NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 53 of 72 < 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 71 72 >
Topic Options
#1114106 - 11/07/2012 14:42 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Coxy]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654

Sen. Kerry condemns climate disinformation campaign, challenges Washington's "conspiracy of silence"

Twenty years ago this month, a Republican President of the United States helped bring together all the world’s largest economies in Rio to confront the issue of global climate change. The President was unequivocal about the mission. George Herbert Walker Bush said simply, “The United States fully intends to be the world's preeminent leader in protecting the global environment. We have been that for many years. We will remain so. We believe that environment and development...can and should go hand in hand. A growing economy creates the resources necessary for environmental protection, and environmental protection makes growth sustainable over the long term.”

When he was asked about his own target for subsequent meetings of the global stakeholders, he could not have been clearer. He said the United States “will be there with specific plans, prepared to share, but more important, that others who have signed these documents ought to have specific plans. So I think this is a leadership role. We are challenging them to come forward. We will be there. I think the Third World and others are entitled to know that the commitments made are going to be commitments kept.”

How dramatic and sad it is that twenty years later, shockingly, we find ourselves in a strange and dangerous place on this issue—a place this former President wouldn’t even recognize.

Thomas Paine actually described today’s situation very well. As America fought for its independence, he said: “It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.” Yet when it comes to the challenge of climate change, the falsehood of today's naysayers is only matched by the complacency of our political system.

It is well past time that we heed Thomas Paine’s admonition and reaffirm the commitment made by the first President Bush. As a matter of conscience and common sense, we should be compelled to fight today’s insidious conspiracy of silence on climate change—a silence that empowers misinformation and mythology to grow where science and truth should prevail. It is a conspiracy that has not just stalled, but demonized any constructive effort to put America in a position to lead the world on this issue, as President Bush promised we would and as Americans have a right to expect we will.

The danger we face could not be more real. In the United States, a calculated campaign of disinformation has steadily beaten back the consensus momentum for action on climate change and replaced it with timidity by proponents in the face of millions of dollars of phony, contrived "talking points," illogical and wholly unscientific propositions and a general scorn for the truth wrapped in false threats about job loss and taxes.

Yet today, the naysayers escape all accountability to the truth. The media hardly murmurs when a candidate for President of the United States in 2012 can walk away from previously held positions to announce that the evidence is not yet there about the impact of greenhouse gases on climate....

The level of dissembling—of outright falsifying of information, of greedy appeal to fear tactics that has stalled meaningful action now for twenty years—is hard to wrap one's mind around. It is so far removed from legitimate analysis that it confounds for its devilishly simple appeal to the lowest common denominator of disinformation. In the face of a massive and growing body of scientific evidence that says catastrophic climate change is knocking at our door, the naysayers just happily tell us climate change doesn’t exist.

Kerry doesn't name names, but he's not talking only about members of one party:

What’s worse, we’ve stood by and let it all happen—we’ve treated falsehood with complacence and allowed a conspiracy of silence on climate change to infiltrate our politics. Believe me—we’ve had our chances to act. But every time we get close to achieving something big for our country, small-minded appeals to the politics of the moment block the way.

The conspiracy of silence that now characterizes Washington's handling of the climate issue is dangerous. Climate change is one of two or three of the most serious threats our country now faces, if not the most serious, and the silence that has enveloped a once robust debate is staggering for its irresponsibility. The costs of inaction get more and more expensive the longer we wait—and the longer we wait, the less likely we are to avoid the worst and leave future generations with a sustainable planet....

----------

There's much more to the speech, including a discussion of the collision between climate science and politics, and the evidence on impacts of global climatic disruption: a warming planet, health impacts, a changing Arctic, melting glaciers and permafrost, rising sea levels, drought and floods.

http://www.kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=99bb3f7a-cf20-4c1d-ae59-b9baedda1cb1
_________________________

Top
#1114115 - 11/07/2012 16:11 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: CeeBee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.

Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.

Hansen - head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and winner of the WWF's top conservation award - first warned Earth was in danger from climate change in 1988 and has been the victim of several unsuccessful attempts by the White House administration of George Bush to silence his views.

