Global Warming Nutter 'scientists' Suppressing science

[fskimospy]

figures this would play out this way.

They need to silence dissent.

So at what point will you be admitting you were duped again?

 

[brycejones]

So at what point will you be admitting you were duped again?

OP is never wrong, haven't you figured out that out yet?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

figures this would play out this way.

They need to silence dissent.

Jesus you really do live in a fucked up little bubble.

 

[K1052]

figures this would play out this way.

They need to silence dissent.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I can take no OP seriously that does not know the correct use of there/their or your/you're and does not read his own source with any understanding what so ever.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I can take no OP seriously that does not know the correct use of there/their or your/you're and does not read his own source with any understanding what so ever.

It's far more enjoyable to be irrationally angry than to accept your own ignorance and seek further education to eliminate gaps in your knowledge. Far less rewarding, but more enjoyable.

 

[Thebobo]

Thats going to be me soon

 

[shira]

I love how you complained about how they didn't allow peer review in your OP and then declared peer review evil when you were told that they did.

You're an idiot and a troll.

Notice how - three hours after his original post - he edited his OP to remove the flip-flop. He knows he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, but he's so intellectually dishonest he needs to delete the evidence.

The guy's a total slime.

 

[brycejones]

Notice how - three hours after his original post - he edited his OP to remove the flip-flop. He knows he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, but he's so intellectually dishonest he needs to delete the evidence.

The guy's a total slime.

Yeah he isn't a very clever troll....

 

[dank69]

Original:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/scienc...cle4091344.ece

longer clip

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in...-climate-view/


The global warming experts aren't happy when research comes out that they may be wrong.

So do they investigate the new finds and study them more? Do they allow peer review of the new work? Nope. They just shut down the new data because it doesn't fit their political/scientific / monetary agenda.


Just becoming more and more clear, that the global warming science nutter agenda is all about blaming man, CO2 and the USA for global warming so they can line their pockets, vs actually finding out what is going on.

Heck they black list scientists that don't agree with them: forcing scientists to resign from work because they refuse to work with them unless they tow the company line.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/scienc...cle4091344.ece

 

[Moonbeam]

Poor michal1980! You are so so brain defective it's actually funny.

 

[fskimospy]

Waiting for the OP to come back.

 

[Jaskalas]

So the OP erred by saying it was not peer reviewed? Ok, it was reviewed by a journal and rejected, which is a normal thing. Their citing of political reasons however... not acceptable.

 

[railer]

and he's gone.....

 

[fskimospy]

So the OP erred by saying it was not peer reviewed? Ok, it was reviewed by a journal and rejected, which is a normal thing. Their citing of political reasons however... not acceptable.

No. It was rejected because it was bad science.

Climate change deniers would be well served to review the real science on the issue. If they are interested in actual scientific understanding of climate change they will change their opinions pretty rapidly. If they are interested in preserving their doctrine, they won't.

 

[Stewox]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

longer clip

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/


The global warming experts aren't happy when research comes out that they may be wrong.

So do they investigate the new finds and study them more? Do they allow peer review of the new work? Nope. They just shut down the new data because it doesn't fit their political/scientific / monetary agenda.

Just to clarify, this paper wasn't published because


IE, the peers refused to publish it because it hurts there CO2 agenda.

Just becoming more and more clear, that the global warming science nutter agenda is all about blaming man, CO2 and the USA for global warming so they can line their pockets, vs actually finding out what is going on.

Heck they black list scientists that don't agree with them: forcing scientists to resign from work because they refuse to work with them unless they tow the company line.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

Thank you for having a brain sir! Climate is always changing as part of solar and other cycles, the artifical change is due to chemtrails, not CO2.

http://youtu.be/6Evn33YT0yg?t=12s

 

[MongGrel]

The fact that is had the word Scientist and Nutter in the title together means I'll never read anything you posted to begin with.

 

[MongGrel]

Thank you for having a brain sir! Climate is always changing as part of solar and other cycles, the artifical change is due to chemtrails, not CO2.

http://youtu.be/6Evn33YT0yg?t=12s

Just go into a corner and suck your thumb would ya.

 

[GaiaHunter]

This news article isn't particularly interesting other than a respectable newspaper of the UK (the equivalent of the NYTimes and WP) which is the highest circulation non tabloid newspaper of the UK mentioning stuff like climate gate and what not.

Much more interesting is that around 2 weeks ago Lennart Bengtsson, a well respected climate scientist, joined the GWPF Advisory Council.

2 weeks later he resigned and it is letter of resignation reads the following:

"Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson"

 

[Stewox]

Just go into a corner and suck you're thumb would ya.

Poor sheeple, so desperate, using ignorance and denial as armor.

 

[brycejones]

Poor sheeple, so desperate, using ignorance and denial as armor.

This from a guy who buys health "supplements" from his news source.....

 

[xgsound]

Here is a link to 15 Scientists rebuttal of the recent National Climate Assessment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/224538945/NCA Rebuttal A summary of their rebuttal is that climate has changed when man wasn't here and will continue to do so. Further, CO2 has increased greatly and the Earth has cooled in the exact reverse of the their predicted results. It looks to me that they usually get the opposite of their stated desire.

"They" started with global cooling in the 70s when 31,000 scientists were against them. http://www.petitionproject.org/ "They" have since said we will run out of food, use all our oil, and overpopulate the earth 10 years into the future.

The 10 years always passes and we continue. I'm sure we will be extinct someday, but I don't think we are powerful enough to cause it, and I'll bet it will be a big surprise.

Jim

 

[Whiskey16]

Here is a link to 15 Scientists rebuttal of the recent National Climate Assessment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/224538945/NCA ...

You were trolled by internet pseudoscience. A non-peered reviewed body of text published on some free internet press blog, without citations and copy'n pasted images/graphs.

Garbage. The internet can sadly demonstrate to be a great equaliser for the masses of manufactured balance. Extraordinarily ignorant and motivated masses to flood redirected links and quotes discussions and cite works that claim to be published as if on par with reputable and qualified journals. As the OP has been caught doing, lies and falsehoods get repeated far too much and with greatly unwarranted credibility. The majority of the population lack the knowledge, insight, nor unbiased interest to apply a skillset of honed rational critical thought. In a lame defiance of maligned educated 'elite' and authority, too many plebs now rally self glorified and selfish ignorance. Such people, as the OP, are the direct targets of those who have a invested interest against the recognition of industry and pollution causing mass ill effect.

The inanity that the OP, runaway Michael1980 brought out, reminds me of this article by Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground:

Some highlights of, 'The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy'

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

..

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

..

As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit.

..

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 -2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The inanity that the OP, runaway Michael1980 brought out, reminds me of this article by Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground:

Compared to $70Bn+ the US government has spent since 2008 in climate change activities...

 

[mikeymikec]

Nvm