|
|
| Next: Reformating a PS2 HD to NTFS |
| Author |
Message |
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:28 am Post subject: Global Climate Coalition Ignored Its Scientists on Climate |
|
|
Greenhouse Effect
| Quote: |
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was “engaging in a full-court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom-line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.” That panel concluded in 1995 that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
“I’m amazed and astonished,” Dr. Santer said, “that the Global Climate Coalition had in their possession scientific information that substantiated our cautious findings and then chose to suppress that information.” |
This group was formed mainly from Big Oil and the Big Three car manufacturers,
both of which would be affected by legislation to protect us all from climate change,
who had no compunction with hiding the truth on human influence on global climate.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Global Climate Coalition Ignored Its Scientists on Clima [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
Greenhouse Effect
| Quote: |
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was “engaging in a full-court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom-line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.” That panel concluded in 1995 that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
“I’m amazed and astonished,” Dr. Santer said, “that the Global Climate Coalition had in their possession scientific information that substantiated our cautious findings and then chose to suppress that information.” |
This group was formed mainly from Big Oil and the Big Three car manufacturers,
both of which would be affected by legislation to protect us all from climate change,
who had no compunction with hiding the truth on human influence on global climate.
|
And there you have a golden rule of the Liberal Left. If you can't debate them on the facts then find ways to discredit them.
Need I point out that at one time the greatest minds in the world were absoolutely certain that the world was flat and that it was possible to sail off the edge of the world. So much for scientific "fact". I think the fossil and geologic record of our little rock speaks much louder than any so called science from either side of the debate and debunks the whole idea of global warming. But then how are you going to push a Liberal agenda without a good crises to fuel it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Actually, CowpokeBob, what we have here is a continuation of the policy of flame baiting. I hope his time away means that he's here to debate issues instead of trolling, but the smilie makes me doubt it.
Ken, please prove me wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Actually, CowpokeBob, what we have here is a continuation of the policy of flame baiting. I hope his time away means that he's here to debate issues instead of trolling, but the smilie makes me doubt it.
Ken, please prove me wrong. |
There has been so little input from the "other side" (Thanks, Sarge for providing what little there is) that even Ken's laugh provoking flame baits are welcome, as far as I am concerned.
Regarding "climate change": I am not convinced that human activity is or is not causing any significant change. I am more willing to believe that change is occurring, of whatever cause. But I am also convinced of the following:
1. What change does occur, will occur slowly enough that we can adapt.
2. No acceptable change in human behavior (other than returning to the caves, and that is not acceptable) will alter whatever course the climate may choose to follow.
3 If we are to do anything at all, it should be to try to ameliorate problems from any change that might occur: for example, if the oceans are to rise, we need to stop building in low lying areas. This makes sense even without climate change.
4. Wind and solar might be fun to do, but our only long term option is Nuclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:36 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
Actually, CowpokeBob, what we have here is a continuation of the policy of flame baiting. I hope his time away means that he's here to debate issues instead of trolling, but the smilie makes me doubt it.
Ken, please prove me wrong. |
There has been so little input from the "other side" (Thanks, Sarge for providing what little there is) that even Ken's laugh provoking flame baits are welcome, as far as I am concerned.
Regarding "climate change": I am not convinced that human activity is or is not causing any significant change. I am more willing to believe that change is occurring, of whatever cause. But I am also convinced of the following:
1. What change does occur, will occur slowly enough that we can adapt.
2. No acceptable change in human behavior (other than returning to the caves, and that is not acceptable) will alter whatever course the climate may choose to follow.
3 If we are to do anything at all, it should be to try to ameliorate problems from any change that might occur: for example, if the oceans are to rise, we need to stop building in low lying areas. This makes sense even without climate change.
4. Wind and solar might be fun to do, but our only long term option is Nuclear. |
Well said Bern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
The Global Climate Coalition, an advocacy group financed by the oil, c... and au
| Quote: |
The New York Times' Andy Revkin reported Friday that a document filed in a federal lawsuit gives a peek into how the coalition leaders not only ignored their own scientific and technical experts, but also appear to have suppressed a document that soundly rejected the arguments of climate change skeptics.
Here's what the coalition's own scientists said in an internal report compiled in 1995: "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
Here's what the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists, adding only that "scientists differ" on the issue: "The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood." |
Their own scientists "differ"... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
The Global Climate Coalition, an advocacy group financed by the oil, c... and au
| Quote: |
The New York Times' Andy Revkin reported Friday that a document filed in a federal lawsuit gives a peek into how the coalition leaders not only ignored their own scientific and technical experts, but also appear to have suppressed a document that soundly rejected the arguments of climate change skeptics.
Here's what the coalition's own scientists said in an internal report compiled in 1995: "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
Here's what the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists, adding only that "scientists differ" on the issue: "The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood." |
Their own scientists "differ"...
|
| Quote: |
A measure of gorebull warmists' desperation? Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups. (New York Times)
We tend to treat Andy as a loveable global warming flake but this is really quite poor even by his standards (he even quotes moonbat & Benny the Santa).
What really is their major point here? It would seem to be that skeptics are, well, skeptical and do not find uncompelling arguments persuasive. 14 years ago there was no evidence (either way) regarding the quality or lack thereof of the near-surface record (as I recall it even predates Roger Pielke Sr.'s siting concerns). That situation has now changed dramatically with the work of auditors challenging claims of Chinese station analyses disproving urban heat island contamination, Meteorologist Anthony Watt's coordinated and hosted surfacestations.org volunteer audit of the USHCN network and let's not forget the invaluable effort of climateaudit peering under every rock in the paleoclimate reconstructions. Now we know the records are dodgy but back then there was no analysis to show that it was so. Were the situation repeated we could point to lots of evidence and reason to doubt claims of global warming and the issue likely would never have got legs.
With the benefit of hindsight most members of the then coalition standing against the gorebull warming fraud probably now recognize they should have continued to fight for what is right rather than jockeying for an invite to dinner -- not so comfortable now you can see you are actually on the menu, eh guys? Can't say you weren't warned. Oh well, come on home. All is forgiven..... |
Source.
Related.
| Quote: |
Washington, DC -- Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter dismissed New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's April 23, 2009 article “Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate” as “strange, silly even.” Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.”
Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council told Climate Depot his thoughts on Revkin's article on Friday April 24, 2009. Dr. Carter also testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006.
Dr. Carter's Comments on Revkin's NYT Article: Andrew Revkin's latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted”, I'll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990.
My guess is that Revkin -- like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities -- is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December...... |
From link above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General