Climate Change

Please keep all this shit to yourself. I don't go posting oscillator schematics on the politics groups.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away. "I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile." "I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it." Which Alice did not venture to deny.

Who is greenaum?

Climate change may be real and a real problem, but don't expect politicians to do much more than try to profit from it.

It isn't like Bush, or Cheney didn't profit personally from the wars they initiated. Climate change will be the same thing - a chance for personal profit by the hucksters we are allowed to elect.

That might be a good thing, since they bounce all over the place...

One more for the kill-file.

That is possibly the most accurate political comment ever posted here - although I expect the same paradigm applies to all problems.

Do us all a favor and killfile everyone.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Interesting:

in

Not really. The Daily Telegraph article, like Jim Thompson's snippet, alleg es fraud by climate scientists, but doesn't post any links to sites that de tail how the fraud works.

writes about this sort of bought-and-paid-for propaganda. The technique was invented by the tobacco companies, back when they found that scientific ev idence that smoking was bad for your health was bad for their sales, and it 's been applied to other issues since then - SO2 release from coal-fired po wer stations and the ozone hole are also mentioned.

Anthropogenic global warming threatens a much bigger cash cow - the fossil- fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you that cigar ette-smoking wasn't necessarily bad for your health are now telling you tha t the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 97% of t he world's leading climatologists happen to think. They've recruited a lot more hacks, and occasional senators - Jim Inhofe comes to mind.

If they had even more money they might be able to afford someone more convi ncing than a card-carrying fundamentalist who thinks "that it is 'outrageo us' and arrogant for people to believe human beings are 'able to change wha t God is doing in the climate.'"

The propaganda links that are posted above aren't all that interesting. The Murdoch press publishes similar pseudo-revelations from time to time. Peop le who take them seriously enough to post links to them here have to be dep ressingly gullible.

See anymore about this?

Mikek

Thermal measurements are always difficult. In a non-trivial physical system, repeatability of a few deg C is good work. The cold fusion thing was mostly bad calorimetry by a lot of scientists around the world.

Heat island effects, station location changes, urbanization, Stevenson Box changes, cherry picking, "corrections", all those could add enough error that there may have been no warming at all in the last 100 years.

"There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away.

"I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."

"I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it."

"Which Alice did not venture to deny."

Was the author of that quote a pedophile? That has been an academic controversy for years now - evidence of nude photos of young girls and letters have circulated around, attributed to Lewis Carroll.

Looks like you are injecting some controversy yourself!

This is very unlikely to be correct. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" has been replicated by a number of other investigations using a variety of other proxies for global temperature.

Anthony Watt makes lots of claims, but lacks scientific training, doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals, and is on the payroll of the Heartlands Institute

John Larkin is gullible enough to swallow and propagate his denialist propaganda.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:00:49 -0400, default sprachen:

Well, that's true. We're all gonna die though! Except those currently in charge, who'll be dead anyway and thus dont care. Never mind. It was a stupid planet full of assholes anyway.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away. "I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile." "I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it." Which Alice did not venture to deny.

il-fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you that >c igarette-smoking wasn't necessarily bad for your health are now telling you >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 97% of >the world's leading climatologists happen to think.

I REALLY take offense to this statement.

I also take offense to the term "AGW deniers" with the implication that peo ple who question AGW are akin to Holocaust deniers. Because I question AGW you would lump me in with the tobacco lobby and Holo caust denier?

It is really repugnant.

Mark

ssil-fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you that

ou >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 9

eople who question AGW are akin to Holocaust deniers.

locaust denier?

Yes. It's quite intentional.

Yep. It's an Alinsky tactic--if you don't agree, you're a bad person. No, not bad--evil.

Cheers, James Arthur

I could use some help in Sydney, on a large and interesting project, but I wouldn't let Sloman anywhere near my customers; his first course of action would be to tell them how stupid they are. He's a droning, pompous insult factory who seems to enjoy being obnoxious and useless. May he live long and do nothing.

ssil-fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you that

ou >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 9

Then go read "Merchants of Doubt"

You may blow a blood vessel, but it does lay out the story in some detail.

eople who question AGW are akin to Holocaust deniers.

I don't think anybody is making such an equation - nobody who denies the Ho locaust is expecting to make much money out of it, whereas most of the peop le who spread doubt about the scientific basis for anthropogenic global are doing it strictly for the money.

There also the point that the Holocaust has happened, and there's loads of evidence that it happened - to deny it you have to be into seriously dement ed conspiracy theories.

Anthropogenic global warming is happening, but not all that dramatically as yet, so denying that it is going on merely requires that you ignore the sc ientific evidence, which takes a bit more understanding than do the picture s of piled-up Holocaust victims.

locaust denier?

No. You are welcome to question AGW as much as you like, but do do it on th e basis of the scientific evidence. The American Institute of Physics has p ut together a fairly comprehensive web-site which spells out how scientists came to recognise that anthropogenic global warming as going on.

You aren't being lumped with the tobacco lobby, but rather with the people who were too silly to recognise that they were being manipulated by the tob acco lobby.

The Holocaust deniers aren't being bombarded with a lot of misleading artic les in the Murdoch press - they've adopted a nasty and demented conspiracy theory because they like it, not because anybody has spent a lot of money s erving up that particular brand of repulsive nonsense in the more cheaply c orrupted end of the popular press.

It's a really foolish and ill-informed interpretation of what's being said.

fossil-fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you tha t >cigarette-smoking wasn't necessarily bad for your health are now telling you >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 97% of >the world's leading climatologists happen to think.

Perhaps. It does capture the asinine character of both forms of denial, but Holocaust denial is a whole lot more repugnant.

Admittedly, AGW-denial might end up killing off a lot more people that the Holocaust did, but the Holocaust as already happened, and while a human pop ulation crash is definitely a possible consequence of totally unrestrained anthropogenic global warming, we are likely to come to our collective sense s before it gets that bad.

Only to those who think that AGW denial is an acceptable form of sticking y our head in the sand.

Not necessarily bad, but clearly gullible and ill-informed

If you are clever enough to get your head around the relatively complicated evidence and still persist in ignoring it - on the basis of some moronic c onspiracy theory, which has 97% of top climate scientist (about 290 of them ) colluding in deluding the public - then you are either evil, or seriously brain-washed, as you seem to be.

does make the point that a small number of eminent physicists did weigh in the side of the tobacco lobby because they though that the tobacco company' s free-market right to poison their customers for profit was more important to the customers political health than the the damage caused by tobacco wa s to their physical health. You do seem to suffer from a similar failure of judgement.