Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

Yep, all you have to do is change the record to make it look warmer then voila! No hiatus.

 

you've been shown the evidence many times

deniers are starting to get the same sort of reputation that birthers have

 

Oh, for crying out loud, could you be bothered to actually read my post before showing your ignorance? During the Cambrian there was no complex multicellular life ON THE LAND. The land, you know, that part of the planet that isn't covered by water? All complex life in the Cambrian was in the oceans, it wasn't until much later that the continents were colonized.

If you honestly think that anyone seriously believes that humans should go extinct for the good of the planet you are truly delusional.

 

Talk to the nut-burger that posted it, I merely pointed out that this is not a new theme among the radical "environmental" movement, further, such a conclusion is easily derived from their first principles.

UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough:

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”:

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

Paul Ehrlich on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/paul-ehrlich-nobody-has-right-have-12-children-or-even-3

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

http://www.infowars.com/satire-article-quips-at-least-2-3-billion-must-die-to-save-the-earth/

CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/china_total_dehumanization_report.htm

You want 5 more?

 

Science? Try reading some of the East Anglia eMails............

https://web.archive.org/web/2009112...com/emails.php?eid=190&filename=969618170.txt

Like this one.

 

You will notice that his post along with others like Natty Bumpo focus on politics. TP or RW, are used often as if that somehow explains anything about what someone understands about science. That is because it is not about the science but about some idea of political affiliation which they think is somehow derogatory and explanatory. At least mdrobster linked to a claim but that really has nothing to do with science or even climate change as heat waves are not uncommon and called weather.

 

Turner opened his mouth to the truth of what the elitists really want.
Isaac Asimov gives a hint of it in "The Naked Sun".
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30016.The_Naked_Sun

Individual estates for the elites attended to by their faithful robotic servants.

 

No you are making that up.

- - - Updated - - -

My post stands, from now 4 yrs ago.

 

there'a nothing in there that discredits agw

 

Modern scientific theory as it applies to climate science:

1. Observe a natural phenomenon.
2. Theorize how climate change:
a. Caused the phenomenon.
b. Makes it worse.
c. Will be made worse by it.
3. Collect grant money to save the world from your theory.

 

that's called science denial and it's dishonest

 

I don't think most environmentalists know this. I think they are well meaning people intent on wise stewardship of the planet. "Keep it Clean!" Is generally top advice, a wise endeavor, and to be applauded.

I am completely for fresh air, clean water and clean soil. I'm willing to spend for it and work for it. I support environmental causes all the time. Where I depart from the rest is only on Carbon Dioxide. I view it very favorably.

 

oh, that's right, you just deny the facts of a matter. I forgot that's your normal reaction.

 

The environmental whack-0's believe in the old technique that if you repeat a lie long enough, it will eventually be thought of as the truth.

 

Warming will bring LESS water for many major regions. Less water is what is projected for India, North Africa, large sections of the USA - the list goes on.

Nations that can not feed their people, where agriculture is disrupted, will be in very serious trouble.

Please cite where you got this version of high-carbon utopia. I'm really curious.

 

CO2 is plant food. The Sahel is greening. Some arid areas may shift a little but that is determined by the Hadley Cells unless you think the circulation patterns determined by geometry and rotation will suddenly ignore physics.

 

you're talking about republicans and their fake-scandal tactics

 

You can not make plants grow faster by adding only one requirement. Adding more "plant food" does NOT necessarily cause healthier plants.

A changing climate means changes in a broad spectrum of resources plants need. A primary one is water. If you deny water but supply CO2, you get ... dead plants. If you supply too much water you get ... dead plants.

Plus, all that is needed is to disrupt agriculture. Look at CA and other regions. Warming happened. Was it a good thing? Absolutely not. Luckily, we are an incredibly wealthy nation, so our ability to feed ourselves was not impacted.

If it happens in India, we'll get a billion people who would really like to be somewhere else.

 

The "scientists" whom they hang on every word, have already been proven frauds by manipulating the data.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Global warming fanatics manipulate the facts to rescue a scam

 

The lack of water in the central valley farm land is man made by politicians. It's called the delta smelt.

 

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Global warming fanatics manipulate the facts to rescue a scam

Scientists Launch Investigation into Climate Data “Adjustments”

My OP stands.

 

You are absolutely and totally confused.

 

No, you haven't provided any credible evidence. That's because there is none.

Speaking of deniers, why do you deny the facts? Put up some evidence by someone
who hasn't been brainwashed or isn't being paid to make up something that doesn't exist.

 

(Facepalm) When I said, "Seriously? You're going to sit there are try to tell me that you're just plain stupid? I don't believe that for a minute," I was saying that you are playing dumb when you advance certain ridiculous arguments because I don't think you're actually stupid. Now if you really think that's an implied insult I will retract the statement if you wish and then revise my opinion to the opposite position. I guess if you did that you wouldn't have to worry about an implied insult, since the result would be an explicit insult that you would have asked me to make. (shrugs) Hey, if that's really what you want, I'm in no position to judge.

"But obviously money from extracting and exploiting fossil fuels couldn't possibly have anything to do with the climate change debate." is pure sarcasm since I considered it obvious that money made from fossil fuels is directly tied in to the climate change debate. Since apparently it's not obvious, I will go back over it in more detail.

"Follow the money" means that in any situation where you have a variety of people involved, one of the best ways to find out what those people's true intentions are and if any of them have hidden motives is to see who has or stands to either make or lose money in whatever the situation is. In this case the question is stands to gain or lose depending on government policies on climate change. Since any policy designed to mitigate climate change is pretty much by definition going to have to take steps to curtail the use of fossil fuels in some fashion, any such policy would seriously threaten the revenues of companies like Exxon. Therefore, large oil and coal companies have a very strong motive to oppose any action to mitigate climate change.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "spending on climate change." Climate change is not something you buy, it's something that happens. If you're talking about money spent on the political debate over climate change, I believe that it's a matter of public record that the groups leading the opposition to action on climate change have received substantial contributions from fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Koch Industries. Lobbying groups and think tanks such as AEI, Cato, Heritage, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Heartland Institute, Global Climate Coalition, Institute for Energy Research, and a bunch of others.

As I said before, I don't recall there being a huge selection of toilets based on how much water they use in the '80's. Most people neither know nor care how much water toilets use. And I'll bet you didn't have any idea either until you heard Limbaugh or O'Reilly or someone ranting about it.

I'm afraid that toilet regulations aren't very convincing that the Federal Government is an out of control monster.

Climate change will probably have far more severe consequences on people's lives than mercury emissions ever did. In any case the point was that the claim that action on climate change would give the Federal Government unprecedented regulatory powers is simply ridiculous. All the regulatory powers under discussion are entirely in line with regulatory authorities that have been in place for decades, or longer.

Bush Sr is a progressive? That is such a bizarre statement I hardly know how to respond. It's a bit like saying that Obama is a Tea Partier. All I can think of is that either you have no idea what "progressive" means or you have no idea what Bush did while in office.

Well, you better get yourself down to Louisiana and tell all those people killed by Katrina to stop hiding in cemeteries since you know they can't be dead since there's no such thing as climate change.

Ionizing radiation is one of the main causes of DNA mutations and was an essential driver of evolution throughout Earth's history. without it humans would most certainly never have evolved. After a large scale nuclear war that wipes out humanity, life would thrive, and the increase in radioactivity would undoubtedly help to fuel a burst of evolution. Does that mean that nuclear war is a good idea? Because that's essentially what you're arguing for climate change.

As for CO2 having been higher in the distant past, something else that's varied a lot over the history of Earth is sea level. Now it wouldn't really matter to civilization if sea level were 20 meters higher or lower than it is today. The only real difference would be where port cities get built. But if sea level were to rapidly rise by 20 meters, that would matter very much, since most of the major cities in the world would be flooded and have to be abandoned. This would be a bad thing. Similarly, our civilization would be able to prosper in a world where CO2 levels are much higher or lower, but the very sudden change in levels is a bad thing.

Well, climate deniers are the preeminent cherry pickers and data manipulators of our time, so I guess you'd know.

You're the only one who's been talking about human extinction being a good thing. None of those quotes say anything remotely of the sort. For the most part they're simply observing that unrestrained population growth in a limited space will have bad consequences. I fail to see how that's even a controversial statement. It's simple common sense.

I do disagree with hyperbole about how humanity is a disease, but that's all it is - hyperbole and metaphor. It's certainly not a call for human extinction. What those folks are calling for is to change our practices so our civilization has less impact on the environment around us.

Any talk about wanting humanity to become extinct is purely a product of your imagination.

And what exactly do you think that email demonstrates? They're simply talking about how to integrate different data sets into an overall reconstruction. Which is not an easy task at all, which is why it takes years of study to learn how to do it properly. That email is showing you what science is - the normal back and forth of many people working on the same proplem, trying to find the best way to approach it. What were you expecting? Divine revelation?

That's because the current debate over climate change is entirely political. The science was settled decades ago. Climate deniers are driven entirely by politics and completely disregard science and reality in general.

I would also note that although the right wing of US politics is currently having a severe break with reality, that is by no means a partisan thing. A lot of the time, conservatives have been very pragmatic. And there are certainly people on the left who are similarly reality-challenged. I once had a discussion on this site with a liberal who claimed that Social Security is entirely fine the way it is not in any sort of financial trouble. Probably the best example would be the anti-vaxxers, who are unfortunately largely on the left side of the aisle.

And what reason do you have to think that is even remotely plausible? This is nothing but a tinfoiler conspiracy theory akin to CIA mind control rays or the idea that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated.

Both the Torygraph and the Washington Times are highly politicized publications. That's a bit like making a claim backed up only by articles from The Daily Kos and MSNBC.

 

Your post pretty much invalidates anything you say about the science. If you knew any of the science behind this you would know that it is far from settled and that climate science is a very immature science. Only first order principles of the science are understood, anything after that is untested hypothesis and model mania. You have fallen for the political consensus that gets parroted without any intellectual investigation. That might be why you are so predisposed to make it about politics.

- - - Updated - - -

Climategate and Shukla's Gold.