Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Old 11-29-09, 12:47 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Time again for a new Global Warming Thread. Contrary to alarmist claims, the Earth hasn't warmed up faster than previously thought but the Global Warming Thread has because of Climategate.

So I give you The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate).

With overlap about Climategate between Part 8 and Part 7, I will probably be referring to posts in Part 7 fairly frequently, at least for a while.

Part 7 Here.

Mods, please close Part 7.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 03:25 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Whoa! I took a week off of this discussion because it tends to make my blood boil. Boy did I miss some great stuff. Just caught up, and it is amazing. Hadn't heard a word about it before this. I hope like hell it bites them in the ass. These guys don't deserve to be taken seriously as scientists ever again. Hopefully every time they publish or speak from here on out, people just shake their heads and boo them off the stage.

It's like Milli Vanilli all over again, I tells ya'!
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 09:06 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

He(Prof. Jones) added: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
Then why did they?
arminius is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 10:07 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
Whoa! I took a week off of this discussion because it tends to make my blood boil. Boy did I miss some great stuff. Just caught up, and it is amazing. Hadn't heard a word about it before this. I hope like hell it bites them in the ass. These guys don't deserve to be taken seriously as scientists ever again. Hopefully every time they publish or speak from here on out, people just shake their heads and boo them off the stage.

It's like Milli Vanilli all over again, I tells ya'!
Leave it to you to take that week off.

Sad that you didn't hear about it anywhere else. But believable if you didn't read skeptic sites or watch Fox News. The MSM has been a little better at covering this than they have been for many years (NYT, WaPo, some British newspapers) but obviously has a long, long way to go before environmental writers start resembling real journalists again. Wait, they never have.

At least Milli Vanilli didn't try to pick your pocket for trillions of dollars.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 10:35 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

In Post #722 of the last thread, Prof Willis Eschenbach put together a string of emails to show how the CRU Crew conspired to avoid compliance with FOIA requests. Here, he shows Kevin Trenberth (the CRU Crew member who specializes in phonying the link between CO2 and hurricanes, although this is on a different subject) in action.

Eschenbach says: "I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures."

To summarize, CRU claims temperatures in Northern Europe went up in the early 20th century, down a little from the 40s to the 70s and then very sharply up. Karlen says the data seems to say the late 20th century rise is not so sharp, that it is much like the early 20th century rise and 90s temperatures are no higher than 30s temperatures. Karlen is merely trying to replicate CRUs work and can't.

Trenberth keeps insisting Karlen is wrong, Karlen keeps providing solid evidence he is right.

It's very long and involved so I'll just post the link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...esults-go-bad/

As has been said, there's much more to mine in the vast swamp that is the CRU Crew Papers.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 10:51 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

BBC meteorologist had CRU Crew files a month ago - and sat on them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ow-emails.html

BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 10:00 PM on 28th November 2009

The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.

One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.

Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.

This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘We need to know more about the BBC’s role in this affair. Was Mr Hudson told by the BBC not to use the story?’

It was only after the same emails were published on a blog called Air Vent that Look North climate correspondent Mr Hudson owned up in his own blog to the fact he had also had the material.

In a bizarre twist, he claimed the leak had been triggered by an article he had written that questioned global warming.

Mr Hudson, 38, last night declined to comment. A BBC spokesman said: ‘Paul has nothing to add to what he has already said in his blog.’
If true, the hacker (or whistle blower, or person who found the files sitting on the CRU servers) must have thought Hudson would say something. When he didn't, of course the files were sent somewhere else. Did Hudson think they would just go away?
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 03:14 PM
  #7  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Copenhagen is going to be interesting...

Climate change data dumpedJonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
But just the chance that their derived numbers are correct certainly justifies spending trillions worldwide, doesn't it?
X is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 03:14 PM
  #8  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Copenhagen is going to be interesting...

Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
But just the chance that their derived numbers are correct certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions or trillions worldwide, doesn't it?
X is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 05:58 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by X View Post
Copenhagen is going to be interesting...

But just the chance that their derived numbers are correct certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions or trillions worldwide, doesn't it?
Double post, newbie.

See Post #765, last thread.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 06:13 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Comment on Michael Mann investigation.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...e-investigated

Michael Mann first of climate change scientists to be investigated
November 29, 10:28 AM
Climate Change ExaminerTony Hake

The fallout from the Climategate event continues as one of its primary participants, Dr. Michael Mann, is to be investigated by his employer, Penn State University. Among the more than one thousand emails released on the Internet, Mann featured prominently in many of them oftentimes making rather controversial comments.

Mann serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and has long been one of the more controversial figures in the debate about manmade climate change. He is the author of the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was used by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” but later was proven to be inaccurate.

In a statement (below), the university heralded Mann’s accomplishments calling him “a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty.” It said however that due to the questions raised by the release of the emails, it was going to investigate Mann’s research. “The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised,” the statement said.

The university cited a report from the National Academy of Sciences that determined his reconstruction of data was “sound.” As website Watts Up With That pointed out though, the release did not make mention of a report from Dr. Edward Wegman that provided a different opinion.* Wegman’s report said, “Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. “

The contents of the email and document archive have caused a furor with many calling for investigations into the scientists whose emails were released as well as the very science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory.

Emails from Mann discuss his desire to withhold information from dissenters saying in one message “don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.” In another he similarly asked the scientists not to share information saying, “So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.”

Mann seemed very preoccupied with ensuring no research from skeptics was included in scientific journals. He wrote that, “skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research"” and he felt they should discourage anyone from submitting research to the publication. He also was worried about Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) because they had dared to publish skeptical works saying, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.”
* Just as I said in Post #767, last thread.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 06:46 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

There can be only one response to this (see below, after story).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails

Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman

Rajendra Pachauri says there is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing IPCC's advice, after UAE hacking breach
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 November 2009 17.03 GMT

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Photograph: Jay Directo/AFP/Getty Images

There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

The IPCC, which was set up by the UN in 1988, is the world's leading authority on climate change. It advises governments on the science behind the problem and was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore in 2007.

Pachauri was responding to one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists' intended actions, but said: "I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."

Jones has denied any suggestion that he tried to suppress scientific evidence he disagreed with or that he manipulated data.

Some commentators, including the former chancellor Nigel Lawson and the environmental campaigner and Guardian writer George Monbiot, have called on Jones to resign but Pachauri said he did not agree. He said an independent inquiry into the emails would achieve little, but there should be a criminal investigation into how the emails came to light.

Pachauri said he doubted that trust in the IPCC would be damaged by the affair. "People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind," he said.

He pointed out that five days after the emails were made public, Barack Obama announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.


OK, two responses.


Last edited by movielib; 11-29-09 at 07:00 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 06:48 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 07:30 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Paul Krugman gives Pachauri a run for Alarmist Idiot of the Week.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...openhagen-trip

Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama
By Noel Sheppard
November 29, 2009 - 15:31 ET

ABC's George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the ClimateGate scandal as a topic for discussion during the Roundtable segment on Sunday's "This Week."

As NewsBusters has been reporting since this story broke more than a week ago, television news outlets have been quite disinterested in the controversy now growing with each passing day.

Breaking this trend, Stephanopoulos aggressively waded into this seemingly verboten subject by mentioning how it complicates President Obama's trip to "Copenhagen to deal with climate change."

George Will of course agreed saying that the release of these e-mail messages raises a serious question about why America should "wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven."

Not surprisingly, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found "not a single smoking gun" in those e-mail messages (video in two parts embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary by myself and others involved in this debate):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: And meanwhile, he is also going to be dealing with health care, right now on the floor of the Senate, going he announced this week to Copenhagen to deal with climate change. And it comes at a time when the politics seem to be changing a little bit in this.

Let me show our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It shows whether people believe global warming is occurring. That number is going down. July 2008, 80 percent of the public; down to 72 percent now. And there's been a sort of a real partisanship. Look at Republicans, 74 percent believed global warming was occurring back in 2008. Now, a 20-point drop to 54 percent.

George, there has been a partisanizing of this issue, and then you throw in one more complication we've had over the last week. This Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, someone hacked into their e-mail account and showed a bunch of emails between scientists, which opponents of climate change legislation said proves that they are rigging the science and trying to hide information that runs counter to their theories.

GEORGE WILL: It raises the question of -- we're being asked to wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is, the e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn't be embarrassed about that. It's a complicated business, and that's why we shouldn't wager these trillions.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: All those e-mails -- people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There's not a single smoking gun in there. There's nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1998 was a very warm year doesn't actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that's loose wording. Right? Everything is about -- we're really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there's no trend here. And that's what -- the travesty is how hard it has been to explain why that's bad reasoning.

WILL: One of the emails, Paul, said he wished he could delete, get rid of the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years...

KRUGMAN: It's not -- read -- this has all been explained. What he meant is they want to put a start on it. We have an end to it, we don't have a start on it. There's a lot of loose use of language when you're just talking among each other. And what (inaudible) really meant, deleting would be meant that, you know, we don't know when this thing started, because we don't have very good data back then. There weren't any weather stations. And that's what the context was.

MATTHEW DOWD, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: The interesting thing about this is, which goes back to our previous discussion is, and having done a lot of this polling during the Bush administration, which is when you give people a choice between improving the economy and jobs, and improving the environment, at times of economic prosperity, the numbers for improving environment go above jobs. At a time when there is a recession or at a time when there's a difficulty in the economy, people say let's focus on this, let's not focus on the climate. The best route to passing climate change legislation is creating jobs and then (inaudible).

COKIE ROBERTS: But the difference between that kind of polling and what George just showed in our ABC poll is that -- is that people are not agreeing on the facts. It's not a question of asking about the legislation.

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: If they want to go to a different position, they have a tendency to then doubt...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's what might be happening here, is people who are opposed to cap-and-trade are changing their minds on global warming.

(CROSSTALK)

DAN SENOR, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: In June of this year, the House voted, close vote on cap- and-trade, 219 to 212 votes. One out of five congressional Democrats voted against the cap-and-trade bill. If that vote were held today, against the backdrop of this news, plus even worse economic numbers to Matt's point, I guarantee you'd probably have two-five and probably lose those eight Republicans.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: Nancy Pelosi was very clever to get that in her pocket when she could.

ROBERTS: But for the president to then be going to Copenhagen with all of this going on, becomes somewhat problematic for him, I think.

WILL: But what I was going to say there is that the United States pledges to reduce its carbon emissions 83 percent below the 2005. That will not even be seriously attempted, and here is why. That would mean we would have total carbon emissions equal to the United States in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. Furthermore, our per-capita carbon emissions in 2050, when he says this is going to happen, when there's going to be 420 million Americans, would be on a per-capita basis what we had in 1875.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He may face a credibility problem as well. I mean, I think the issue is, I think the president had to go to Copenhagen. It was the only way to get the Indians and the Chinese to go as well. But, Paul, as he goes, he'll be making a commitment that he can't necessarily keep unless the Senate follows through.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: Everyone understands that. And I just want to say, I'm surprised, George, that you lack faith in the power of the marketplace. All this cap-and-trade is about is putting a price on carbon emissions, and people will do amazing things given a market incentive.

WILL: Speaking of the marketplace, the biggest industry in the world right now may be fighting climate change. There are billions, trillions of dollars on the table, and when you say, well, they are academics and they are scientists and they talk in funny ways -- academics are human beings, and the enormous incentive to get on the bandwagon on global warming, the financial incentive, the market driving this, is huge.

KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.

WILL: Hardly.

KRUGMAN: It's so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry's behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.

(CROSSTALK)

WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?

ROBERTS: But I think that's something that the American people want. I mean, we want green jobs. We don't want to see those polar bears on those ice floes without any ice around them. All of that. I think, coming up with ways to have the energy that we use without causing global warming and polluting the air is something that is something desirable.

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: I agree, the public wants that. But if Uncle Joe doesn't have a job, they say let's -- don't worry about the polar bears right now.

(LAUGHTER)
Readers likely began laughing when Krugman said with a straight face:
There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter...It's so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry's behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.
Skeptics get almost equal time in the media? Yeah, that's why this appears to be the first time ABC addressed this ClimateGate issue.

As for there being more money in being a skeptic than there is in supporting this myth, the facts say otherwise.

The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, "Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion."

By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman "Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics."

As usual, Krugman was making things up.

Of course, those outside of Nobel awards committees that are truly familiar with his work know that Krugman quite often strays from reality when the agenda warrants it.

Regardless, it was indeed surprising and quite pleasant to see Stephanopoulos bring ClimateGate up for discussion Sunday.

I wonder if this means more news outlets are going to start honestly looking at this issue.

Stay tuned.
The cluelessness is breathtaking. No obvious falsehood is too crazy to be uttered by these would be dictators who would bankrupt you for a tenth of a degree.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 09:20 PM
  #14  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,726
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Care to elaborate on these falsehoods?
Brack is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 09:56 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

movielib knows more about this subject than anyone on this forum, IMO.

I know very little.

Therefore, I tend to believe what he says.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 10:21 PM
  #16  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,726
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Well then, it's a good thing I don't rely solely on the DVDtalk politics forum for my global warming news. It's not hard to tell he has a pretty one-track mind when it comes to this discussion. Hence, why hardly anyone but him bothers to even post in this blog...oh I'm sorry, "thread."
Brack is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 10:43 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Michael T Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as "BigDaddy"/Austin, TX
Posts: 11,370
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by Brack View Post
Well then, it's a good thing I don't rely solely on the DVDtalk politics forum for my global warming news. It's not hard to tell he has a pretty one-track mind when it comes to this discussion. Hence, why hardly anyone but him bothers to even post in this blog...oh I'm sorry, "thread."


Feel free to offer a rebuttal.
Michael T Hudson is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:04 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by Brack View Post
Care to elaborate on these falsehoods?
I've been posting plenty of evidence of the falsehoods for years. There are tons of elaboration. Just read some of the threads.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:07 PM
  #19  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,726
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by BigDaddy View Post
Feel free to offer a rebuttal.
What is there to rebut? I figured I'd ask movielib a question, considering he doesn't do much speaking for himself. Is there actual discussion in one of the many threads here about global warming? All I usually see is movielib posting links/pics and quotes from those links, and him saying how stupid the people who either wrote or are the subjects of the articles. If I wanted to waste my time posting link after link, I guess I could do that.
Brack is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:09 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by Brack View Post
What is there to rebut? I figured I'd ask movielib a question, considering he doesn't do much speaking for himself. Is there actual discussion in one of the many threads here are about global warming? All I usually see is movielib posting links/pics and quotes from those links, and him saying how stupid the people who either wrote or are the subjects of the articles. If I wanted to waste my time posting link after link, I guess I could do that.
Yes, usually links and quotes are a way to get a subject started. But if you think I never offer commentary and argument myself you haven't been reading.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:10 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,910
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

If you're relying on the MSM for your global warming news then you are definitely receiving a one track message.

wishbone is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:18 PM
  #22  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,726
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I've been posting plenty of evidence of the falsehoods for years. There are tons of elaboration. Just read some of the threads.
I meant specifically about the thread above where I replied. You don't think the source you quoted/posted is even a teensy bit one-sided? You really believe only Exxon Mobil has funded global warming skeptics?, as The Science and Public Policy Institute suggests, which is a global warming skeptics group?
Brack is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:23 PM
  #23  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,726
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Yes, usually links and quotes are a way to get a subject started. But if you think I never offer commentary and argument myself you haven't been reading.
Considering I don't post what I'm thinking, but actual words, I never said you never offered commentary or arguments, just that they're pretty one-sided and slim, compared to most of the threads on this board. I just find your continuation and dedication to this thread fascinating.

Last edited by Brack; 11-29-09 at 11:53 PM.
Brack is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:37 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,525
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Comment on Michael Mann investigation.
An investigation seems like overkill. I wasn't the biggest fan of Hancock or Miami Vice, but I think Heat, Ali, the Insider, and Public Enemies more than make up for the flaws in the former movies.
JasonF is offline  
Old 11-29-09, 11:54 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 8 (now fortified with Climategate)

Originally Posted by Brack View Post
I meant specifically about the thread above where I replied. You don't think the source you quoted/posted is even a teensy bit one-sided? You really believe only Exxon Mobil has funded global warming skeptics?, as The Science and Public Policy Institute suggests, which is a global warming skeptics group?
No, I don't think only Exxon has funded skeptics. Do you think only the US government has funded alarmists (who get virtually all the funding). The numbers there are about $79 billion to $23 million [Edit: typo saying $23 billion corrected].

It's also true that many industries (including many energy industries Krugman claims are funding skeptics) are on the global warming cap and trade bandwagon. See this admittedly biased site:

http://junkscience.com/Wanted/

Hell, Enron (at least partially) invented cap and trade.

And then there are at least tens of millions from environmental groups every year.

The "funding gap" ratio, as far as I have been able to tell is 1000s to 1. The thing is, the alarmists never deny these figures, they just talk about "Exxon funding" (which isn't even happening any more) and hope no one will ask any further inconvenient questions.

Phil Jones alone has gotten about as much funding as everything Exxon has ever paid out. See this biased site:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Phil_Jones_has_collected_$22_million_in_grants.htm

which got it from the CRU files which have been admitted to be true.

The "funding gap" ratio, as far as I can tell, is about 1000 to 1.

And yes, the source in Post #13 is biased. Unlike RealClimate, ClimateProgress and all the other alarmist sites. What matters, however, is if what they say is true.

The reason I didn't elaborate on Krugman's assertions is that I (and others) have made dozens of posts on this subject. Those who follow the threads (or blog if you prefer, I'm fine with that) know this. I'm not going to repeat everything that has been previously posted on a subject every time that particular subject comes up.

If you really think Krugman is right that skeptics get "tremendously more money" than alarmists and/or that skeptics "get almost equal time in the media" I welcome your evidence.

Last edited by movielib; 11-30-09 at 02:40 AM.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.