1.7 Billion Dollar Big Lie,aka GW(WSJ)

[White_Male_Canada]

The success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[ezed]

I suggest everyone make four trays of ice cubes everyday and throw them on the front lawn.

[White_Male_Canada]

It`s over, we`re all doomed !

[LG]

I'm not sure if all that is true, WMC, since it sounds more like someone's opinion than fact. (It would be nice if you could actually put the name of the person who wrote this in your post to save us time, by the way rather than cutting and pasting to save only yourself some time ). Most people who are fired or have their funding cut short feel hard done by, anyway. I will try and find out more.

In any case, it is not very unreasonable. A member of a party who did not tow the party line one a major issue (such as one that vocally opposed his party's presidential candidate a week before election day) would not be popular with the people at the top and could well be told to shut up or ship out. A company employee who went around claiming the competition were better would be fired.

In any case, the skeptics get plenty of funding from major petroleum companies and the "thinktanks" they fund.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html, http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html, http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html, http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

[White_Male_Canada]

"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.


Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. "

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg

[White_Male_Canada]

The theory of “Global Dimming”, and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you any of the following, is basically that massive amounts of fine particles of pollution in the atmosphere create denser clouds.

As a scientist, you must also be aware that obtaining a 100% causal relationship between anything can prove very difficult (to say the least!), especially in a complex multi-factorial system such as planet Earth. It is for this reason that environmentalists have long pushed the idea of the “Precautionary Principle”, as once an ecosystem has flipped into another state it takes a very long time for it to return, if it ever will, again. And for those who have, or are planning to have, children/grand-children/great-grand-children, a future Earth with run-away global warming and/or a malfunctioning North-Atlantic conveyer-belt would be very sad indeed! I could go on and on about the clear damage man has done to the planet, but most of the examples would take us far away from the subject of climatology. The simple questions mankind must ask himself are: why pollute, why destroy, why damage? The simple answer is greed!!! $1.7 billion may prove to be a very small figure indeed, only time will tell!

You could wipe out half the population , have the rest live in caves and global warming would still continue.

Possible aerosols and particles may or may not have contributed to any dimming but it does not explain the little ice age or other cycles of cooling.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Mars Emerging from Ice Age:
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

[White_Male_Canada]

Still does not answer the points I made. At the moment, the majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is occurring and that mankind is 90% likely to blame. Who know's, as little as a few years from now your view-point may be dominant. I am no expert and have no firm stance on the subject. As a biologist, I am however certain that the mass extinction of species that is currently occurring is solely down to man. Loss of natural habitat can pretty much explain it all!

Science is all about arguments/hypotheses/different points of view. Debate is what drives it forward. My point still stands, why take the risk over climate-change? Do you really want to see half the world's population dead, and the other half living in caves if we screw up? Live now, let our children pay tomorrow? Surely not, I thought scientists wanted to mankind grow and survive!

Here`s the rub. Particulates may or may not have played a part in the 70`s. If they did it was temporary as the graph below details. The graph is more compelling in regards to Solar Irradiance,not surface temps.

Secondly, total CO2 only accounts for 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that amount man-made CO2 is only responsible for emitting about 3.4% of total CO2. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=350

Empirically, computer modeling hasn`t been proven. And using them to backcheck ? They do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off.So what makes them so good at predicting the future.

Warming? Yes. Will it cool after it warms? Yes. Is the science skewed? Yes. A fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon.Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. That we know is being done. Global alarmists who have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true feels internal or external pressures to get a specific result. And worst of all, a bias in support of certain political ideologies that perpetually failed at the ballot box. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.

[North_of_60]

And what about the « 661,9 billion dollars war againt terror big lie » ?

The Governator, a republican bodybuilder, is ready to say : « Damn the Congress, California is moving further. » In fact, more than 300 US mayors are ready to exceed the terms of the Kyoto protocol.

Here’s a site for the negationist to browse :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
Maybe you’ll find some enlighting, but I doubt it.

And a nice bandwith to stick up your…

[White_Male_Canada]

And what about the « 661,9 billion dollars war againt terror big lie » ?

Ah yes, the old Big Lie about the " Bush lied" nonsense. That`s been debunked on various levels and you can`t use that dodge anymore. First, read Saddam`s own government files, it`s filled with pages of talks and relations with the Taliban and AQ. More importantly former VP nominee John Edwards inadvertantly admitted the "Bush lied" tactic as false on MTP Feb.04,2007:

SEN. EDWARDS: "For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong... Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials ."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

So now you know you`re a sock puppet being led by the nose. Clinton was working with the same intelligence that led him and Congress to sign on to the policy of regime change in Iraq in 1998.


The Governator, a republican bodybuilder, is ready to say : « Damn the Congress, California is moving further. » In fact, more than 300 US mayors are ready to exceed the terms of the Kyoto protocol.

Schwarzenegger a Republican !? In name only or, R.I.N.O. States have the right to do what they wish,even when they`re wrong.

[guyone]

YIKES!

[White_Male_Canada]

I really think you have down-played the effect of global dimming on the earth's temperature (small effect in the 70's?) WMC; some of the best evidence for the theory was obtained following 9/11/2001 (see figure and link below). It clearly still is having an effect. You've also omitted data for all greenhouse gases other than CO2. CH4, although far less prevalent, is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Leaving out important facts is what is called selective presentation!

More jets fly over north america,creating more water vapor which makes more clouds,big difference.
In fact you should be worried about clearer skies. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, home of the international Baseline Surface Radiation Network did the work.
"When we looked at the more recent data, the trend went the other way(brightening),” Charles N. Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory .

Man-made CH4 accounts for only about 18% , the rest is natural. CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere to H2O and CO2. Growth and shrinking of northern ice sheets may cover and uncover northern wetlands,being a major source of CH4,combined with orbital forcing and Dansgaard-Oeschger events.



On the subject of Iraq, if you believe the second Gulf War was nothing more than a vendetta between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein, then you are pretty naive. That why I suggest you don't swallow stories about Saddam's government files, as government spy agencies are experts in lies.

And here we go with the maundering conspiracy theories. The facts are facts. Clinton agreed and signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Iraq harboured terrorists such as Abu Abbas, head of the Palestine Liberation Front, who was captured in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad and died of natural causes in U.S. custody the following year. Captured document ISGQ-2004-00102328 provides details of collaboration between Saddam and Abbas.Al-Zarqawi was given safe haven in Baghdad.

Saddam had direct contact with the Taliban,document ISGP-2003-0001412 " We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression...."
Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier.
One could go on for pages citing documents proving collaberation with terrorism,harbouring terrorists,training terrorists,but all those facts mean nothing to the conspiracy kooks.

To argue Iraq was the only country in the middle east not directly involved in terrorism would be ridiculous.

[White_Male_Canada]

The phoney Saddam document trick has been used before on my side of the Atlantic.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html

Unbelieveble, I`v actually found a supporter of that marxist kook Galloway.

1) Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight oil "allocations" totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or to a politicized "charity" of his named the Mariam Appeal.

2) In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly.

3) A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting.

4) Through the connections established by the Galloway and "Mariam" allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in kickbacks or "surcharge" payments.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTGallowayOct05FINAL.pdf

http://hitchensweb.com/OilForFood.pdf



The fear of the U.S. invading is what's driving North Korea and Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, or do you think that's another conspiracy theory?

It just getse worse. North korea attacked the South,and Iraq attacked Kuwait and other countries.


Conspiracy kook = someone believing in unsubstantiated/non-mainstream ideas = global warming is not man-made = White_Male_Canada

It is a mistake to think liberals first believe what they do and then think conservatives are stupid for disagreeing. The process works in reverse. Their disdain for ordinary people with traditional values is so overwhelming that whatever such people believe is by definition backward. They form their views by listening to the ignoramuses and then positing the opposite. Views forged in the crucible of a God-centered consciousness are inherently illegitimate.

It is more than a strategy to call their opponents stupid. It is not just a way to cover up the weakness of their arguments. Identifying the other side as obtuse is itself the sine qua non of their worldview. Individual applications of that premise are an auxiliary phenomenon. If I assume your point must be wrong because I know you to be a Neanderthal, a good dialogue will never evolve.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10992

[White_Male_Canada]

Mr. Galloway if I were you, as he won his last LIBEL case!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm

Lie by omission, the Court DID NOT rule on whether the allegations were true.
Let Galloway sue the US Government, I dare him. The report is the smoking gun. But he won`t,he wouldn`t even sign an affidavit saying that he had never discussed Oil-for-Food monies with Tariq Aziz offered by one C. Hitchens.


Following YOUR argument, which country's has Iran invaded to incur the wrath of the U.S..

What wrath, when did the US overthrow that dictatorship,what did I miss.


Oh, and who's that shaking Hussein's hand in the picture at the top right; none other than the pin-up boy of the American right, Donald Rumsfield!

We have no permanent allies,only permanent interests. Look down, whose that shaking Stalin`s hand. Stalin killed more people than Saddam did. USING Iraq as a bulwark against Iran does not necessarily make them an ally.


And I also know that if the U.S. hadn't interfered in Iran during the Cold War, Khomeni would never have come to power in the first place.

Jimmy Carter created the Mullahocracy in Iran.

[specialk]

Mr. Galloway if I were you, as he won his last LIBEL case!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm

Lie by omission, the Court DID NOT rule on whether the allegations were true.
Let Galloway sue the US Government, I dare him. The report is the smoking gun. But he won`t,he wouldn`t even sign an affidavit saying that he had never discussed Oil-for-Food monies with Tariq Aziz offered by one C. Hitchens.


Following YOUR argument, which country's has Iran invaded to incur the wrath of the U.S..

What wrath, when did the US overthrow that dictatorship,what did I miss.


Oh, and who's that shaking Hussein's hand in the picture at the top right; none other than the pin-up boy of the American right, Donald Rumsfield!

We have no permanent allies,only permanent interests. Look down, whose that shaking Stalin`s hand. Stalin killed more people than Saddam did. USING Iraq as a bulwark against Iran does not necessarily make them an ally.


And I also know that if the U.S. hadn't interfered in Iran during the Cold War, Khomeni would never have come to power in the first place.

Jimmy Carter created the Mullahocracy in Iran.

>>>>

[White_Male_Canada]

"We have no permanent allies,only permanent interests. Look down, whose that shaking Stalin`s hand. Stalin killed more people than Saddam did. USING Iraq as a bulwark against Iran does not necessarily make them an ally." White_Male_Canada

So essentially you're saying that the U.S. is a politically and morally bankrupt whore who'll share a bed with anyone who suits her immediate needs then? That's basically why she hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol isn't it. Its got nothing to do with science, just self-interest! Or am I just too cynical about rich and powerful people and the games they play?

You`re simply cloaking yourself in piousness to try make a point. I never stated the US and the UK were morally bankrupt. We knew who they were and after we used them as bulwarks we defeated them. The Soviet Empire is dead (my condolences) and so is Saddam`s Iraq.

You`re not cynical, just envious and have joined the others in schemes to destroy powerful economies.