How corporations lie about climate change.

[Jupiter551]

I've noticed (as I'm sure many have) that Americans seem to be strongly and strangely convinced this particular scientific fact isn't a fact, despite 97% of the world's scientists considering it one...I guess this propaganda is the reason why? :dontknow:

 

[Just Me]

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change

Climate Change Denial a Billion Dollar Industry of Fabrication Says Study

A number of analyses have shown that one major factor driving this misunderstanding and an overall lack of legislative action is a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I've noticed (as I'm sure many have) that Americans seem to be strongly and strangely convinced this particular scientific fact isn't a fact, despite 97% of the world's scientists considering it one...I guess this propaganda is the reason why? :dontknow:

That 97% number was already proven to be a pile of shit made up by someone with an agenda. There is not anywhere near that consensus among actual scientists.

 

[Jupiter551]

That 97% number was already proven to be a pile of shit made up by someone with an agenda. There is not anywhere near that consensus among actual scientists.

Oh okay, well if it's not 97% then clearly climate change is a hoax perpetrated by 90% of the world's scientists?

 

[lexmark402003]

I've noticed (as I'm sure many have) that Americans seem to be strongly and strangely convinced this particular scientific fact isn't a fact, despite 97% of the world's scientists considering it one...I guess this propaganda is the reason why? :dontknow:

I've always wondered where this 97% number came from.

I'm an engineer/scientist (environmental), my wife is a scientist (environmental chemistry).

Neither of us has ever been asked our opinion on the matter- and we are in at least tangentially related fields- most scientists are in fields that in no way related and would have zero expertise. Who cares what, for example, a physicist or computer scientist thinks on this, as it is entirely outside their realm of expertise (to say nothing of those in the "soft" sciences)?

Did they do some sort of poll using a statistical sample? How was it done? How were the questions worded?

Precisely what statement did the (alleged) 97% agree on?

Methinks there is a lot of BS being bandied about by both sides, and the oft quoted "97%" is probably part of that.

 

[Jupiter551]

Methinks there is a lot of BS being bandied about by both sides, and the oft quoted "97%" is probably part of that.

Yes probably, but surely it should be one of the least important aspects.

50% of 14 year olds may well think Justin Bieber is the most important artist since Beethoven...personally even if 99% of them thought so I'd disagree. Either way, the point of the video is when climate denial is paid for by front companies for energy groups and lobbies, any research produced in such circumstances is tainted by conflict of interest and worthless.

 

[Just Me]

I've noticed (as I'm sure many have) that Americans seem to be strongly and strangely convinced this particular scientific fact isn't a fact, despite 97% of the world's scientists considering it one...I guess this propaganda is the reason why? :dontknow:

I've always wondered where this 97% number came from.

I'm an engineer/scientist (environmental), my wife is a scientist (environmental chemistry).

Neither of us has ever been asked our opinion on the matter- and we are in at least tangentially related fields- most scientists are in fields that in no way related and would have zero expertise. Who cares what, for example, a physicist or computer scientist thinks on this, as it is entirely outside their realm of expertise (to say nothing of those in the "soft" sciences)?

Did they do some sort of poll using a statistical sample? How was it done? How were the questions worded?

Precisely what statement did the (alleged) 97% agree on?

Here is a Washington Post article about where the number comes from. Here

Methinks there is a lot of BS being bandied about by both sides, and the oft quoted "97%" is probably part of that.

Here is a Washington Post article about where the number comes from. Here

Of course both sides want to get in on the propaganda as that seems to be the only way to get some people to pay attention. So, the number is just that, a sound bite to turn some heads. It is not inaccurate but only applies to the scientists papers and surveys this study reviewed. Bad science? Possibly. The data and conclusions look reasonable to me but I will always search out contrary opinions and other studies and base my decision on further review.

 

[Bocefish]

Methinks there is a lot of BS being bandied about by both sides, and the oft quoted "97%" is probably part of that.

Yes probably, but surely it should be one of the least important aspects.

50% of 14 year olds may well think Justin Bieber is the most important artist since Beethoven...personally even if 99% of them thought so I'd disagree. Either way, the point of the video is when climate denial is paid for by front companies for energy groups and lobbies, any research produced in such circumstances is tainted by conflict of interest and worthless.

You're fucking delusional if you think it's only corporations that lie about climate change.

First it was the "hockey stick" fraud and since there has been no warming at all for the last 15 years, government funded climate scientists were being ordered not to reveal that fact. Why is that? The IPCC is as much of a fraud as any other entity accepting funds to find an outcome. If you're being paid to go on a witch hunt, witches will be found whether they're real or not.

Why have none of the dire doomist's predictions come true? The arctic sea ice was supposed to be ancient history by now according to them. Now a new study conducted by researchers from the University at Albany predicts that the Arctic could possibly reach an ice-free state by 2054. :shock:

And Justin Beiber could possibly be POTUS by 2054 too.

Those government climate change experts are real stand up guys, they never lie.

Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... -feds?lite

Yet the carbonazis march on. :handgestures-salute:



:twocents-02cents:

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I've noticed (as I'm sure many have) that Americans seem to be strongly and strangely convinced this particular scientific fact isn't a fact, despite 97% of the world's scientists considering it one...I guess this propaganda is the reason why? :dontknow:

I've always wondered where this 97% number came from.

I'm an engineer/scientist (environmental), my wife is a scientist (environmental chemistry).

Neither of us has ever been asked our opinion on the matter- and we are in at least tangentially related fields- most scientists are in fields that in no way related and would have zero expertise. Who cares what, for example, a physicist or computer scientist thinks on this, as it is entirely outside their realm of expertise (to say nothing of those in the "soft" sciences)?

Did they do some sort of poll using a statistical sample? How was it done? How were the questions worded?

Precisely what statement did the (alleged) 97% agree on?

Here is a Washington Post article about where the number comes from. Here

Methinks there is a lot of BS being bandied about by both sides, and the oft quoted "97%" is probably part of that.

The 97% number is made up by an unethical person with an agenda. We've already had a whole thread on the forum where that was discussed and shown with multiple references to be the case. It's simply a fictional number that other people with an agenda keep bringing up after they think everyone has forgotten it's bullshit to begin with.

At the bottom of the Washington post article there's links for related reading. One of them, talks about that 'study' (i use air quotes to denote the stupidity of even using that word with that bogus fiction).
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/05 ... ensus.html

You'd never hear a scientist use such a number, because they know there is a wide spectrum of opinions about the statement "humans are causing global warming." Some find some parts of the science more convincing than other parts. They may see parts that aren't known well at all, and parts that are very well known. They know that some papers are good and some not so good and they aren't all weighted equally, nor are authors. (About physics, Luis Alvarez said, "There is no democracy in physics. We can't say that some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi.")

The simple statement doesn't address questions like how much warming? What kind of warming (where)? How much are humans causing? How are they causing it? How well is this knowledge known? How good is the data? What are the consequences?

People using these kinds of numbers aren't so much interested in these kinds of questions or these kinds of debates as they are in avoiding questions and ending debates. They're for activists, not for those who want to really understand what's going on.

That last sentence pretty much sums up everyone who keeps bringing up the 97% number or related articles. They aren't scientists, they're activists. They don't have a clue what's going on.

I've talked to, I believe, every professor in my Geology department what their viewpoints on global warming were. Most of them started out by laughing. They all agreed the science community really just has no idea. What they did all agree on is every single global warming model has been proven to be wrong in the last 5 years. They don't know what's going on.

So every time I hear people so adamantly saying the science is in, or 97% of scientists believe this or that, I just laugh at their silliness.

 

[Bocefish]

If you've been following the news lately... you've probably heard about the ship in Antarctica that is stuck in the ice... the one where even ice breaking vessels had to turn back repeatedly because the summer time ice is too thick.

Well, it just so happens that ship was on a tax payer funded global warming expedition to prove Antarctic ice is melting. :lol: :lol: :lol: Apparently the ice didn't get the message all the so-called science was settled. :lol:

Of course, the lame stream media is not telling you that little fact for some reason. Oh, the irony.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreen ... ed-by-ice/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/26/s ... in-summer/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnic ... z2ovITxKYv

 

[nataliestar32d]

You should also consider that much of what is published as "scientific fact", was paid for by some huge corporation more worried about profits and political agenda than they are the truth.

If a company is paying for research to be done, more often than not the results of that research turn out to be in the companies favor. They will fund the expirements and hire the scientists that provide the results they want.

You can make a profit on both sides of the climate change arguement. It just depends what you're selling.

If you advertise that climate change is a myth, then people will buy your chemical products, your gasoline, your oil, etc, just like they did to begin with.

And if you advertise that climate change will drastically impact our future and that you can stop it by living a greener lifestyle, then people will buy your smart car, and your solar panels, etc.

Since corporations have such a grasp on the media, it's hard for the general population to gain access to real, factual scientific information. Anytime there are opposing opinions in the scientific community, your guess is just as good as anyone elses.

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03 ... l_warming/

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.

The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.

Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating).

However back in 2009 the British Antarctic Survey sent its Autosub robot probe under the shelf (famously powered by some 5,000 ordinary alkaline D-cell batteries on each trip beneath the ice, getting through no less than four tonnes of them during the research). The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.

As we reported at the time, this caused BAS boffins to suggest that the observed accelerating ice flow and melt seen since the '90s was actually a result of the ridge's erosion and sea ingress, rather than global warming.

Now, the latest BAS research has revealed that rather than accelerating, "oceanic melting of the ice shelf into which the glacier flows decreased by 50 per cent between 2010 and 2012".

The BAS goes on to explain:

Observations made in January 2012, and reported now in [hefty boffinry mag] Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.

This lowered thermocline reduces the amount of heat flowing over the ridge. High resolution simulations of the ocean circulation in the ice shelf cavity demonstrate that the ridge blocks the deepest ocean waters from reaching the thickest ice ...

In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:

"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

The Science paper can be read by subscribers to the journal here. The BAS announcement of the results can be read here. Readers unfamiliar with the rules of the climate game should note that the term "climate variability" as used in those documents means for this purpose "climate effects not caused by humans".

Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record For Date – Closing In On All-Time Record

 

[LadyLuna]

Something for the other side of this: