Started By
Message
locked post

My thesis on AGW with quotes from the 97%

Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:26 pm
Posted by olgoi khorkhoi
priapism survivor
Member since May 2011
15345 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:26 pm
I grant you there are special interests that seek to influence public opinion away from alarmism. It is presented, however, as if there is one side in it for profit and the other side is purely objective and altruistic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I already posted on this board quotes from scientists who say that the IPCC is flat out lying about their work. When confronted with these damning quotes, AGW true believers do what religious zealots do when confronted with something they can't explain: They ignore it. They go completely silent and wait for the moment to pass.

So if one side is altruistic and objective, why are they lying? Why do we have emails detailing how some science that is not "helpful" is being repressed? Why, after several years of a warming " plateau", after Nasa data comes back showing heat passing through the atmosphere at a much higher rate than any of the models pedict, after CERN showed that seed clouds are caused by cosmic rays, after every single climate model shows drastically more warming than what we actually experienced, why does the IPCC raise their level of certainty of imminent devastation from AGW?

Because the largest single special interest group that the world has ever known actually sits on the side of AGW. It's called government. Sure, the Al Gore's of the world profit in the hundreds of millions from propigating AGW, by trading carbon credits and lobbying fees, among other things. But they pale in comparison to world governments that stand to receive trillions in taxes from climate regulations. And those trillions pale in comparison to the growth of government and the increase in regulatory power that it stands to gain. That's what governments really want. The money is lagniappe, because it is only a vehicle for attaining power and control.

If the public is swayed by this wave of alarmism and hands the government the ability to take the steps it desires to regulate industry, overnight governments world-wide would gain and power and influence over the private sector, the likes of which have never been seen since America was conceived.

Anyway, for those interested, here are the quotes along with the CERN and NASA data:

NASA

CERN

Members of the 97% "concensus" speak out:

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

-Craig Idso

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission. What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006”

-Nicola Scaffeta

"it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

-Nir Shaviv

Other papers were classified as having "no opinion" and not counted as for or against. Some quotes from these scientists:

"that is Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

-Nils-Axel Morner

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works”

-Willie Soon

This post was edited on 7/10/14 at 2:03 pm
Posted by rattlebucket
SELA
Member since Feb 2009
11764 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:28 pm to
Ann romneys horse.

Bush.

War on women.

Those scientists were paid by racists.

Forward!
Posted by BayouBlitz
Member since Aug 2007
16546 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:30 pm to
Posted by NC_Tigah
Member since Sep 2003
126479 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:33 pm to
quote:

quote:

When confronted with these damning quotes, AGW true believers do what religious zealots do when confronted with something they can't explain: They ignore it. They go completely silent and wait for the moment to pass.

Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67709 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:34 pm to
Hey, there's a consensus. The science is settled. If you don't give all of your money to the government immediately, then you are anti-science, anti-environment, and you are destroying the planet that our children have to live on.
Posted by TX Tiger
at home
Member since Jan 2004
36125 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:43 pm to
quote:

I grant you there are special interests that seek to influence public opinion away from alarmism. It is presented, however, as if there is one side in it for profit and the other side is purely objective and altruistic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I already posted on this board quotes from scientists who say that the IPCC is flat out lying about their work. When confronted with these damning quotes, AGW true believers do what religious zealots do when confronted with something they can't explain: They ignore it. They go completely silent and wait for the moment to pass. So if one side is altruistic and objective, why are they lying? Why do we have emails detailing how some science that is not "helpful" is being repressed? Why, after several years of a warming " plateau", after Nasa data comes back showing heat passing through the atmosphere at a much higher rate than any of the models pedict, after CERN showed that seed clouds are caused by cosmic rays, after every single climate model shows drastically more warming than what we actually experienced, why does the IPCC raise their level of certainty of imminent devastation from AGW? Because the largest single special interest group that the world has ever known actually sits on the side of AGW. It's called government. Sure, the Al Gore's of the world profit in the hundreds of millions from propigating AGW, by trading carbon credits and lobbying fees, among other things. But they pale in comparison to world governments that stand to receive trillions in taxes from climate regulations. And those trillions pale in comparison to the growth of government and the increase in regulatory power that it stands to gain. That's what governments really want. The money is lagniappe, because it is only a vehicle for attaining power and control. If the public is swayed by this wave of alarmism and hands the government the ability to take the steps it desires to regulate industry, overnight governments world-wide would gain and power and influence over the private sector, the likes of which have never been seen since America was conceived.
Good work.

Gosh, I wonder if this logic applies to things outside of AGW, like war?
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:49 pm to
This is one of the best put together OP's in the history of this board.
Posted by mauser
Orange Beach
Member since Nov 2008
22967 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 2:55 pm to
Nice Post.

quote:

they pale in comparison to world governments that stand to receive trillions in taxes from climate regulations. And those trillions pale in comparison to the growth of government and the increase in regulatory power that it stands to gain. That's what governments really want. The money is lagniappe, because it is only a vehicle for attaining power and control.


Does it always have to boil down to this? How sad.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:04 pm to
97% of scientists are lying because they want a big, bad despotic government. Funny stuff. You should write a novel.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67709 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:07 pm to
No, what it's saying is that many of the findings of that 97% are being misrepresented by groups trying to enable big, bad despotic government. It's not funny, and there already was a novel, and it was quite good.
Posted by Mahootney
Lovin' My German Footprint
Member since Sep 2008
11937 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:10 pm to
quote:

97% of scientists are getting funding from a big, bad despotic government.
Posted by dante
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
10669 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:12 pm to
Has a music playing marvel comic character been here to discuss yet?
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
114041 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:13 pm to
Good post. And the warming believers will ignore it.

The easiest way to prove that a theory is false is to demonstrate that no evidence can prove it false. IE, it was called Global Warming. When it was proven that the earth is not warming they switched to Climate Change.

CC = hotter; CC = colder; CC = temps stay the same too much. CC = more rain; CC = less rain; CC = rain stays the same too much.

All are bad. There is no scenario that can disprove we are headed for doom. And even if we give govt all of our money through carbon taxes there is no promise that we don't still face doom. But if 'doing nothing is worse' then I suggest we throw Hillary Clinton into an active Volcano to appease the Climate God and save the Planet.
Posted by lsu13lsu
Member since Jan 2008
11558 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:15 pm to
How can anyone believe a government on a scientific matter when it fights Natural Selection tooth and nail.

How can you believe a government is scared of Global Warming but promotes population growth via immigration and incentives to have children you cannot afford?

A group of people will say the science is settled and travel in SUVs, Jets and Helicopters.
Posted by Mr.Perfect
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2013
17453 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:16 pm to
quote:

because they want a big, bad despotic government


Follow the grant money hoss
Posted by TigerNutwhack
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2004
4159 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:16 pm to
quote:

97% of scientists are lying because they want a big, bad despotic government. Funny stuff. You should write a novel.


The 97% figure is false, you lying liar.
Posted by geauxturbo
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2007
4317 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

The 97% figure is false, you lying liar.






YEAH!
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
58701 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 3:29 pm to
quote:

97% of scientists are lying because they want a big, bad despotic government. Funny stuff. You should write a novel.
Did you get a permit for building that strawman?
Posted by Bunsbert Montcroff
Phoenix AZ / Boise ID
Member since Jan 2008
5596 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 4:03 pm to
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 4:05 pm to
quote:

olgoi khorkhoi


Why do you hate our children?



Seriously, good research.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram