
• Ocean acidification is a furphy
• Land use changes have a significant effect regionally.
• Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally.
• There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity.
• These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy
• We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

There is more, but that's most of it off the top of my head, and I reserve the right to change my views as information come to hand.

Off the top of your head. LOL I don't think you have thought about this subject at all Wayne!

 

[SmellyTerror]

Thanks.

So these...

• Land use changes have a significant effect regionally.
• Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally.
• There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity.
• These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy
• We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

...have little relevance to the science of AGW. Let me know if you want me to expand on that, or if you want to say why it is relevant.

• Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors
• Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales
• There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both.

Note that these kinda contradict each other. Two statements of fact, then a statement of uncertainty on the thing you just stated as a fact. Is is unclear, or is it mostly regional, or is it natural? How do you know?

Absolutely no-one denies that climate changes over time. No-one.

The question of whether the present changes are natural is what we're talking about, and the overwhelming weight of scientific study shows it is man made. I'd have though it's a pretty big step to just say "oh well, the experts wrong". What on earth makes you think they're wrong? You'd need something absolutely spectacular, surely?

Which is most of what I'm asking. Why do people think the experts are wrong? What is it that's convinced them? These guys know a lot more about this stuff than we do.

I can stick a bunch of graphs here that show temperatures going up. It's not in dispute. We can show CO2 increase preceding temperature increase, opposite to the way it's been in the past. We can show humans producing a huge amount of CO2. We can show the theory behind the ability of CO2 to trap heat.

So what's wrong with it? Why do you think all of that is wrong?

• The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques.
• Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated

Well there have been models for how temperature would rise over the last decade based on the CO2 AGW theory. And they rose within those expectations. So what on earth makes you think it's wrong? So far the theory has been surprisingly accurate.

What temperature measures are you using to say the generally accepted ones are wrong?

Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age

It's not a natural trend:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

Ocean acidification is a furphy

I don't really know what that means. Acidifaction is happening. It's measurable. Are you denying the likely effect?

-----------
PS: Sorry to post and bail, but I'm out of time for a few days. Knew I shouldn't have gotten into this. :

I think my post at 47 could use a response, because it's indicative of how a lot of the sceptcism comes out, IMO. A fairly minor issue blown out of proportion, similar to "climategate". It's repeated and quoted by many and never really digested: nothing, when you dig into these, say a thing about the underlying science. How the media and politicians and the suits represent this stuff has NO bearing on the science. People keep getting distracted by the politics.

It's happening. The science can't be much clearer.

 

[Trembling Hand]

The question of whether the present changes are natural is what we're talking about, and the overwhelming weight of scientific study shows it is man made.

In models. Please shows some that are actual measurements. models are hypothesis not fact.

I can stick a bunch of graphs here that show temperatures going up. It's not in dispute.

Please do.

 

[white_goodman]

Skeeter you need to help yourself to a goddman science book cos your talkin like an effin retard!

in this case Skeeter refers to anyone who believes in global warming

 

[SmellyTerror]

In models. Please shows some that are actual measurements. models are hypothesis not fact.

Please do.

A bit hurried, poor sources, but temperature:

--

CO2:

--

...and given that the models said rising CO2 would give rising temperatures, and we've had rising CO2 and rising temperatures since then, suggests to me that the models might be more than random hand waving.

 

[wayneL]

It's happening. The science can't be much clearer.

Only if you cherry-pick the science. The evidence of this can't be much clearer.

 

[sneak'n]

Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique.

I made an observation based on my research into other threads.

BTW I must point out, in general and specific terms, the absolutely monumental hypocrisy in your contention. Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm.

As I am not a warmist, and my post made this clear, your point serves only to destroy the very foundation of your logic.

Indeed I sometimes play the man. This is necessary when "the ball" is so far out of play that it becomes irrelevant. After cheating and making up the rules as they go along for so long, the co2 warmists are still losing the game. Truth outs in the end.

The climate science community is increasingly discovering and publishing materials that suggest our planet is warming at a rate that may not be in keeping with nature's deduced climate patterns.

I played the man in this instance because your points were... ridiculous. Simplistic and not reflective of the big picture, not one iota. The ball was nowhere to be seen, out of bounds somewhere in the press galley.

You may wish to demonstrate how man plus nature, in adding greenhouses gases to our planet, is immune from the scientific principles relating to forcings. My analogy gave a perspective from fluid thermodynamics that most people can understand. Our atmosphere is more complex than salty water, but the principle of energy absorption is similar.

Again BTW. I have no contention against the original poster. GG and I are in broad agreement on this issue. A serious mistake in comprehension on your part.

Your mistake actually as the context of my point was how you replied to originating posters - as I observed from reading other threads - rather than (in this instance) the thread starter.

By you actions ye shall be judged.

If you would be so kind to run right over the the sidelines, find "the ball" (wherever it is) and bring it back into play, I'd be happy to play ball.

Your choice.

I notice there are many posts already that demonstrate the planet is warming. I would be grateful for your explanation that it is not, and that greenhouse gases should not be used by scientists to explain why there are dangers ahead if the composition continues on trend.

 

[wayneL]

I notice there are many posts already that demonstrate the planet is warming. I would be grateful for your explanation that it is not, and that greenhouse gases should not be used by scientists to explain why there are dangers ahead if the composition continues on trend.

Your other points are not worthy of discussion. However i need to pull you up on this blatant misrepresentation.

Would you please review my points above and report back on where I claim there has been no warming.

Would you also please demonstrate which trend we are discussing, because the IPCC's version of "the trend" a/ has been demonstrated to be inaccurate b/ subject to arbitrary "adjustments" c/ modelled projection based on "the trend" have utterly failed.

This is not to say that there hasn't been a trend. If you care to actually read and comprehend, you will see that I state there has been warming.

 

[sneak'n]

Your other points are not worthy of discussion. However i need to pull you up on this blatant misrepresentation.

Would you please review my points above and report back on where I claim there has been no warming.

Would you also please demonstrate which trend we are discussing, because the IPCC's version of "the trend" a/ has been demonstrated to be inaccurate b/ subject to arbitrary "adjustments" c/ modelled projection based on "the trend" have utterly failed.

This is not to say that there hasn't been a trend. If you care to actually read and comprehend, you will see that I state there has been warming.

My sense is contexted with your assertion that man's contribution to warming is, apparently in your vernacular, bullsh!t. There are many well researched scientific papers that give perspective to man's direct contribution of greenhouse gases, over and above nature, that also show these trends to be increasing. Some may want to argue the toss on precise quantum, but there is no disagreement on direction.
Given that the scientific foundation of warming (as you put it) is significantly predicated on the principles of forcings, I am curious as to why you do not consider this worthy of discussion.

 

[wayneL]

My sense is contexted with your assertion that man's contribution to warming is, apparently in your vernacular, bullsh!t.

[Sigh] This is so tiresome, incorrect. Can I repeat my request that you read and comprehend my posts.

There are many well researched scientific papers that give perspective to man's direct contribution of greenhouse gases, over and above nature, that also show these trends to be increasing.

This has been discussed ad nauseaum in other threads and the problems in said science well documented.

Some may want to argue the toss on precise quantum, but there is no disagreement on direction.

There is disagreement on much more than you admit to.

Given that the scientific foundation of warming (as you put it) is significantly predicated on the principles of forcings, I am curious as to why you do not consider this worthy of discussion.

They are worthy of discussion, but only with those with a minimum of cognitive bias, otherwise it is not a discussion.

You have displayed your cognitive biases mightily, so I have concluded discussion (with you) is futile. It's not a personal attack, just answering your question.