Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Campaign about AMS statement on climate change

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    That astroturf organization called "ForecasttheFacts.Org" has succeeded in getting GM to pull it's support funding for the Heartland institute over the issue of climate change. They have developed targets and ways to mobilize their members toward action, similar to many other "grassroots" groups that are funded by big money activists.

    I just feel like getting this off my chest here rather than my professional blog, because posting it there is just going to make me be a target.

    I don't mind that GM is pulling its funding from the Heartland Institute regarding climate change. It's their right to do what they want with their money, even if their relationship has been decades long and that the Heartland Institute hasn't been (to my knowledge) clandestine about what they do.

    Here's a recent tactic review undertaken by advocates in the arena of climate-change / environmental issues, designed to refocus their efforts for greater success:

    http://www.ncrp.org/news-room/press-...und-grassroots

    Here we see that "more funding must go" (from wealthy philanthropic donors) to groups that need the money for "grassroots organization and advocacy" ... For every Koch, there is a Soros, but ironically the same urgings that compel Soros to do his thing are apparently what villifies the Koch brothers... For the record, I'm rather ambivalent toward astroturfing (fake grassroots efforts) because it seems like it's been around for a while, and may well be the name of the game in the future for small local advocacy groups to have an impact or the right know-how.

    So anyway, back to www.forecastthefacts.org (a Soros-funded astroturf organization, rather than a Koch funded one). So GM has made their decision, and that's fine, but my pet peeve beef is this:

    Here's their press release: http://pastebin.com/xiuc79wz (it came into my email account at work, so it may have yours as well.

    The key quote that annoyed me:

    GM’s funding of Heartland came to light in February via leaked documents that also revealed Heartland’s plan to insert climate change denial into public education.
    So the LA Times picked up the story, but they at least put a little journalism into it:

    From http://www.latimes.com/news/local/en...%3A+latimes%2F

    The development is fallout from the release of Heartland Institute funding documents in February, which showed that GM contributed $15,000 to Heartland in 2010 and 2011. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient, revealed in February that he had assumed a false identity to obtain some of those documents.
    If any of you have been following this saga with Peter Gleick, you already know what I'm talking about. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a group with "facts" in its name wants to create alternative realities, or mis-idenitfy fraud with whistleblowing, but it's got my dander up because its resulted in large organizations making changes in how they do things.

    What happens when the same type of tactics are applied to under-handedly remove you from your job based on twitter tweets they determine to be "anti-climate" or whatever else they're looking for?

    Comment


    • #47
      This is yet another reason to leave the AMS.

      Global warming, now called "climate-change" so pretty much any weather event can be blamed on it, is the biggest scientific fraud of the last century, even bigger than the lipid hypothesis.

      Here is my opinion after having studied the issue in great detail over the last few years.

      Humans probably have some minute impact on climate, but the entire argument is about CO2 in the global warming debate.

      1.) We simply can't produce enough of it to reach even historical levels. (The present atmosphere is CO2-starved when compared to every other geological time period in Earth's history since the Cambrian Explosion.)

      2.) The "effects" on people have more to do with the fact the population in the United States has increased by 80 million people in the last 30 years, and we've added a couple of BILLION people to the entire world. Of course there will be more people impacted by bad weather, because there are more people on the planet PERIOD.

      3.) The CO2 being released CAME FROM THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. It isn't being created by humans. It was taken in by plants that became fossil fuels and we are releasing what was already present in the past atmosphere of the planet.

      4.) Other much more significant factors like cosmic radiation and solar cycles are being completely ignored.

      5.) Solutions to the problem cause so much economic damage as to be unsupportable, and the people pushing this fraud think taxing the entire planet is a solution. A tax cannot solve a problem like this, even if there was one.

      The entire global warming debate infuriates me because it is a distraction from other, much more important issues we face.

      Comment


      • #48
        EU Airline Carbon Tax Friction Is Hint Of New Climate Politics

        "The present spat could be a sign of things to come in climate politics, where progressive countries unite from the bottom up, at least until an over-arching treaty comes into force at the end of the decade."

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1367155.html
        What a long strange trip its been.....

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by vortmaximum View Post
          "The present spat could be a sign of things to come in climate politics, where progressive countries unite from the bottom up, at least until an over-arching treaty comes into force at the end of the decade."

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1367155.html
          The EU doesn't care about global warming/climate change or whatever you want to call it. The EU needs money & they need it fast! Any type of fee or tax they can create out of thin air to generate tax they will. How brook is the EU? If they can't fix their monetary issues quick, it won't matter about what kind of treaties the EU passes because the EU won't be around in 5 years.

          At this point, the only thing keeping the EU together are the manufacturing economies of countries like Germany. The EU won't be able to institute any type of environmental regulations which will hurt the economies of their industrial bread winners. After all if they do, who bails out Greece, Spain, Italy, & Ireland? Or where does the cash come from? One thing European countries don't like is being told what to do by Germany. Since Germany is the only EU country with a balanced budget, a huge surplus of cash, & a hard working manufacturing industry; the EU has bigger issues to fix than making strict Climate Change treaties. If I'm wrong, and they do, the EU will collapse under the mountain of debt with in the next 5 years, more likely in 2 years.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Cumulo-nimbus View Post
            This is yet another reason to leave the AMS.

            Global warming, now called "climate-change" so pretty much any weather event can be blamed on it, is the biggest scientific fraud of the last century, even bigger than the lipid hypothesis.

            Here is my opinion after having studied the issue in great detail over the last few years.

            Humans probably have some minute impact on climate, but the entire argument is about CO2 in the global warming debate.

            1.) We simply can't produce enough of it to reach even historical levels. (The present atmosphere is CO2-starved when compared to every other geological time period in Earth's history since the Cambrian Explosion.)

            2.) The "effects" on people have more to do with the fact the population in the United States has increased by 80 million people in the last 30 years, and we've added a couple of BILLION people to the entire world. Of course there will be more people impacted by bad weather, because there are more people on the planet PERIOD.

            3.) The CO2 being released CAME FROM THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. It isn't being created by humans. It was taken in by plants that became fossil fuels and we are releasing what was already present in the past atmosphere of the planet.

            4.) Other much more significant factors like cosmic radiation and solar cycles are being completely ignored.

            5.) Solutions to the problem cause so much economic damage as to be unsupportable, and the people pushing this fraud think taxing the entire planet is a solution. A tax cannot solve a problem like this, even if there was one.

            The entire global warming debate infuriates me because it is a distraction from other, much more important issues we face.
            I find it pretty discouraging that any meteorologist thinks global warming is a sham. I don't know where you've been doing your researching, but it sure as hell isn't in mainstream scientific sources. By the way, go and check the CO2 levels from the early 20th century and compare them to the current levels. If you think that's "minute", you need to skip the calc and go back and do some basic math.

            http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...ls-111074.aspx

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by donpaul0 View Post
              I find it pretty discouraging that any meteorologist thinks global warming is a sham. I don't know where you've been doing your researching, but it sure as hell isn't in mainstream scientific sources. By the way, go and check the CO2 levels from the early 20th century and compare them to the current levels. If you think that's "minute", you need to skip the calc and go back and do some basic math.

              http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...ls-111074.aspx
              As a meteorologist for almost 20 years, global warming is real. Data indicates temperatures are currently in a warm cycle/hot tend/ whatever you want to call it. Is our recent warmth a shame, no! However, as a scientist with an open mind, I find it reckless to say the key factor responsible for our recent warmth is man made climate change. Our climate has been in change since the atmosphere was first established after the Big Bang or however our planet Earth began. Want to sway me to treating Man Made Climate change/C02 is the sole culprit? Follow the Scientific Method. Find a way to test your hypothesis. If your experiment proves you're right, I should be able to run the same test you ran and then gain the same results. BTW, computer models do not count as they are only as good as the equations one writes or uses to calculate.

              There is no room for opinion, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science. Make a theory a fact, by proving it scientifically.

              One thing I do know, when the best minds in a field throw science out the window than the sun revolves around the Earth; Earth is the center of the Universe because man lives on Earth; the Earth is flat; and cigarettes are healthy & totally safe/good for you.

              Data shows parts of the Sahara Desert were once lush African jungles. Greenland was once a lush agriculture hot bed & not an ice box.

              Mother Nature will always trump man. A huge volcano eruption in SE Asia can make a European summer feel like winter. I think our sun has more of an impact on our weather globally than C02.


              I will keep an open mind. Still, I am not on the man made C02 band wagon. I'm for less pollution & a cleaner planet. What I'm not for is public opinion or majority rule making theories scientific fact.


              For example, if we see tornadoes this weekend in Kansas & Oklahoma, how soon until national news reports it is just April & this is unusual to have such twisters in April & is more proof of climate change?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Ping-Pong Ball View Post
                As a meteorologist for almost 20 years, global warming is real. Data indicates temperatures are currently in a warm cycle/hot tend/ whatever you want to call it. Is our recent warmth a shame, no! However, as a scientist with an open mind, I find it reckless to say the key factor responsible for our recent warmth is man made climate change. Our climate has been in change since the atmosphere was first established after the Big Bang or however our planet Earth began. Want to sway me to treating Man Made Climate change/C02 is the sole culprit? Follow the Scientific Method. Find a way to test your hypothesis. If your experiment proves you're right, I should be able to run the same test you ran and then gain the same results. BTW, computer models do not count as they are only as good as the equations one writes or uses to calculate.

                There is no room for opinion, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science. Make a theory a fact, by proving it scientifically.

                One thing I do know, when the best minds in a field throw science out the window than the sun revolves around the Earth; Earth is the center of the Universe because man lives on Earth; the Earth is flat; and cigarettes are healthy & totally safe/good for you.

                Data shows parts of the Sahara Desert were once lush African jungles. Greenland was once a lush agriculture hot bed & not an ice box.

                Mother Nature will always trump man. A huge volcano eruption in SE Asia can make a European summer feel like winter. I think our sun has more of an impact on our weather globally than C02.


                I will keep an open mind. Still, I am not on the man made C02 band wagon. I'm for less pollution & a cleaner planet. What I'm not for is public opinion or majority rule making theories scientific fact.


                For example, if we see tornadoes this weekend in Kansas & Oklahoma, how soon until national news reports it is just April & this is unusual to have such twisters in April & is more proof of climate change?
                ^^^^^^^^

                You know when you have a strong feeling about something but you're not the greatest with words/articulation then someone comes along and articulates your stance perfectly?

                <3 PPB

                "Unhappy Wife = Get Cheated On"

                Comment


                • #53
                  As some of us saw at NCAR in small groups with climate modelers a few years back (AMS Bcast Conf), climate scientists cannot account for the warming which has occurred since the 1980s without the C02 load. As a skeptic at the time, I asked a researcher why confidence was so high among climate scientists and atmospheric physicists. He showed us, through different initializations, that if you dial back C02 levels to early 20th century levels and dial up natural forcing mechanisms to the max (solar, etc), we would have been in a slow cooling cycle since that time. When you add in the current and still increasing CO2, the models predicted--in fact underpredicted--the warming which has been taking place and continues.

                  Again, that's with maxed out natural forcing mechanisms. The only variable which produces the warming which has occurred is the increased greenhouse gas load.

                  The earth's energy budget and solar input in particular is exquisitely measured and known. Trying to hypothesize the existence of forcing mechanisms beyond observed rates of amplification, IMO, is science fiction, not science.

                  And this comes from a pretty conservative fella. I'm not talking about remedies--we may already be at or past a tipping point, and I'm not personally convinced we can do much about global warming with projected growth rates in C02 and methane output. I'm just saying the data which supports anthropogenically forced warming is very strong.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/...s-science.html

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Ouch! That hurt.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Thanks for finding that, Rob. I posted it on my FB page and on our Buffalo Weather Blog.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Ping-Pong Ball View Post
                          Ouch! That hurt.
                          No painful intentions I'm just with Don's last line 100%. When I see meteorologists saying that they are anti-whatever because they read some reports and/or hit a few websites and therefore are experts - it just gets under my skin a bit. If you publish actual research and your peers review it and your theories pass that test, then I pay attention. Until that point, we're just observers and not in a position to take a side IMO.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by rdale View Post
                            No painful intentions I'm just with Don's last line 100%. When I see meteorologists saying that they are anti-whatever because they read some reports and/or hit a few websites and therefore are experts - it just gets under my skin a bit. If you publish actual research and your peers review it and your theories pass that test, then I pay attention. Until that point, we're just observers and not in a position to take a side IMO.
                            I totally get where you're coming from. In fact, you're one of the posters on this board who's words carry the weight of the gold. Some argue, some troll, and then you are always the voice of reason.

                            I should add more to my thoughts. The issue I have with "popular opinion" science or whatever you want to call it, is not the scientists doing the research or formulating the theories. Again, I will always keep an open mind. While I haven't written an academic paper in years, I do spend much time readying the latest research papers and case studies on all sorts of weather related/issues/topics. I am not like most people. When it comes to the public, most get the information they receive man-made climate change from the media [and by media, mostly the national news media based on what outlet they choice to watch which is based by their political world view (i,e. conservative Republican is more likely to watch Foxnews than MSNBC)].

                            The problem I have with "popular opinion" science or whatever you want to call it is what people outside of the scientific community do with it or how it is presented to the general public by outlets such as the media. I would prefer, for example, the media to include the word theory when they mention "man-made climate change." The media has no qualms about using the "t-word" when reporting on evolution, so why can't they throw that in when covering a topic that is slightly younger than the launch of the first weather satellites?

                            Where I have issues is when I see a nationally produced PSA for "The More You Know" on NBC which said, "If you want to stop global warming, then turn off the lights."

                            After the 13 tornadoes touched down in the Dallas Metroplex earlier this month, I heard a soundbite from a NOAA researcher where the scientists used the words "steroids" in reference to CO2 in the atmosphere to say the reason why those early April storms were so ferocious was because CO2 caused them to be stronger than they would've been 50 years ago. Really?!?!?!?

                            I have no issue with consensus between scientists. Again, the whole point of science is to formulate theories and ask questions as a means to figuring out why/what happens to cause events that impact our daily life. I get it. Where I have issue is when those outside the research take a kernel (which very well maybe a of truth) of what the experts say and then transform it/change it/ add too it and all of a sudden you have a huge jumbo sized bucket of popcorn smothered in butter. Sure they're both corn and made from that kernel, but the product has been greatly changed and no longer resembles what the initial research dictates. Although the popcorn sure satisfies the viewer and leaves the viewer wanting more!

                            The link was a good read, but to me was cloaked in veil of arrogance. Again, I think their is no room for arrogance in science. I think science is best served up with an open mind. I love theories even if I don't particularly agree with all theories. I'm all for the best & brightest minds in a field coming together to finding answers on subjects/issues. Where I have an issue is when those outside the "old boys network" or egg-head researchers or men/women with lots of letters after their last name conclude a theory as a proven scientific law and then dumb down the science even more by reporting any cool image of weather someone got on film they (in this case the media) deem as unusual as proof of man-made climate change. When did video of a semi-tractor trailer (which was most likely empty) being blown through the air by a weak eF3 tornado going across a large shipping yard become proof of man-made climate change? It's this kind of "scientific reasoning" by those not in science which I have an enormous problem with.

                            Without very smart people asking questions, we will never come up with answers. Again, I will keep an open mind. I sleep better when all researchers do the same thing and hope the best don't gain too close a focus which could result in ruling out factors which could further advance their research or help to answer the questions they are asking. With all that is out there and the vast amount of variables we still do not know, at this point in time, I am not ready to accept that carbon dioxide produced or released by humans into the atmosphere over the past century is the sole reason why temperatures have recently been on a warming trend. I do not think the IPCC consensus represents some sort of cabal to defraud the public for the personal gain of those framing that consensus. That would be crazier than then folks who wear tinfoil hats. I will agree The very idea of such a conspiracy is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone who knows anything about how science really works. If me wanting concrete proof by accepting a theory to be more than a theory makes me a moron as person laboring under these ignorant delusions, so be it. I'm fine with that. (I would put an example here about the consensus of the best minds in the field of climate research/scientists worried the atmosphere was going to face another, very eminent catastrophic ice age due to mankind's impact on the atmosphere in the 1970s/80s; however, Chuck would counter I just proved his point. Also, I would be adding things into the debate which I do not think should belong in science.)

                            Go science! Go researchers! Ask your questions, create your theories. I guess I should've said, "There is no room for opinions to manipulated, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science," instead of posting, "There is no room for opinion, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science."

                            After all, no can seriously tell me with a straight face those outside the field of experts doing the research have not used opinion manipulation to push their own agendas on all sides of the issue of man-made climate change from politicians, the media, public, morons, egg-heads, corporations, even some researchers, and so on & so on! I think this manipulation is where the huge issues erupt on the topic of man-made climate change. For example, if the national news is reporting on the scientific aspect of an issue, what the anchor/reporter says about the science should usually not elicit an emotional response from the viewer watching the story.

                            With my open mind, I can see the data which supports anthropogenically forced warming is very strong, I just think there may be even stronger reasons or links.
                            Last edited by Ping-Pong Ball; Apr 13th 2012, 07:51 PM. Reason: last sentence

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              http://www.infowars.com/climate-alar...keptics-homes/

                              "“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”"
                              What a long strange trip its been.....

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ping-Pong Ball View Post
                                I totally get where you're coming from. In fact, you're one of the posters on this board who's words carry the weight of the gold. Some argue, some troll, and then you are always the voice of reason.

                                I should add more to my thoughts. The issue I have with "popular opinion" science or whatever you want to call it, is not the scientists doing the research or formulating the theories. Again, I will always keep an open mind. While I haven't written an academic paper in years, I do spend much time readying the latest research papers and case studies on all sorts of weather related/issues/topics. I am not like most people. When it comes to the public, most get the information they receive man-made climate change from the media [and by media, mostly the national news media based on what outlet they choice to watch which is based by their political world view (i,e. conservative Republican is more likely to watch Foxnews than MSNBC)].

                                The problem I have with "popular opinion" science or whatever you want to call it is what people outside of the scientific community do with it or how it is presented to the general public by outlets such as the media. I would prefer, for example, the media to include the word theory when they mention "man-made climate change." The media has no qualms about using the "t-word" when reporting on evolution, so why can't they throw that in when covering a topic that is slightly younger than the launch of the first weather satellites?

                                Where I have issues is when I see a nationally produced PSA for "The More You Know" on NBC which said, "If you want to stop global warming, then turn off the lights."

                                After the 13 tornadoes touched down in the Dallas Metroplex earlier this month, I heard a soundbite from a NOAA researcher where the scientists used the words "steroids" in reference to CO2 in the atmosphere to say the reason why those early April storms were so ferocious was because CO2 caused them to be stronger than they would've been 50 years ago. Really?!?!?!?