Hansen's institute monitors temperature fluctuations at thousands of sites round the world, data that has led him to conclude that most estimates of sea level rises triggered by rising atmospheric temperatures are too low and too conservative. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a rise of between 20cm and 60cm can be expected by the end of the century.

However, Hansen said feedbacks in the climate system are already accelerating ice melt and are threatening to lead to the collapse of ice sheets. Sea-level rises will therefore be far greater - a claim backed last week by a group of British, Danish and Finnish scientists who said studies of past variations in climate indicate that a far more likely figure for sea-level rise will be about 1.4 metres, enough to cause devastating flooding of many of the world's major cities and of low-lying areas of Holland, Bangladesh and other nations.

As a result of his fears about sea-level rise, Hansen said he had pressed both Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences to carry out an urgent investigation of the state of the planet's ice-caps. However, nothing had come of his proposals. The first task of Obama's new climate office should therefore be to order such a probe "as a matter of urgency", Hansen added.


Are you going to side with garbage CeeBee? Bearing in mind not one single alarmist supported Hansens "Oceans will boil" tripe.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1114120 - 11/07/2012 16:26 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Anthony Violi]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
“It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.”


My motto. That's why it's a joke that you put this up CeeBee when you blindly and unquestioningly support Mann's position re Tiljander for example.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1114524 - 13/07/2012 10:34 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Arnost]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654

TEA PARTY LITE: QUEENSLAND LNP CONVENTION VOTES ON REMOVING “CLIMATE CHANGE PROPAGANDA” IN SCHOOLS

Science tells us much about the universe.

From the formation of stars, to the recent discovery of the Higgs-Boson and the sequencing of the our DNA we have gained remarkable insight into the world around us.

But what is more telling is how we react to what science teaches us.

Case in point, Queensland conservatives.

After sweeping into power at the head of huge populist backlash against the then Labor government in Queensland, the Liberal-National Party (LNP) under Campbell Newman has been busy opening coal mines and attacking “green tape”.

This weekend the LNP is hosting a state conference to vote on a wide range of resolutions. Of course, like all conservative political parties they have climate change in their sights:

The Liberal National Party (LNP) annual convention will consider more than 100 resolutions, including the removal of “environmental propaganda” like climate change from Queensland schools.

The conference, to be held on Friday and the weekend, will be the party’s biggest meeting in Queensland and will feature 850 delegates and 1,100 attending a dinner on Friday night.

The convention will hear 101 wide-ranging resolutions put forth from LNP branches across the state.

The Noosa State Electorate Council will ask the convention to call on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to require Queensland schools to remove “environmental propaganda material”.

The resolution in particular mentions removing climate change from the curriculum and exams.


That Australia’s conservatives are acting like the “Tea-Party Lite” is concerning.

They are mimicking the tactics of the creationist movement in US, who every year try to have climate change and evolution removed from the school curriculum. In doing so the Queensland LNP risks making Australia an international laughing-stock.

And yet, it is not at all surprising: when faced with the often uncomfortable facts science presents the more conservative, fearful and small-minded will retreat into denial. That this denial has infected so much of our political class is tragic.

We need to defend the teaching of science in schools.

link
_________________________

Top
#1114611 - 13/07/2012 18:23 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: CeeBee]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
We need to defend the teaching of science in schools.


My motto. We need to get the re-primitivsation psychophantic zealotry which passes as climatezience out of schools. Let the science method back in! Let the science method back in! Let the science method back in...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1114616 - 13/07/2012 18:29 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Arnost]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
They wouldnt do that Arnost, because scientific evidence destroys Co2 correlation with temperature.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1114619 - 13/07/2012 18:41 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Anthony Violi]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Let the science method back in.

I re-read that piece of crap that Karoly submitted as a book review for Michael Mann's diatribe. Did you see his definition of what science is? We trully live in sad times if that is put forward from someone who SHOULD be on the forefront of science. Instead he is a climatezience lightweight... Sad.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1114622 - 13/07/2012 18:47 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Arnost]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
MAte i have read that and more...the contradictions from these clowns is laughable.

As each and every theory is destroyed, they move to the next one.

The best yet, was when Europe had the coldest winter in 459 years in 2010.

Warming was the cause. Warming also simultaneously is destroying snowy winters.

Amazing. If you want to keep cool in the summer, go stand next to a furnace, soon enough the cold will come on. Ice cubes? Just pop them in the oven with water, they will freeze soon enough.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1114649 - 13/07/2012 20:59 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Anthony Violi]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
OT - (but in reference to CB's previous article)
I read this in today's 'Tele' while at lunch at work. Nothing to do about AGW, but more about the relationship between the ALP and the Greens.

Oh dear, the marriage of Labor and the Greens is heading for the rocks.

Labor Greens break-up is one messy divorce :- by Piers Akerman
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1114695 - 13/07/2012 23:34 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: snafu]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Yes CB, we would hate to see anything except the last Qld governments matra being taught at schools now do we? It might, heaven forbid, make a couple of the little darlings start questioning the religous zealatory of the rabid greens and reds that where running our schools and telling students that we are all doomed and it is their fault. I have seen kids in tears because of this piffle but you of course already know this, as a teacher your at the forefront of peddling this nonsense everyday and yet some of them see through your nonsnese and are starting to question why they are being lied to by the very institution that is supposed to be readying them for life outside of school. Must make you feel very proud every day you teach.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1115400 - 18/07/2012 15:34 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: SBT]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
As this thread is listed as the Climate Change Politics Thread we might as well have a look at the history of how politics drove the ultimate corruption of climate science and many of the scientists who rolled over to have their wallets tickled up by governments and influential organisations with agendas to fill.

The following articles for you to look at are long and quite heavy going but they will provide a background for this whole debacle, a background which I suspect most here are fairly ignorant about.
So regardless if you are a skeptic or a "believer" I suggest you take a few evenings to go through the posts I will link to below.

And Cosmic, I think you will find some of the answers to your question in the following.

The blog this is taken from and linked to is

Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science;

musings on the origins and impacts of Global Warming Alarmism in the history and philosophy of science

The heading is; Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?

The first article deals with the Madrid conference of 1995 where the SAR [2AR ] was threshed out.
At this conference Ben Santer, now a high profile member of the alarmist Hokey Team based in the CRU at the University of East Anglia, removed the skeptical papers and comments that expressed reservations about the human contribution to any warming AFTER the final draft of the SAR was voted on and passed by the Conference scientific delegates.
The first that the various scientists involved got to hear about the removal of the papers was when the Summary of the SAR appeared in print.

Early in the history of this forum this was discussed at some length by the then forum participants and claims were made that some 300 papers presented for inclusion or as a contribution to the SAR at Madrid in 1995 that expressed doubts about the anthropogenic contribution to any warming were quite mysteriously vanished. Despite the authors of those papers demanding their return the papers were never seen again.

Nor has Santer, a lead author for the SAR, ever revealed whether he acted alone or on whose orders he was acting on in removing all references to any doubts about human influences on the climate in the SAR.
There are very strong suspicions that it was on the orders of a very prominent in climate politics british scientist who has been at the forefront of much of the climate science shenanigans and it is not Phil jones as he is not yet a Sir John _____!

Right through this article[s] you will find a constancy of doubts expressed by scientists as to the real and actual impact of human influences on the global climate. But ultimately these doubts and their supporters were isolated and then scrubbed out of the entire assessment purposes for political reasons to reinforce the meme that any supposed global warming was caused by mankind's activities.
And just to repeat from a previous post of mine, all this warming occurred since about 1978 and only lasted for some two decades until the late 1990's when the global temperature increase plateaued.
The rise in temperature since then over the last 13 to 15 years is now just below the threshold of significance according to a BBC interview with the CRU's Phil Jones following Copenhagen and Climate Gate in Nov 2009.

IPCC's Santer Admits Fraud
This action by Santer as outlined in the blog post above was confirmed in my presence at a local panel forum by Proff Briggs, a former member/ leader of the CRU and now at Monash and a global warmer of the first order.

