Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

No evidence of there not being global warming either, the models and predictions used relating to climate change don't predict significant warming of the antarctic whilst the ozone whole is being repleted.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/

 

There is however evidence of warming in the antarctic troposphere:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/significant-warming-of-the-antarctic-winter-troposphere/

 

Taken from here,

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html

 

"Woody realclimate.org is owned by the Environmental Media Services, Betsy Ensley the registrant and EMS are also associated with MoveOn.org a site founded to help save Bill Clinton from impeachment. Both are political (Democrat Party) organisations or sites. You can find this out simply by typing 'whois realclimate.org' on the command line of any unix like computer (including the Mac). I don't know if any Windoze has it."

 

and this from here,

 

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/110-environmental-media-services

"EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994."

[Stormy]

The "anecdotes" are written is laymans terms yet still reference scientific journals and papers where required. I find it hard to believe that you can honestly have come to that opinion about the evidence here, is no more than nay saying.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Your point is however irrelevant.

 

There are always profiteers and people out to make a buck on the back of any development, or any research, observing that doesn't say anything about the evidence on which it is based unless the people profiting are the same people that are reporting the science of climate change. The countless scientists who are experts in their field of study whether that be on climate itselft or the people reporting changed migration patterns that support and are explained by climate change do not finanacially benefit from publishing their research that supports human climate change. That is something that contrasts markedly with the denialists who clearly do in many cases receive significant backing and funding from the fossil fuel industry to make their claims.

 

See here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

 

And browse the resources on the website to find the money fossil fuel companies spend on anti-global warming PR, using just the same tactics as Tobacco companies used to protect their profits and keep the scientific evidence from the public.

http://www.desmogblog.com/

 

My point is entirely relevant because the people becoming incredibly rich are the same people who are peddling this nonsense.

And the scientists who do believe in AGW (lets be clear now, there is NOT a consensus) rely on huge grants and funds in order to continue their work.

Its called conflict of interest. Pachauri especially so.

[Grandad.Malky]

 

I am not out to change minds or say what is right or wrong . ..

 

It’s a shame that others don’t take the same stance instead of preaching to everyone.

 

http://bringontheendtimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/end-nigh.jpg

[Stormy]

Dr Pachauri was put in post by a sceptical Bush administration against the will of the Scientists.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5734881&postcount=679

 

If he is part of any conspiracy it is a denialist one.

 

I never mentioned a conspiracy. Just that he has a conflict of interests and is now making vast sums of money due to his lies and corresponding government policy.

[truman]

Hmmm so the science is settled?

 

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

[Grandad.Malky]

You have a thing about Mind Control, are you sure your AFDB is properly adjusted?

 

:hihi:

 

Nice one but I still have a mind of my own, you stick to never ending google links I am sure that someone will take them hook line and sinker.

[Wildcat]

Hmmm so the science is settled?

 

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

 

They are both funded by the Heartlands Institute.

 

Do you think that the science is settled on passive smoking? because they don't. I wonder why?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Tobacco

 

Is it because they have no interest in science and are simply a lobby group for business interests perhaps?

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[Wildcat]

I never mentioned a conspiracy. Just that he has a conflict of interests and is now making vast sums of money due to his lies and corresponding government policy.

 

And my point is, blame the denialist Bush administration for that. It has nothing to do with the scientific evidence.

[truman]

They are both funded by the Heartlands Institute.

 

Do you think that the science is settled on passive smoking? because they don't. I wonder why?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Tobacco

 

Is it because they have no interest in science and are simply a lobby group for business interests perhaps?

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

Have you read the signatories?

[Wildcat]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

 

I am not out to change minds or say what is right or wrong . the above site is how I feel about the situation and no amount of gov white wash will change my mind.

 

there is always the one,s with gov isued painted on eyes and then there is us who see the world so clearly and refuse to become sheep/clones/drones ..

 

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

 

Claude Allegre is a politician first and a scientist second with no published papers, he is primarily known as a lobbyist. All this waffle about some kind of leading light changing his mind is based on 4 short paragraphs containing factual errors. Has he said anything since?

 

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Claude_Allegre.html

 

Why does it not surprise me Globalscience would run such a story.....

Edited January 13, 2010 by Wildcat