The 97% solution. Debunking the climate change "consensus" myth.

[jmdrake]

Good read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ion-ian-tuttle

[spudea]

I like the included video with Ted Cruz. Its incredibly funny the Sierra Club president didn't want to talk about the data, which he is citing to justify massive regulatory schemes and at the end has the audacity to say "cherry picked data", when he continually cites cherry picked data with that 97% figure. The 97% figure wasn't even a survey of scientists, it was a study of published research journals, and the study had numerous flaws.

[kpitcher]

I'm fine with continued studying of the problem... although it looks like some of NASA and NOAA's satellites may not be fully funded to help continued study. Further that becomes an issue when government databases with existing data are being turned off. This is research already paid for by us, the data should still be available to help do further study.

We now have major sections of the government being run by people financially tied to energy companies. CO2 and climate change hits their bottom line directly and we're forced to decide if current and future decisions are for the good of the people or are purely profit driven. While this has always been an issue with lobbyists... now however with the appearance of trying to bury data this doesn't help their cause.

Also I do find it interesting that many people, especially on these forums, will argue the problems of crony capitalism on how big companies with unfair influence is bad. Monopolistic banks, the FED, vaccines, health insurance, etc. But somehow big energy has spun it so climate change is the bad guy and they're the ones being hurt. I'm not sure how that happened.

[dannno]

Also I do find it interesting that many people, especially on these forums, will argue the problems of crony capitalism on how big companies with unfair influence is bad. Monopolistic banks, the FED, vaccines, health insurance, etc. But somehow big energy has spun it so climate change is the bad guy and they're the ones being hurt. I'm not sure how that happened.

By regulating energy and creating complex carbon credit schemes, the biggest energy companies can dominate the market. Smaller energy companies want the market de-regulated. The consumer would benefit from a de-regulated market. But the biggest energy companies would have too much competition and they wouldn't be able to control and dominate the industry as much.

The biggest energy companies are pushing man-made global warming as a way to increase market share. They certainly aren't doing it for the environment.

[jmdrake]

I'm fine with continued studying of the problem... although it looks like some of NASA and NOAA's satellites may not be fully funded to help continued study. Further that becomes an issue when government databases with existing data are being turned off. This is research already paid for by us, the data should still be available to help do further study.

We now have major sections of the government being run by people financially tied to energy companies. CO2 and climate change hits their bottom line directly and we're forced to decide if current and future decisions are for the good of the people or are purely profit driven. While this has always been an issue with lobbyists... now however with the appearance of trying to bury data this doesn't help their cause.

Also I do find it interesting that many people, especially on these forums, will argue the problems of crony capitalism on how big companies with unfair influence is bad. Monopolistic banks, the FED, vaccines, health insurance, etc. But somehow big energy has spun it so climate change is the bad guy and they're the ones being hurt. I'm not sure how that happened.

Hello. The crony capitalism in this case goes both ways. There are crony capitalists on both sides of this. Seeking to replace the fossil fuel industry is the carbon credit bubble and the subsidized "green jobs" industry. I was an early believer in global warming back in my gullible youth. I watched the PBS docu-drama "after the warming" which predicted that the world would be forced to accept a "new world order" because of inability "deal" with global warming. So I became a global warming crusader. He's the lie that sucked me in. Please watch.



Then I investigated the science and came to the inescapable conclusion that I had been had. For one thing the same fake scientists who said car exhaust would cause global warming back in the 1970s said it would cause global cooling and now they use the euphemism "climate change" as a flipping catch all.





For another, the global warming alarmists have ignored sunspot activity as an explanation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#fda817966c2a

Seriously, I have yet to hear any serious debate from the global warming alarmists or any legitimate attempt to explain what doesn't fit their worldview. Remember Climategate? Where the emails were released that showed climate "scientists" were tying to "hide the decline" that in the warming data? It's not about trusting big oil. It's about not trusting crooks and criminals like Al Gore.

[kpitcher]

Then I investigated the science and came to the inescapable conclusion that I had been had. For one thing the same fake scientists who said car exhaust would cause global warming back in the 1970s said it would cause global cooling and now they use the euphemism "climate change" as a flipping catch all.

Actually Frank Luntz was responsible for "climate change" being the term used now. He promoted it so heavily because "global warming" sounds bad, climate change sounds nature. You know how well he worked the spin on Ron Paul too....

[Dr.No.]

By regulating energy and creating complex carbon credit schemes, the biggest energy companies can dominate the market. Smaller energy companies want the market de-regulated. The consumer would benefit from a de-regulated market. But the biggest energy companies would have too much competition and they wouldn't be able to control and dominate the industry as much.

The biggest energy companies are pushing man-made global warming as a way to increase market share. They certainly aren't doing it for the environment.

I get this is what makes sense ideologically. But larger companies fight tooth-and-nail against climate change. They fund politicians to high degrees so that the politicians will deny climate change. They fund our government so that they can pollute with impunity.

[dannno]

I get this is what makes sense ideologically. But larger companies fight tooth-and-nail against climate change. They fund politicians to high degrees so that the politicians will deny climate change. They fund our government so that they can pollute with impunity.

lol, that's totally ridiculous, if you think about it. Are they funding Rand Paul? Ted Cruz maybe, but that would be due to his Goldman Sachs and MIC attachment.

The government has been going in the opposite direction for decades, if they are funding politicians they are doing a really bad job.

All of the propaganda and all of the systems of control are promoting and pushing man-made global warming. These are these are the same people who own, run and control the big energy companies.

Have you been watching Koch Bros documentaries or something?

[jmdrake]

Actually Frank Luntz was responsible for "climate change" being the term used now. He promoted it so heavily because "global warming" sounds bad, climate change sounds nature. You know how well he worked the spin on Ron Paul too....

I don't think it's relevant who came up with the term. It's the term of art now. My overarching point is that there are people who cannot be trusted (Frank Lutz or otherwise) pushing the global warming/climate change agenda. It does not at all bother me that some big oil companies may be on the same side as me on this issue. And as Dannno has pointed out, some in big oil have actually pushed the global warming hoax.

[Dr.No.]

lol, that's totally ridiculous, if you think about it. Are they funding Rand Paul? Ted Cruz maybe, but that would be due to his Goldman Sachs and MIC attachment.

The government has been going in the opposite direction for decades, if they are funding politicians they are doing a really bad job.

All of the propaganda and all of the systems of control are promoting and pushing man-made global warming. These are these are the same people who own, run and control the big energy companies.

Have you been watching Koch Bros documentaries or something?

Yes, they are funding Rand Paul. Not as much as Ted Cruz (who got a lot more money overall), but they give him about half-a-million dollars each year. By comparison, his biggest contributors are in the healthcare industry, which gives him a little over one million/year.

It seems like the people pushing and promoting man-made climate change are in academia. Some energy companies are changing their tune due to social pressure, but they've denied it for the longest time.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

08 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.

I have long thought this.

If the claim is a 1.8 degree temperature rise over 100 years, then what is margin of error? I can't believe it's less than 1.8 well over 100 years.

And how in the world can a computer model arrive at this 1.8 figure? Another likely improbability, if not impossibility.

The temperature is different from my porch to the driveway. How in the world can all these weather stations be accurate to 1.8 degrees well over 100 years? Do you mean to tell me that these pencil written records on crumbling paper are that accurate? What about the weather stations that moved many times, many of those farther than my porch-driveway distance? What about when structures are built around the weather stations, significantly raising the temperatures?

The fact is that they just don't know. They made it up.