16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[canada-man]

Climate Alarmism and the Muzzling of Independent Science

This Friday (Earth Day and Lenin’s Birthday) President Obama will sign the Paris Agreement, supposedly to control global climate. Last week, the attorney general of a tax shelter – the US Virgin Islands -- subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This was part of a campaign to intimidate climate realists and to shake down, and possibly shut down, the energy industry. The campaign was launched by a number of Democrat Attorneys General and Al Gore, colluding with trial lawyers and other special interests, under the guise of investigating ExxonMobil. As bizarre as these moves are, they are just an escalation of 30 years of persecuting distinguished scientists who disagreed with Al Gore’s climate change fantasies.

Scientific research is supported by private industry, governments, universities (largely government dependent) or some combination of the three. Before Gore’s tenure as vice president, the majority of scientists with some knowledge of the subject firmly rejected climate alarmism. During his two terms almost in the White House, Al Gore and the academic liberals executed a quiet purge. They packed the scientific establishment with environmentalists, defunded inconvenient research fields, removed distinguished scientists, and bullied others into silence or equivocation. Huge budgets allocated to climate studies (even before Gore) produced hordes of worthless PhDs, incapable of making a living outside of climate alarmism. But a large segment of scientists and professionals versed in science are independent in a free society, deriving their income from private business. Al Gore and other climate alarmists had a problem.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ing_of_independent_science.html#ixzz46VOffNk1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's an interesting article in American Thinker.

At this point, I stand by my view that the alarmists are overplaying their hand. Even people who support the man-made climate change hypothesis can understand that you don't treat science as religious orthodoxy.

To repeat something that was in one of the National Review articles, prosecuting opinions that some feel aren't sufficiently alarmist has actually made ExxonMobil a sympathetic victim.

 

[**Sophie**]

I

 

[fuji]

The only ones approaching this from a religious, faith based perspective here are you, MF, along with CM.

The two of you think that if you repeat your dogmatic mantra over and over that is an argument. You reject actual science. You avoid statistical analysis and make anecdotal arguments. You cherry pick years to deny trends that are clear in any proper analysis--claiming there was no warming by comparing the hottest year in the last decade to the present, rather then rolling averages.

Meanwhile there's very clear evidence that the planet is earning and that human activity is a major factor in that warming.

 

[canada-man]

The only ones approaching this from a religious, faith based perspective here are you, MF, along with CM.

pot meets kettle everytime somebody here refute your leftist liberal claims with evidence you refuse to read and look at them.

The two of you think that if you repeat your dogmatic mantra over and over that is an argument. You reject actual science. You avoid statistical analysis and make anecdotal arguments. You cherry pick years to deny trends that are clear in any proper analysis--claiming there was no warming by comparing the hottest year in the last decade to the present, rather then rolling averages.

pot meets kettle again an example is the latest claim that climate change slows he rotation of the earth. I and sophie provide news stories going back to 2007 where different articles contradict each other where some say it slows rotation others say it speeds up rotation. you ignore the contradictions. somebody who believes that climate affects the earth rotation and believe computer models which are not evidence and can be manipulated have no right to accuse others of ignoring science

 

[Frankfooter]

I'll keep saying it: I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

As for the stagnant temperatures in 21st century, that isn't disputed by serious people who understand the data.

Two lies in one post, up to your usual weasel tricks.
I think I may have to amend my diagnosis of Dunning-Kruger effect. Nobody could be so stupid as to repeatedly post a chart and claim something that the authors of the study directly state is not the finding of their study. That takes a lying weasel, to keep posting the same lies in the face of repeated proof that you are wrong.

Lie #1:

I never made such a math equation, nor would I.
References to those numbers are irrelevant to the bet.

Lie # 2:

Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

Still lying your face off, eh weasel?

 

[Frankfooter]

And more states are joining into the investigations into Exxon.

ExxonMobil climate change cover-up probe to expand as 17 AGs join NY to tackle fossil fuel firms

https://www.rt.com/usa/337698-exxonmobil-lawsuit-climate-change/

Now lets go back to this chart, which uses data from Exxon's own research and compares it with the findings of the IPCC and the reality as measured.
It gives confirmation that free market research has found exactly the same results as publicly funded research. So not only are 97% of climatologists supporting this work, but its also the case that the free market research has found the same to be true.

And as further comparison, lets take a look at the research funded by the Koch Brothers.

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Basically all research has found anthropogenic climate change to be real.

All the deniers have left are the crackpots and the disinformation funded by Exxon and their ilk, which is turning into a liability very fast.

 

[**Sophie**]

 

[FAST]

I think somebody here got hit in the head by some Mann with a HOCKEY STICK,...and hasn't recovered.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

There, Sophie.
I replaced your chart with one that uses legit data.
Note that there are no temperature swings since the '70's.
Your chart is very weird, no scale, claims it goes to 2040, includes faulty data on the little ice age.....

 

[basketcase]

No but the magnetic poles have a lot to do with climate change and according to nasa:
....

So then C-M's excuse is BS?


And NASA says nothing about magnetic pole migration warming the earth.

That fringe author you linked does say that but that is hardly an opinion that has much support in the scientific community.

 

[**Sophie**]

There, Sophie.
I replaced your chart with one that uses legit data.
Note that there are no temperature swings since the '70's.
Your chart is very weird, no scale, claims it goes to 2040, includes faulty data on the little ice age.....

okay can you show me a graph that shows the historic global temperatures since the last ice age then?? Not one that only consists of data from 1880- to current please

 

[**Sophie**]

So then C-M's excuse is BS?


And NASA says nothing about magnetic pole migration warming the earth.

That fringe author you linked does say that but that is hardly an opinion that has much support in the scientific community.

No, he is in part correct it's a small fraction of a much bigger picture. As it has been said throughout this thread climate change consists of many factors and for us to think that we are so important that we can change and direct the global temperatures of earth is ludicrous and pompous. Look at the whole history of earth not just the cherry picked data everyone likes to quote.

I cant find the link for nasa right now but I will find it for you.

Did you take a look at the graph showing you how minimal our contribution in CO2 is in the grand scheme of things?

 

[basketcase]

No, he is in part correct but as it has been said through this thread global warming included many factors and for us to think that we are so important that we can change and direct the weather is ludicrous and pompous. Look at the whole history of earth not just the cherry picked data everyone likes to quote.

I cant find the link for nasa right now but I will find it for you ok.

Of course there are many factors affecting climate. The story discussed is that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role. The scientific community does debate to what extent it effects it but very very few deny it has a significant impact. More importantly, we cant do anything about solar variation or changes to the Earths magnetic field. Even if that accounted for 80% of all climate change we can do nothing about it while we can make significant changes to the amount of CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses we contribute.


And of course C-M's excuse is BS. El Nino/La Nina do have an impact on temperatures for some years but in the last 15 years we have gone through several cycles of them but all of those years are still in the 15 hottest years measured.

 

[canada-man]

from 1400BC to 600bc There was a period called the Bronze Age collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

 

[Moviefan-2]

You avoid statistical analysis and make anecdotal arguments. You cherry pick years to deny trends that are clear in any proper analysis--claiming there was no warming by comparing the hottest year in the last decade to the present, rather then rolling averages.

The graph below appeared in Nature and was part of an article by climate researchers -- including some lead IPCC authors -- confirming there was a significant mismatch between what was predicted and the temperature trends that were actually observed in the 21st century.

The graph wasn't created by me, nor is there anything in the graph to support your "cherry pick" rubbish.

Prior to the recent El Nino, the temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant and nowhere near what the IPCC predicted. That's what the observed results show -- there's nothing anecdotal about it.

 

[Frankfooter]

The graph below appeared in Nature and was part of an article by climate researchers -- including some lead IPCC authors -- confirming there was a significant mismatch between what was predicted and the temperature trends that were actually observed in the 21st century.

That is not what the paper stated, once again.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

Here's an updated chart from the IPCC's AR5, with data up until Feb 22, 2016.

2015's numbers put the measurements of reality almost spot on the median projection.
Right on the money.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That is not what the paper stated, once again.

Yes, it is. The Mann quote you cited has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's an updated chart from the IPCC's AR5, with data up until Feb 22, 2016.

Nice try.

The IPCC said in its AR5 report that it is now using CMIP5 to calculate the average of the model runs.

(By the way, when you discount the super El Nino, that graph you posted shows the Earth's temperature was stagnant to the end of 2014 and the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong. Well done. :thumb

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try.

The IPCC said in its AR5 report that it is now using CMIP5 to calculate the average of the model runs.

Ok, if you prefer (though bishop always whines when I use CMIP5, there's no pleasing some people...)
From Gavin Schmidt.

Another chart with 2015 smack dab in the middle of the (forcings adjusted) mean.
Spectacularly accurate, as you are want to say.