                                I have no issue with consensus between scientists. Again, the whole point of science is to formulate theories and ask questions as a means to figuring out why/what happens to cause events that impact our daily life. I get it. Where I have issue is when those outside the research take a kernel (which very well maybe a of truth) of what the experts say and then transform it/change it/ add too it and all of a sudden you have a huge jumbo sized bucket of popcorn smothered in butter. Sure they're both corn and made from that kernel, but the product has been greatly changed and no longer resembles what the initial research dictates. Although the popcorn sure satisfies the viewer and leaves the viewer wanting more!

                                The link was a good read, but to me was cloaked in veil of arrogance. Again, I think their is no room for arrogance in science. I think science is best served up with an open mind. I love theories even if I don't particularly agree with all theories. I'm all for the best & brightest minds in a field coming together to finding answers on subjects/issues. Where I have an issue is when those outside the "old boys network" or egg-head researchers or men/women with lots of letters after their last name conclude a theory as a proven scientific law and then dumb down the science even more by reporting any cool image of weather someone got on film they (in this case the media) deem as unusual as proof of man-made climate change. When did video of a semi-tractor trailer (which was most likely empty) being blown through the air by a weak eF3 tornado going across a large shipping yard become proof of man-made climate change? It's this kind of "scientific reasoning" by those not in science which I have an enormous problem with.

                                Without very smart people asking questions, we will never come up with answers. Again, I will keep an open mind. I sleep better when all researchers do the same thing and hope the best don't gain too close a focus which could result in ruling out factors which could further advance their research or help to answer the questions they are asking. With all that is out there and the vast amount of variables we still do not know, at this point in time, I am not ready to accept that carbon dioxide produced or released by humans into the atmosphere over the past century is the sole reason why temperatures have recently been on a warming trend. I do not think the IPCC consensus represents some sort of cabal to defraud the public for the personal gain of those framing that consensus. That would be crazier than then folks who wear tinfoil hats. I will agree The very idea of such a conspiracy is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone who knows anything about how science really works. If me wanting concrete proof by accepting a theory to be more than a theory makes me a moron as person laboring under these ignorant delusions, so be it. I'm fine with that. (I would put an example here about the consensus of the best minds in the field of climate research/scientists worried the atmosphere was going to face another, very eminent catastrophic ice age due to mankind's impact on the atmosphere in the 1970s/80s; however, Chuck would counter I just proved his point. Also, I would be adding things into the debate which I do not think should belong in science.)

                                Go science! Go researchers! Ask your questions, create your theories. I guess I should've said, "There is no room for opinions to manipulated, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science," instead of posting, "There is no room for opinion, arrogance, emotion, or name calling in science."

                                After all, no can seriously tell me with a straight face those outside the field of experts doing the research have not used opinion manipulation to push their own agendas on all sides of the issue of man-made climate change from politicians, the media, public, morons, egg-heads, corporations, even some researchers, and so on & so on! I think this manipulation is where the huge issues erupt on the topic of man-made climate change. For example, if the national news is reporting on the scientific aspect of an issue, what the anchor/reporter says about the science should usually not elicit an emotional response from the viewer watching the story.

                                With my open mind, I can see the data which supports anthropogenically forced warming is very strong, I just think there may be even stronger reasons or links.
                                Well said PBB. I've never claimed to be an expert on this topic, and I do like to read papers that come out. But I too grow very weary of the "non experts" on the other side (well, even some experts!) blaming every extreme on climate change. I'm sure we'll hear it from someone about the late-season snow falling in the northeast.

                                I get the "consensus" process. However, the line in the article from Doswell says

                                "No one is making any argument to the effect that the consensus is invariably and inevitably correct."

                                Really? That's how it comes across to me! Isn't that why those of us who have a contrary opinion are called deniers? Isn't that why anyone--including those with a scientific background or even one in climate--are brushed off or even outright attacked and slandered?

                                In the Ozarks, we get rain, snow, and everything in between. We also call it liquid death, white death, etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X