Glo-Bull Warming and Science

[delldude]

I would rather see the money given as prize money or something similar like they did
Environmental consciousness needs to be broad thinking based. We need to start looking at the way homes are built from materials to design to size. We need to look at energy use in homes and businesses. Advertising signage, street lighting .... it all adds up.

WTF you been?
Been in practice for several decades now.

 

[delldude]

"STOCKHOLM – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body established by the U.N. in 1988, presented a summary of its latest assessment on climate change on Friday. Here are the key findings:

— Global warming is "unequivocal," and since the 1950's it's "extremely likely" that human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise.

— Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40 percent increase in C02 concentrations since the industrial revolution.

— Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C, or 0.5-8.6 F, by the end of the century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions.

— Most aspects of climate change will continue for many centuries even if CO2 emissions are stopped.

— Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century.

— The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass over the past two decades. Glaciers have continued to melt almost all over the world. Arctic sea ice has shrunk and spring snow cover has continued to decrease, and it is "very likely" that this will continue.

— It's "virtually certain" that the upper ocean has warmed from 1971 to 2010. The ocean will continue to warm this century, with heat penetrating from the surface to the deep ocean."

http://www.foxnews.c...climate-change/

What is this now.....we supposed to trust these guys who already been caught several times with bogus information, doctored records and incessant lies to the public?

Oh, they cool now then?

 

[Ifly2]

"I have nothing against wind, solar or whatever but I'll be damn if this or any other administration is going to take my money and pay off greedy green executives for their vote."

Just curious, how you going to stop them?

First off, I am genuinely curious.

Second, there are a few things I would like to stop them from spending my money on.

So, if you could share your method of preventing them from spending your $$ where you don't want it spent... Please share.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

"I have nothing against wind, solar or whatever but I'll be damn if this or any other administration is going to take my money and pay off greedy green executives for their vote."

Just curious, how you going to stop them?

First off, I am genuinely curious.

Second, there are a few things I would like to stop them from spending my money on.

So, if you could share your method of preventing them from spending your $$ where you don't want it spent... Please share.

Shut the Government down. Show as much sympathy for the loss of government jobs as the Government feels for the loss of your private sector jobs. I'm more than prepared to share the pain of failed government policies. Who's up for some pay go policies?

Your turn, share your ideas.

 

[delldude]

Sparring with collective dickheads....

 

[Ifly2]

Dellusional

 

[southwind]

Of course, we all know this was brought upon us via Globull Warming (and Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore)!

"Great Plains digs out of heavy snow, storm debris!"

"Breaking nearly century-old early autumn snowfall records, a storm system smothered South Dakota's scenic Black Hills in South Dakota with up to 3½ feet of wet, heavy snow, leaving residents the challenge of digging out."
http://news.yahoo.com/great-plains-digs-heavy-snow-storm-debris-170540930.html

Bet the Globull Warming conspiratist's and so-called scientist, hate snow !

 

[Ms Tree]

An individual point in time is not indicative of a trend. Just because I have never had my house robbed does not mean home burglaries are not an issue.

 

[delldude]

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

Read Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science for free online by using the links below. These were updated onOctober 17, 2013; the updates consisted of completing the source citations for figures, copyediting, and formatting. No substantive changes were made to the content, but these updates did change pagination, so when citing the book please use the correct version for proper page references.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

New UN Climate Report Ignores Reality

The facts, which the IPCC’s report admits to, albeit with obvious reluctance and a good deal of obfuscation, show that humanity’s impact on global climate is too small to justify concern and is certainly no reason for the costly programs governments are imposing. Yet the IPCC persists in asserting the opposite. They state that they are more convinced than ever that global warming is caused mainly by our greenhouse gas emissions and that the world face catastrophe if we don’t radically change our ways. Even though the IPCC’s past forecasts have been spectacularly wrong, the UN panel claims even higher confidence today—95%—that they’ve finally got it right.
They haven’t. The IPCC’s theatrics are clearly an attempt to misdirect public, media, and government attention away from the scientific fact that climate change is overwhelmingly due to natural forces. People are emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2) than ever, from power plants, automobiles, and industrial activity, but the earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years.
None of the computer models the IPCC references predicted this. The world was warmer in the 13th century than now, yet CO2 levels then were far lower than today. Global ice cover—a big concern of alarmists predicting rapid sea level rise—hasn’t changed significantly since satellite measurements began in 1979, and Antarctic ice, which is eight times greater than Arctic ice, is not receding. Sea level rise has remained at roughly the same gradual rate for the past few centuries, and is now only 1/10th that of 8,000 years ago when large quantities of ice were melting. Extreme weather across the world has generally declined. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the U.S. is on pace for the fewest number of tornadoes in recorded history, while tropical cyclone activity (hurricanes in the North Atlantic) is near a thirty-year low. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/new-un-climate-report-ignores-reality

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

The Heartland Institute’s Credibility

The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

"-Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and other think tanks, receives $11,600 per month from Heartland. Idso's study center is funded in part by Exxon Mobile and he recently spoke on the benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the American Legislative Exchange Council's annual meeting, according to SourceWatch.org.
-Australian global warming skeptic Professor Bob Carter receives $1,667 per month, but denied doing the bidding of Heartland in an Australian newspaper on Wednesday.
-Fred Singer of the climate-change-denying Science and Environmental Policy Project receives $5,000 a month from Heartland.
-Singer's group helped establish NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change], which Heartland sponsors to "undermine" the reports by the United Nation's climate change panel, according to Heartland documents. Two anonymous foundations supply the NIPCC funding.
-Heartland has a "key" anonymous donor who gave $1.6 million in 2010 and $979,000 in 2011.
-Heartland's income totaled $4.6 million in 2011.
-The Charles G. Koch Foundation of Koch brother's fame gave Heartland $200,000 in 2011 and promised more money in 2012. The Koch family made much of its riches from fossil fuels and their foundation routinely supports conservative politicians and causes."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/6715:leak-reveals-how-big-business-funds-climatechange-deniers

 

[delldude]

"The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

All beholding to government research grants and funding......Duh

Web address www.truth-out.org Commercial? No Type of site News, political analysis & commentary Registration Optional Launched 2000 Alexa rank

20,615 (October 2013)[sup][1][/sup] Current status Active
Truthout is a 501©(3) nonprofit,[sup][2][/sup] progressive news organization in the United States that operates a web site[sup][3][/sup] and distributes a daily newsletter. Registered in September 2001,[sup][4][/sup] Truthout publishes original political news articles, opinion pieces, video reports and artwork. According to its web site, "As an organization, Truthout works to broaden and diversify the political discussion by introducing independent voices and focusing on undercovered issues and unconventional thinking."[sup][5][/sup]
Truthout has featured content from writers Paul Krugman, Dahr Jamail, Henry Giroux, Jason Leopold, Bill Moyers, Andy Worthington, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon, William Rivers Pitt, Kelpie Wilson, Ken Morris, Dean Baker and Richard Silverstein.[sup][5][/sup] The organization has reported extensively on the torture policies of the Bush administration, the health care debate, veterans' issues, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the labor movement, prison reform and election politics.

Paul Robin Krugman writes a twice-weekly column in the New York Times. He is a Professor of International Trade and International Economics at Princeton University, and describes himself as an “unabashed defender of the welfare state.”

Dahr Jamail is a BBC correspondent and a regular contributor to publications such as The Nation, Islam Online and The Socialist Worker. He identifies himself as "one of the only independent, unembedded journalists in the country [U.S.]," to distinguish himself from the "U.S. corporate media." Be that as it may, Jamail is not remotely nonpartisan, impartial, objective, or even credibl

Moyers has always been more commentator than journalist, more concerned with persuading his audience than with reporting facts objectively. As Howard Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post and host of Reliable Sources on CNN, wrote of one Moyers "documentary" attacking the chemical industry: "Unlike the most routine news story, the 90-minute documentary includes not a single comment from the industry under fire." Even Moyers’ programs dealing with religion and culture seem designed to undermine traditional Western values and beliefs. His guests over the years have been disproportionately from the left, including radicals such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Carlos Fuentes, and Cornel West.