The second article is in two parts;

Part One; Madrid 1995 and The Quest for the Mirror in the Sky
quote under the heading;
Quote:
The detection of global warming and its attribution to the human cause had always been a task fraught with seemingly irreducible uncertainties. These had not subsided towards the end of 1995 when the pressure was mounting to deliver on political expectations introduced in the late 1980s. In a previous post we considered whether the Nov 1995 IPCC Working Group 1 meeting in Madrid was a tipping point in the corruption of climatology. Here we take a closer look at the science behind the ‘Chapter 8 Controversy’ in a longer essay broken into 2 posts (Part II here).

And Part Two; Madrid 1995 and The Quest for the Mirror in the Sky (Part II)

And the word around the blogs including those from a couple of high profile 5AR reviewers and prominent blog participants is that the 5AR might be deeply flawed with a lot of socialistic pedalling of impacts on society and nations of the warming but also that the science in the 5AR will have moved very definitely back to a much more nuanced outlook with a very considerable recognition and widening of the doubts about much of the science supposedly supporting the anthropogenic sources of any warming or even if there is any warming of any significance.

We live in interesting times particularly as the belief in warming is dying in the arse amongst the Generation X, the 30 and 40 year olds and the up and coming most influential group of the immediate future ;

Generation X Remains Indifferent to Climate Hype

There is a lot of reading ahead for those of you who like to dig into the foundations a little to try and find the motives and forces that drive a movement and the forces that are just as likely to bring such a movement undone and destroy it.

Top
#1115562 - 19/07/2012 15:55 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
In reference to my post above, I dug up the changes that Santer made to the final report 1995 Madrid IPCC 2AR conference.

This article and others on the IPCC can be found in the Greenworld Trust's site ' Reclaiming Climate Science

I have "cut and pasted" the entire article as "copy and paste" eliminated all the vital strike outs and the differences between the strikeouts, additions and major changes made by Santer AFTER the final document had been approved by the conference scientists.

As you read this with care you will see how those alterations changed the entire thrust and implications of the WG1 Section 8, the science section of the 2AR from one where there was a great deal of doubt over the anthropogenic influences over the climate to one where little doubt was left and the anthropogenic effects were apparently well established.

Santer alone, although perhaps under instruction and under very considerable political pressure [ Clinton and Gore, his VP ?? ] is responsible for changing the entire science of global warming from a possible but not established or proven human influence on the climate to one where the human influence was supposedly a major impact.

From this it can be seen that everything since has been geared by the warmists to upholding and reinforcing this belief, a belief that as can be seen in those unsubstantiated and non approved changes to the final draft of the 2AR outlined below are based on nothing more than a fraudulent altering of the science of the 2AR and subsequent to the 2AR, on the claims of the science in the following AR3 and AR4.

And from that all the totally unnecessary and enormous social consequences, social conflict, the corrupting of some science disciplines and the economic consequences of the CAGW ideology , little of which is of any long term benefit to our global society, has flowed for the last decade and a half.





Top
#1115689 - 20/07/2012 09:23 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: ROM]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Rather disturbed by some of these changes if this is indeed the facts at hand ROM. If those wording changes were made as you and the evidence suggests (though hearsay applies), it really does put some questions as to the legitimacy of the scientific argument. While some of the changes are editorial in the above, a number substantially change the meaning and implication of the research, particular with regards to statistical uncertainty. Thanks for posting it in such detail.

Oh and re Activists being Climate Scientists - I have my concerns here, clearly it takes a great deal of character to be able to separate the two, something I'm not entirely sure some are capable of.


Edited by Severely Tall (20/07/2012 09:27)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1115708 - 20/07/2012 11:18 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: Severely Tall]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Severely Tall, you are amongst that small number of people, both skeptics and believers who to me at least, has proven that you are prepared to shift in your basic beliefs and understandings when provided with factual evidence that differs from your previous understandings hence my respect for you.

If we go back to my first post on this subject above and the blog quoted from; "Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science" and the heading on the second in the series in "berniel's" history of the IPCC 2AR; Madrid 1995 and The Quest for the Mirror in the Sky (Part II) you will find at the bottom of that part an acknowledgment for the assistance that was provided by the key players in that conference and the subsequent events to berniel in his tracking down of the evolving events at Madrid which resulted in the corrupted release of the 2AR Summary.

"berniel" has used the same sources and refers to the "Reclaiming Climate Science" in his links.
And berniel is very obviously somebody of very high standing within the climate research community to get this level of co-operation from the very prominent and key players at Madrid and is possibly personally intimate with the events that transpired at Madrid in 1995.

berniel's Acknowledgment [ my bolding ]
Quote:
Acknowledgements
Many people have generously assisted with research on Madrid 1995 and the Chapter 8 controversy. The author is especially grateful to the following: Dr Ben Santer for confirming facts and offering referrals; Sir John Houghton for careful responses to many question; Dr Tim Barnett for assisting with understanding the science of the controversy; Dr Mike MacCracken for providing unpublished documents and responding to many queries; Dr Vincent Grey for assisting with the search for documents; Dr Fred Singer for sending his writings on the topic; Dr John Zillman for his recollections and analysis; and Dr Aynsley Kellow for political background.

Any errors of fact in the posts are by the author. Notification of corrections are encourage and they will be applied (using strike through) and acknowledged as soon as they are verified.


Santer has admitted to changing to Summary apparently on a number of occassions. Again this fact that Santer changed the summary to the language and quotes in the "Reclaiming Climate Science" article was confirmed to me by Proff David Griggs on the 9th March in a local climate change panel debate.

For an expansion of the "Reclaiming Climate Science" article there was a previous preliminary article to the one I linked to which also restarted on the research on the alterations to the 2AR summary at Madrid 1995;
Were key 1995 IPCC scientists' conclusions of man-made global warming, tampered with?

[ Prof ] Judith Curry ; "Climate Etc" blog, an often quite technical blog with some very high profile commenters and herself formerly a full on warmist who even has some of her past quite extreme statements quoted back at her on her blog by believers but who is now a luke warmer at best, has stated more than a couple of times that the science in the FAR [ the IPCC's First Assessment Report ] is about the only IPCC climate science to be really trusted.

And in reference as to who the hell Proff David Griggs is to confirm Santer's role in all of this, Griggs, a full on unreconstructed warmer is not in the least bit shy;




Edited by ROM (20/07/2012 11:20)

Top
#1115776 - 20/07/2012 20:10 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654



ROM's posts above are full of untruths and incorrect claims.

For the full story and the truth of what actually happened read this article.
_________________________

Top
#1115809 - 21/07/2012 02:28 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
ROM. Have you ever thought about the 'connection' dates between the end of the Cold War and the start of the Global Warming scare (when it really took off)? I have been thinking about this for the last few days and a lot of the dates sorta fall into place (give or take a couple of years).

Oh, and guess who is/was the common denominator in both.... wink
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1117108 - 29/07/2012 12:35 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: snafu]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Snafu, am a bit late in getting back to you on this but the answer was No!
Then I read one of your links re "Pointman".

"Pointman" turns up in the higher quality blog comments quite often and seems to be regarded by the insiders with some considerable respect.
So I had a good look at his site and did some reading last night.

He has some very interesting thoughts in those essays of his including the way the extreme left has moved into the environmental movement as communism collapsed through the 1980's and as the environmental movement ran out of purpose in the early 1980's after achieving it's aim's of bringing the state of the global environment to the attention of the national and international decision makers.

I'll just digress here and clarify the term "Decision Makers".
The "Decision makers" of society are not of the all powerful, stratospheric political, business and society leaders of our society. The real "Decision Makers" of our civilisation are the just apparently ordinary folk that you will find having a drink in the pub with his mates, the office secretary or nurse, the guy attending the machinery, the farmer working alone but getting to see his friends at football.
They are often not even leaders amongst their own people but they are almost always held in respect by their peers and associates

But they all have one very subtle thing in common.

Those around them stop to listen to them when they express an opinion.
And then those listeners will often repeat those opinions, "Jack so and so was saying last night in the pub that_______" and so that meme spreads through first the local groupings and then if acceptable through society as a whole.
And when that collective group of variable but closely related opinions as originally expressed by those ordinary folk, the real opinion makers, becomes more universal amongst the populace, then the politicals and those we suppose are the actual opinion makers will listen and react to that now widely accepted societal meme.
And it is by the judgement of those ordinary humble Decision Makers in our society that the policies and decisions of the powerful and mighty will survive or fall.

Pointman's exposition on what happened to the global environmental movement and it's take over by the extreme left is a very interesting exposition.
And I think this is the article you might be thinking of snafu.

How Environmentalism Turned to the Dark Side

There were another two amongst the articles of Pointman I read last night that I think are relevant to a lot of the discussion on this Climate thread.

The first is called "Our Secret Weapon"
It simply points out that "Time" is the skeptics great ally .
For as "Time" goes on more and more of the of the extremist's claims and predictions fail and this together with a collapse in public support leads to a shrugging of the shoulders by the public and they just get on with the business of making a living, bringing up the kids and trying to create a better and more comfortable and pleasant life for themselves and their family.

The public gets sick of being made to feel guilty all the time and the troubles, trials and tribulations of daily life become far more important part of each person's life than worrying about some problem in an indefinable "out there" that never seems to occur or has any apparent effect on anybody or anything they know and can touch and feel.

And we are already seeing how the passing of "Time" is already destroying the not many years past, predicted great climate catastrophes of the climate extremists.

The third Pointman essay which I thought was particularly applicable was this one.
In this I am naive as I don't think I have come across something like this and been exposed to this sort of extreme mentality before.
I will say no more on this.

Some Thoughts on Fanatics and how to fight them

And just to finish off a little something that I came across in the comments on Judith Curry's "Climate Etc" blog and something that very closely reflects my own thinking and beliefs.

The reality of a constant struggle for survival in a dynamic, ever changing, often harsh natural world has been replaced by a romantic notion of nature in a blissful state of harmony and balance, something pure and perfect where any detectable human influence is by definition a desecration. This sacred perspective of the environment manifests itself in language where fragile and delicate become almost mandatory adjectives in describing the natural world. ~Walter Starck






Edited by ROM (29/07/2012 12:38)

Top
#1117412 - 31/07/2012 19:49 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
These are my thoughts on the impact of Anthony Watt's paper and the conclusions that apparently arise from that paper.
Most of this post are taken from posts I placed on JoNova's site last night and today.

On the face of it, Anthony Watts did quite a preliminary beat up on his paper, a beat up that many felt was unwarranted when the prelims of the still to be published paper were released this morning [ Monday ] EST Australia.
Some bloggers elsewhere have made a few comments on the importance of this paper in climate and other branches of science if it gets to pass peer review but almost no comments have been made on its eventual effect on the local national and International politics, both within science and within the political and global financial and environmental lobbyist industries .

So a few points all based on the probability that no major flaws will be found in the paper and it’s conclusions will hold up after being subjected to some of the toughest scrutiny that is ever likely to be trained on a single science paper for at least the last couple of decades.

1 / Thousands of research papers from most science disciplines using and / or based on the USHCN and ultimately the GISS and CRU temperature data now lose some or all of their validity and relevancy.

2 / The GHCN data base is now arguably catergorised as also being so corrupted for similar reasons to the USHCN as revealed by Watts and his fellow authors that it also can no longer be at all trusted or used in any future research work or at least until it also is thoroughly re-examined using the same analysis methods as used for the Watt’s paper.

3 / Some thousands of researchers who have relied on and used the USHCN [ and in all likelihood now, the GHCN ] will have had a large part of their research life. for some a period of 20 years or more, declared all for nought as the base temperature data they used in their research is now in all probability incorrect or just plain wrong.

4 / Hard questions are going to be asked as to why this corruption of the major temperature data base was allowed to persist for so long without any serious checking by independent researchers.

5 / Hard questions will be asked why grant bodies refused to finance skeptical scientists to examine the data bases.

6 / Another perhaps final nail in CRU’s coffin over it’s refusal to release basic climate data for examination by independent and skeptical scientists. After this both CRU and GISS may both shortly be relegated into the back rooms of climate history as no longer to be trusted or relevant.

Politically!
1 / The entire basis of all governmental programs across all nations to reduce CO2 now has half any expected impact or less and therefore double the costs for any likely effects.
A lose, lose position for both the political apparatus and the citizenry.

2 / The energy poor, the tens of thousands of UK citizens, those who have to make the choice of “heat or eat” in the UK, the 800,000 households that have been cutoff from power in Germany as they can no longer afford to pay the bills, will now have a massive weapon to beat against the politicals who have created this situation by raising power costs through alternative energy scams and “carbon” taxes, all at the behest of their “climate scientists’ and the big and corrupt financing organisations who have relied on the data from the USHCN and the GHCN as the basis of their claims of harmful warming.

3 / A huge shake out in politics will eventuate over time as both advocacy politicians and their science advisers will be discredited, possibly totally if the Watt’s paper holds up in it’s ultimate conclusions.

4 / The entire rationale for alternative energy and the immense subsidies that it has managed to extract from the public trough no longer has much rationale to substantiate it’s claims that it is reducing Greenhouse gases and therefore saving the planet by lowering the rise in global temperatures.

5 / A lot of political operators are already searching for a way out of the financial morass created by their past lap dog subservience to alternative energy and carbon taxes and the immense expenditures on so called climate research and green house mitigation schemes. all of can now be wound right back to the point of extinction and probably will be within the next five years.

6 / The emotional impact of the green claims of catastrophic events that can be blamed on global warming will be reduced to a point of absurdity.

7 / The log jam of FOI’s on climate research will now suddenly take on a new importance as a lot of politicals and even researchers and some media will want to know and get to the bottom of how the the whole global temperature system was so corrupted by such a small cabal of climate scientists.

8 / A number of public money grant organisations may be investigated as to why their biases were so serious that skeptical scientists did not get any grants to investigate this aspect of the temperature data.

9 / Those losing influence and power;
A / A whole slab of global warming advocacy politicians.
B / Ditto. A whole class of advocacy climate researchers
C / Ditto; Certain universities and climate organisations and climate researchers associated with them.
D / Climate modelers en masse.
E / An entire financial climate scamming system involving billions of dollars / euros and thousands of employees as there will no longer be any need as the results generated will now be known to be almost unmeasurable in their minimal impact on the global temperatures.
F / Alternative energy lobbyists. All of them!

There will be many other causalities in the climate change / global warming capers but this list will do for starters.
Many of the events predicted above will not happen as there is huge inertia within the entire climate science discipline but in time the changes and no doubt some very long sharp knives in some now very vulnerable backs will become somewhat obvious.
Other unforecast and predicted events and developments related to the Watts paper’s outcomes will eventuate.
None will be of any real long term benefit to the continued meme of catastrophic global warming.

Only a few of the above events will happen in the short term but over the next couple of years as the world financial system falls apart, the really hard questions as to where all those possibly half a trillion dollars expended on climate research and alternative energy and mitigation schemes all went and to what purpose will be asked
And then get the pop corn if you can afford it!

The times are about right for Anthony’s paper as the European and then the global financial system starts it’s downward spiral into a serious global recession at best or possibly much worse.
Already the belief in the global warming catastrophe meme is collapsing under the restraints of financial pressures ,both personal, national and international.
And many will ask in the near future; Where has the money gone ?
And others will say; Look here!
And then the true picture of the Great Global Warming scam will finally emerge.

Just to add a couple more points; As many, most have pointed out in the various blogs there will be a huge attempt by vested interests who have access to billions of public dollars and a life time of careful building up of reputations at stake to try and destroy Anthony Watt’s and his co- authors paper.
However there is one inescapable fact now in the system and that is every scientist and every log rolling financier and every ministerial climate adviser will know that there is now a huge question mark hanging over the veracity of the global temperature data base which they in the past have used as the basis for science and advice to their political masters and as a source to justify their scamming of giga amounts of public monies.

And every one of those individuals will be aware that if they now use that data base and base any further claims on it they may well be very answerable, with some unfortunate personal consequences, to their peers, their political masters and the populace and investors in the not so distant future.

Regardless of the no doubt soon to be seen, desperate attempts to discredit this paper, unless Watt’s paper is substantially undone, he and his fellow authors have now sown the seed of doubt on the accuracy and truthfulness of the US and by inference at this stage, in the entire recorded Global temperature data base upon which the whole global warming scam is based. A doubt that will forever be lingering there until the Global data base is brought up to standards and an accepted accuracy that cannot be again substantially challenged.


If my memory serves me correctly, always a doubtful proposition when you are 74 years old, then all the papers for the IPCC’s AR5, the Fifth Assessment Report due in 2013 / 14 were to be in by the end of July, today, the 31st of July 2012.

A commenter elsewhere noted that Muller and his BEST analysis apparently aimed to get his paper into the AR5 by announcing a preliminary release via a press release a few days ago to beat this deadline.

As we know Anthony Watts and his crew have upstaged Muller by placing on record the fact that they also have a paper which they announced before the IPCC’s cut off date which brings into play the probability that the entire foundations upon which ALL of the IPCC’s science is based is in error by possibly at least twice the actual real temperature trend.
This questions the fundamental basis of most / all of the IPCC’s science of all the previous IPCC Assessment Reports.

The IPCC now have a hell of a dilemma.
If they go ahead with the current temperature data as the basis for all of their science in the AR5 and it is then shown after a forensic examination of Watt’s et al paper that Watts and his fellow authors are correct in their findings of a major corruption of the USHCN temperature data base and by inference in the GHCN data base then the whole of the IPCC’s AR5 will be null and void and not worth the paper it is printed on.

If they include a peer reviewed Watt’s paper then ALL the other papers and science submitted for the AR5 is likely to be null and void and the IPCC is back to square one.
Either way the IPCC is in one hell of a spot now with the upcoming release of it’s AR5 as if Watts is correct then all the science and claims from last 3 Assessment Reports are just junk.
Judith Curry on more than one occasion has hinted that in her opinion, the first AR was about the only one where the science could be trusted.

So the IPCC and it’s cabal of warmist editors have the choices of
1 / Burying Watt’s paper if at all possible.
This strategy was completely short circuited by Anthony Watts and the press release on the paper and the fact that he personally runs the world's top climate science blog giving him an immense exposure at no further cost.

Probably within about 3 months or so Watt’s paper will have been peer reviewed and published one way or the other and it’s findings out there for analysis in the world of climate science and other science disciplines.
And if it holds up in the science then the IPCC’s AR5 is dead in the water.

2 / Or the IPCC can accept the findings of the paper and announce to the world that due to these findings the science in the AR5 will now be re-examined and reassessed and the release of the AR5 will be put back to a date to be announced

Which of course says that all the previous IPCC science and conclusions arising out of that science are RS.

And politically, can anybody get their minds around the enormous political implications of this whole situation IF it will be shown through Watts peer reviewed paper that the IPCC, the supposedly definitive science based global organisation that has been the prime source of all politically based decisions on global warming / climate change policies amongst the governments of the world has [ knowingly ? ] been using wrong and corrupted data for over 20 years.

And those decisions have involved often severe societal changes and dislocations, substantially increased taxes, political opprobrium for politicians everywhere who relied on the IPCC for the justification of their climate policies and the expenditure of immense public sums now apparently all based on wrong and corrupted data for over 20 years, corrupted data that the IPCC has never attempted to verify or challenge.

The IPCC as a science and political organisation is finished forever and can now only bring down on itself and those who run it and research it’s science the opprobrium of entire nations and governments.

Anthony Watts with his press release on Sunday, released the genie from the bottle and it can never be put back.

Top
#1117417 - 31/07/2012 20:27 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: ROM]
GDL Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/02/2008
Posts: 630
Loc: Bowen Mountain NSW
Great post Rom ,will be an interesting time from now until the end of the year. I fear a smear campain against WATTS as so many toes have been steeped on,and i think they will close ranks and try to tough it out,they have so much to lose. .........GDL

Top
#1117421 - 31/07/2012 20:35 Re: The Climate Change Politics Thread [Re: GDL]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
[slow, long hand clap]

Well said ROM. As usual you take a different approach to the matter/s at hand. Indeed, it will be a very interesting few months ahead.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
Page 53 of 72 < 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 71 72 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 51 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
caffeinated, Chaser_James, coffeeman, rhyso, Shear-iously
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image