Kathy Kelly
. Anti-war activist
. Director of Voices in the Wilderness
. "The UN's relationship to the US is that of a battered woman to an abusive partner"

Norman Solomon is the founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA), which provides leftwing "experts" and spin to influence journalists in the mainstream press. In the mid-1990s he served as President of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), which complains of a paucity of leftist views in the media.

Fine bunch of radical lefties Quags.....fair and impartial all the way.

And a lot funded by the Ford Foundation who is about 280 times larger that the dreaded Koch Brothers.....

In 2013, discussion about abolishing the IPCC was widespread. The organization has done more to politicize and corrupt climate science than to advance it.*** Its views on climate were never as independent or authoritative as it claimed, and should never have become the basis for global policy.

 

[southwind]

Thanks Dell, for yet again debunking Globull Warming conspiratist's and their attempt to rule the world and issue CarbonCards !

 

[delldude]

The Peer Review Process
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.

A quick check of American scientists on IPCC shows an uncanny reliance on government funding and private funding that leans heavy toward the green area of the spectrum.....my, ain't that a coincidence?

Totally unbiased sources funded by people with an interest in a positive outcome for their bucks.

In all fairness, I'd have to ask if anyone at NIPCC was caught doctoring data to fit their agenda......

 

[delldude]

"The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

For the fifth time now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims they are. The difference, the IPCC asserts, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. It is also a product of all animal respiration and is also essential for most life on Earth, yet in total it makes up only 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
 
The IPCC assumes that the relatively small human contribution of this gas to the atmosphere will cause global warming, and insists that the warming will be dangerous.

 

 
The computer models that the authors of the IPCC reports rely on are complicated representations of the assumption that human carbon dioxide emissions are now the primary factor driving climate change and will substantially overheat the Earth. The models include many assumptions that mainstream scientists question.
 
The modelers have correctly stated that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be very convincing, in the same way that a well-crafted fictional book or film can be.

 

 
The IPCC and its supporters promote these scary scenarios as if they were forecasts. However, scenarios are neither forecasts nor the product of a validated forecasting method.
 
The IPCC modelers were apparently unaware of decades of forecasting research. Our audit of the procedures used to create their apocalyptic scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles. Would you go ahead with your flight, if you overheard two of the ground crew discussing how the pilot had skipped 80 percent of the pre-flight safety checklist?
 
Thirty-nine forecasting experts from many disciplines from around the world developed the forecasting principles from published experimental research. A further 123 forecasting experts reviewed the work. The principles were published in 2001. They are freely available on the Internet, to help forecasters produce the best forecasts they can, and help forecast users determine the validity of forecasts. These principles are the only published set of evidence-based standards for forecasting.
 
Global warming alarmists nevertheless claim that the “nearly all” climate scientists believe dangerous global warming will occur. This is a strange claim, in view of the fact more than 30,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition, stating that there is no basis for dangerous manmade global warming forecasts, and “no convincing evidence” that carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet or disrupting its climate.

 

 
Most importantly, computer models and scenarios are not evidence – and validation does not consist of adding up votes. Such an approach can only be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Validation requires comparing predictions to actual observations, and the IPCC models have failed in that regard.
 
Given the expensive policies proposed and implemented in the name of preventing dangerous manmade global warming, we are astonished that there is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures. The paper is our own 2009 article in the International Journal of Forecasting.

 
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/24/the-science-fiction-of-ipcc-climate-models/

 

[southwind]

Ooppsss ! Where's the internet police, to squash rumors, when you need them?

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2k20joG3X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook