Climate of Doubt - PBS

[InRareForm]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

:wakeup

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

Pew polls that more people believe the claimate is warming. The oilco's have moved there strat now from is it happening to its not us that is doing it.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, most people do believe the climate is warming. More are believing than before that it is more natural rather than anthropogenic however.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

After the last thread you'd think you'd just learn to shut up about the subject.

[DMC]

It doesn't matter what most people believe is happening. Hell, most people believe an invisible sky daddy has their backs. All that matters are the facts.

[baseline bum]

It doesn't matter what most people believe is happening. Hell, most people believe an invisible sky daddy has their backs. All that matters are the facts.

:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, most people do believe the climate is warming. More are believing than before that it is more natural rather than anthropogenic however.

That's not what my link says and you should take Manny's advice.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

After the last thread you'd think you'd just learn to shut up about the subject.

You think you won that?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You think you won that?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Let's try this again.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that WC knows what he is talking about in regards to global warming instead of being an idiot that googles things and acts like he has any clue what he is talking about? Anyone not think WC is an idiot?

[Wild Cobra]

Let's try this again.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that WC knows what he is talking about in regards to global warming instead of being an idiot that googles things and acts like he has any clue what he is talking about? Anyone not think WC is an idiot?
I exposed fault in the simple model in the other thread. When it comes to radiative forcing, it is closer to what I have been saying. Then, like I said before, the nonlinear aspect I was leaving out works to support my contention. That is water vapor. As for the nonlinear aspect of that model, those calculation cancel themselves out. Upward fourth power cancels downward fourth power.

Remember. I was only speaking in terms of radiative forcing and atmospheric temperatures. Not actual surface temperatures. It is obvious you haven't figured out the actual dynamics of that simple model. Notice how Manny left the discussion after I pointed out how the H2O feedback isn't properly represented in it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I exposed fault in the simple model in the other thread. When it comes to radiative forcing, it is closer to what I have been saying. Then, like I said before, the nonlinear aspect I was leaving out works to support my contention. That is water vapor. As for the nonlinear aspect of that model, those calculation cancel themselves out. Upward fourth power cancels downward fourth power.

Remember. I was only speaking in terms of radiative forcing and atmospheric temperatures. Not actual surface temperatures. It is obvious you haven't figured out the actual dynamics of that simple model. Notice how Manny left the discussion after I pointed out how the H2O feedback isn't properly represented in it?

You built a strawman and now you misunderstand exponentials. Which is greater, dimwit? 2^4 or 3^4. What do cancel mean?

:lol properly. he didn't leave he posted multiple equations for atmospheric and land temperatures from some of the greatest universities in the country. But hey you have wikipedia.

:lol linear. so again in your own words tell us what logaritmic means? now go ahead call me a troll and in doing so demonstrate you have no the slightest notions of what you are talking about. you parrot wikipedia or the top google search results, monkey, we all know it

You don't fool anyone, dimwit.

[Wild Cobra]

Their you go again Fuzzy with your stupidity.

When the values are so far off, like your 3 being 50% greater than the two, then we lose all meaning of "near linear" when we convert back to upward radiation.

When the approximate average of almost 500 watts/sq meter that is absorbed by the earth and turned to heat, only about 1 watt/sq meter is not reemitted as the oceans warm in the current imbalance. Maybe 2. It's pretty insignificant for models with only 2 or 3 significant digits of accuracy to try to factor in such a small change. It stay very near to linear. You need four significant digits to see change at those levels.

Do you understand significant digits, and why in some cases I am not bothering with unneeded complexity?

Logarithmic? In my own words?

No thanks. You wouldn't understand my explanation sine you can't look it up on the internet, so I will give you an internet answer:

Wiki: Logarithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't understand your explanation? You don't even understand dependent and independent variables. Every time I read you write '4th order' I just rolls my eyes. What variable are we varying and which one are we viewing the output? You clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about. You parrot other people's stuff.


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

That quote sums you up perfectly.

You keep on babbling about linearity and claim its based on a log. I ask you waht you think a log is because you should justify what you are saying. You never do that tou just dissemble into this stupidity as you always do. What I am getting at is what is the nature of a log function? What is it's base ie an exponential, base 10 or what and most importantly what is the function and initial conditions and/or variance such that you can justify it being 'nearly linear.'

It's obvious you are parroting bullshit you are reading off the internet and it becomes abundantly clear when you are questioned on the subject. These are very basic questions that you should be able to answer if you are going to talk about how you are modeling a system. You cannot even explain a simple logarithm. I'll help it has to do with order's, a base and a variable. You will note the keywords are all tied into the nonsense you are spewing.

You are a simpleton fool with no shame.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe because I didn't say "fourth order..."

I see you are throwing more shit and hoping it will stick.

Why don't you just admit, you don't understand and you don't even try to understand. Your goal is to troll.

[DarrinS]

So, instead of investigating the strengths/weaknesses of climate science, they're going to do some half-assed "expose" of AEI and Heartland?

I think they missed a good opportunity.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/press-release-19/




HOW THE SKEPTICS CHANGED THE GAME ON CLIMATE CHANGE:

INSIDE THE REMARKABLE TURNAROUND THAT CHANGED PUBLIC OPINION AND THE U.S. POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

FRONTLINE presents
Climate of Doubt

Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 10 P.M. ET on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/climate-of-doubt
www.facebook.com/frontline
Twitter: @frontlinepbs #frontline

Four years ago, the presidential candidates agreed that climate change was a critical issue demanding urgent attention. But that national call to action has disappeared and in the past four years public opinion on the climate issue has cooled. This election cycle, the presidential candidates barely discuss climate change. And new studies find that only about half of Americans believe global warming is caused by human activity. What’s behind this dramatic reversal? In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry of PRI’s The Takeaway explores the inner workings of the movement that changed the debate on climate change.

In numerous interviews that took him across the country, Hockenberry discovers how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus. Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity, explains how the movement was able to find a voice and gain momentum as the economy failed, “We got up a hot-air balloon, put a banner on the side of it that said, cap-and-trade means higher taxes, lost jobs, less freedom. And we went all over the country doing events and stirring up grassroots anger and frustration, concern.”

Climate of Doubt describes the individuals and groups behind an organized effort to attack science by undermining scientists, and to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, says, “I fully expect that after this program airs I’ll get another FOIA request for all of my emails with you. And you know, I’ll just deal with that. As a climate scientist, I think a lot about the future. It goes with the job. And I want to make sure that in 50 years or 100 years or 200 years, nobody could ever say we didn’t warn them.”

FRONTLINE also investigates the funding that powers the skeptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes. Hockenberry finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological, and less public, sources. According to Robert Brulle, a sociologist studying the funding patterns of these groups, “The major funders of the climate counter-movement are ideologically driven foundations that are very much concerned about conservative values and world views.”

[MannyIsGod]

Frontline is probably the best journalism show on TV. I am really looking forward to this show.

[DarrinS]

Frontline is probably the best journalism show on TV. I am really looking forward to this show.


What do you think of their premise?


Do you really think these two think tanks are responsible for such a large change in public opinion on the subject. I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland.

[boutons_deux]

"I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland."

I agree, and I'm very sorry :lol

The carbon, etc corporations have $Bs to hire whore scientists, professors, Fox Repug, etc, etc to spew their lies and propaganda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm just glad the intellectual community is deciding that it's time to push back against stupid. It's not 1616 but stupid would very much so like it to be.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland.

Isn't that the point of a news show?

[boutons_deux]

Isn't that the point of a news show?

I haven't seen it, yet. If the entire AGW denial strategy is blamed on those two stink tanks, then that's bullshit. I don't think PBS would put out such bullshit.

Heartland would spew to the Bible-thumpers, anti-choicers, and marans while AEI would spew to other VRWC stink tanks and the business community. hardly covering the entire USA.

[DarrinS]

Isn't that the point of a news show?


If very few people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland, then how could they "undermine public acceptance".




In numerous interviews that took him across the country, Hockenberry discovers how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.

[DarrinS]

Or, perhaps the case for catastrophic climate change isn't very strong.

[MannyIsGod]

What do you think of their premise?


Do you really think these two think tanks are responsible for such a large change in public opinion on the subject. I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland.

I don't see the logic behind your thought process at all. Because people wouldn't be able to identify the think tanks behind the framework of dishonest skeptics they can'at be behind it? I don't know if thats the case or not but I don't get your point at all. I'll reserve judgement until I see it.

[MannyIsGod]

If very few people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland, then how could they "undermine public acceptance".

I could give you hundreds of examples where people are affected by someone they don't know exists.

[MannyIsGod]

Or, perhaps the case for catastrophic climate change isn't very strong.

We know the case for anthropogenic climate change to be a very strong one so nope. But in any event, watch the show before you tell us how wrong they are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If very few people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland, then how could they "undermine public acceptance".

By funding pundits, creating commercials and otherwise being politically active in DC.

This is not a hard concept. I am sure that most people have not heard of ALEC. Are you trying to say that they are not influential? I would argue that since they have written legislature in every single state that they are the most influential political lobby out there.

[DarrinS]

We know the case for anthropogenic climate change to be a very strong one so nope.


If it is, then why has public opinion changed?




But in any event, watch the show before you tell us how wrong they are.


I'll watch, but it is apparent from the description of the show that they have already made up their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it is, then why has public opinion changed?




I'll watch, but it is apparent from the description of the show that they have already made up their mind.

You've already made up your mind. Well at least since you changed your position from 'it's not warming' to 'it's not us that's causing it.'


The percentage of Americans saying there is solid evidence of global warming has steadily increased over the past few years. Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009.

Similarly, an increasing proportion say that the rise in the earth's temperature has mostly been caused by human activity. Currently, 42% say the warming is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, while 19% say it is mostly caused by natural patterns in the earth's environment. Last year, 38% mostly attributed global warming to human activity and in 2010 34% did so.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2388/global-warming-climate-change-solid-evidence-human-activity-earth-warmer

[DarrinS]

[QUOTE=FuzzyLumpkins;6155213]You've already made up your mind. Well at least since you changed your position from 'it's not warming' to 'it's not us that's causing it.'

straw and straw

I don't hold either of those positions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've already made up your mind. Well at least since you changed your position from 'it's not warming' to 'it's not us that's causing it.'

straw and straw

I don't hold either of those positions.

No shit you no longer hold thr first. I remember your hockey stick posts from back in the day though.

So your saying that the human contribution is insignificant? Or are you saying that it is benign and/or good.

[DarrinS]

No shit you no longer hold thr first. I remember your hockey stick posts from back in the day though.

So your saying that the human contribution is insignificant? Or are you saying that it is benign and/or good.



The Hockey Stick was always bogus. They don't even use that graph anymore -- at least not the version that was given such prominence in the 2001 IPCC report.


I don't know how significant human contribution is compared to natural variation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then my original point still stands you are on the 'we cannot be sure it's us' so we shouldn't do anything tip. I also remember your charts from just last year where you were saying it hasn't warmed in ten years. Bottom line is that you are about on the level of Romney in changing your positions. You don't argue empirically. You argue for a desired outcome.

[MannyIsGod]

If it is, then why has public opinion changed?




I'll watch, but it is apparent from the description of the show that they have already made up their mind.

:lmao

So you would expect the show to change after its been filmed and investigated? WTF? I'm literally LOLing.

[Winehole23]

I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland.I've heard of both, and I don't really have a horse in this race.

[Winehole23]

AEI is hardly obscure. Relentlessly flacked in the Right Blogistan and even holds a regular chair on the Diane Rehm show.

[Winehole23]

Hell, I've probably posted five things from AEI here. Bet you haven't, D.

[boutons_deux]

Heartland Calls Wahhmbulance, Anticipates PBS Frontline will Report Truth Tonight (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/23/1076851/heartland-calls-wahhmbulance-anticipates-pbs-frontline-will-report-truth-tonight/)


Heartland screed as follows:
On Tuesday, October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program will broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/%20).” It promises to go “inside the organizations” that helped turn the tide of public opinion, and then of elected officials, away from excessive concern over the possible threat of man-made global warming.

The Heartland Institute is likely to be a central figure in this program as we welcomed “Frontline” producer Catherine Upin and her crew to our Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (http://climateconferences.heartland.org/) in Chicago in May. Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor also gave a three-hour interview to the film crew in August. Earlier this year, The Economist called Heartland “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience both with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither. Several Heartland staff will be watching the program and commenting live via Twitter (https://twitter.com/HeartlandInst%20) and on our blog, Somewhat Reasonable (http://blog.heartland.org/).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/23/1076851/heartland-calls-wahhmbulance-anticipates-pbs-frontline-will-report-truth-tonight/

[DarrinS]

AEI and Heartland are so powerful that they managed to get both Obama and Romney to say squat about climate change in the debates.

Al Gore is crying, but at least he made his 100 million.

[MannyIsGod]

Sitting down to watch the episode now.

[DarrinS]

Sitting down to watch the episode now.

I'm betting they'll never do a show on the IPCC.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL they just talked about Darrin's favorite method of cherry picking 10 year periods out of context.

[MannyIsGod]

Now they're talking about Darrin's second favorite topic: Climategate.

I can now understand why you were so butthurt about this episode before you saw it, Darrin. You were right to be worried. :tu

[baseline bum]

LOL they just talked about Darrin's favorite method of cherry picking 10 year periods out of context.

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A trend of contemporaries unwilling to consider the consequences of their actions and the effect that will have on their legacy to their children and their children's children. Sounds like a familiar refrain. At least it is from my point of view.

[Wild Cobra]

If anyone is interested, I just started watching the program.

[Jacob1983]

What if climate change is natural and human kind has had a minimal part in it? Why does climate change have to be man made and gloom and doom? Why do people want The Day After Tomorrow to happen?

[Wild Cobra]

Finished watching it.

Now I'm even more for banning all government funds to PBS. Talk about an unsubstantiated hit piece. It was clearly one sided.

[Wild Cobra]

Heartland Calls Wahhmbulance, Anticipates PBS Frontline will Report Truth Tonight (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/23/1076851/heartland-calls-wahhmbulance-anticipates-pbs-frontline-will-report-truth-tonight/)

You just love repeating other people's lies, don't you?

Heartland Institute Anticipates Unfair Treatment in Tonight’s PBS Frontline Special ‘Climate of Doubt’ (http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/10/23/heartland-institute-anticipates-unfair-treatment-tonights-pbs-frontline--0). A paragraph:


We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience both with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither. Several Heartland staff will be watching the program and commenting live via Twitter and on our blog, Somewhat Reasonable (http://blog.heartland.org/).

[InRareForm]

Great episode.

[baseline bum]

Great episode.

Always is with Frontline; by far the best political programming in this nation (which admittedly isn't saying much, but Frontline is outstanding).

[boutons_deux]

"We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience"

iow, we hope PBS promotes OUR inaccurate, biased, prejudiced, slandering, bullshit, lies and hate, but they won't.

[DarrinS]

Did they talk to any former IPCC scientists who are skeptics?

[InRareForm]

Well no shit it was one sided.. from the start they explained what the show was about. A viewpoint shifting from everyone being convinced to suddenly why there is suddenly doubt (and who brought the doubt)

The show's premise wasn't " is global warming real and presenting their case"?. It was mainly who is in the game and recapped the boxscore of the past 8 years tbh..

[SnakeBoy]

Finished watching it.

Now I'm even more for banning all government funds to PBS. Talk about an unsubstantiated hit piece. It was clearly one sided.

I just finished watching too. I don't see how you think it was a hit piece. The topic was how the AGW activist camp has had their ass handed to them. In that respect it was well documented.

[Th'Pusher]

I just finished watching too. I don't see how you think it was a hit piece. The topic was how the AGW activist camp has had their ass handed to them. In that respect it was well documented.
I have yet to watch the piece, but how did AEI and Hardland go about handing the AGW activist camp their ass to them?

[Wild Cobra]

I just finished watching too. I don't see how you think it was a hit piece. The topic was how the AGW activist camp has had their ass handed to them. In that respect it was well documented.
All from the perspective that AGW as the primary reason for Global Warning was 100% real.

[RandomGuy]

Let's try this again.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that WC knows what he is talking about in regards to global warming instead of being an idiot that googles things and acts like he has any clue what he is talking about? Anyone not think WC is an idiot?

uhiCFdWeQfA

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All from the perspective that AGW as the primary reason for Global Warning was 100% real.

It said that 97% of scientist polled agreed that climate was warming and that humans were a significant contributors. It never discussed the science, dimwit. The closest they got was in reference to sea level rise and North Carolina but even that was about the politics and segued into their discussion of how GOP policymakers were afraid to even discuss the topic.

The piece was not about the science. It was about the denier movement, its organizers, and methods. The interview with the head of American's for Prosperity was especially candid. The point that should have been drawn from watching the program and from the interviews was that the science was the secondary concern. Time and again the heads of the foundations stated their concerns were with leftist take over guised as environmental concern or over the idea of regulations.

I'm not surprised that you missed the entire point of the piece.

[boutons_deux]

Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/big5oil-300x225.jpeg



$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E01&cycle=2012) from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=E01) of its near $50 million in contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.

Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=all), particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/472061/fact-check-americans-for-prosperity-announces-61-million-ad-buy-to-push-totally-false-green-jobs-claims/) claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/obama-administration-seeks-credit-for-increase-domestic-oil-production/) that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/17/1031891/fact-check-romney-is-wrong-about-energy-development-on-public-lands/), since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-20-million-acres-of-federal-oil-gas-leases-in-gulf-of-mexico-idle/2012/10/22/d764031a-1c47-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html) of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/28/453894/debunking-american-petroleum-institute-claims-about-oil-issues/) Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.


Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/19/1045661/koch-group-campaigns-to-make-wind-tax-credit-so-toxic-republicans-wont-back-it/) it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of record-breaking profits.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/

[SnakeBoy]

All from the perspective that AGW as the primary reason for Global Warning was 100% real.

That wasn't the point of the show, as Fuzzy said. The bias that I saw was that it only focused on the tactics of the anti agw crowd that won the argument when they could have also talked about the scare tactics the agw alarmists used to promote their agenda. By using untrue doomsday scare tactics, I think the alarmists did as much to kill their own goal as these opposing groups did.

[DarrinS]

Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/big5oil-300x225.jpeg



$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=E01&cycle=2012) from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=E01) of its near $50 million in contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.

Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=all), particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/472061/fact-check-americans-for-prosperity-announces-61-million-ad-buy-to-push-totally-false-green-jobs-claims/) claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/obama-administration-seeks-credit-for-increase-domestic-oil-production/) that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/17/1031891/fact-check-romney-is-wrong-about-energy-development-on-public-lands/), since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-20-million-acres-of-federal-oil-gas-leases-in-gulf-of-mexico-idle/2012/10/22/d764031a-1c47-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html) of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/28/453894/debunking-american-petroleum-institute-claims-about-oil-issues/) Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.


Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/19/1045661/koch-group-campaigns-to-make-wind-tax-credit-so-toxic-republicans-wont-back-it/) it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of record-breaking profits.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/24/1064231/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-to-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy/






http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/

Did you even watch the work? Donor's Trust ring a bell?

[MannyIsGod]

That wasn't the point of the show, as Fuzzy said. The bias that I saw was that it only focused on the tactics of the anti agw crowd that won the argument when they could have also talked about the scare tactics the agw alarmists used to promote their agenda. By using untrue doomsday scare tactics, I think the alarmists did as much to kill their own goal as these opposing groups did.

Can you provide me with some proof that there is an organized campaign meant to scare people with the scenarios you describe?

[SnakeBoy]

Can you provide me with some proof that there is an organized campaign meant to scare people with the scenarios you describe?

Manny there are decades of evidence the over the top scare tactics from the left. If you want to nit pick about whether they were organized or not then suit yourself. Considering that they have lost the argument so badly it would be hard to make a case that they were anything more than poorly organized.

Do you think decades of claiming doomsday is just around the corner has helped or hurt the agw agenda in the court of public opinion?

[Jacob1983]

People need to understand the process and history of temperature taking and record keeping. I just have a hard time believing a scientist when he/she says that so and so year was the warmest ever. Now if that scientist says that so and so year was the warmest year on record then it's different. And why the hell can't this shit just be natural?
Why do the Al Gore types want it to be gloom and doom when it comes to climate change? Is it to scare people so they can make money off "green' energy and expensive lightbulbs? Scientists are not perfect and are wrong a lot so that's a big reason why there is doubt. Does it mean that people are anti-science or against science? Nope.
I think climate change is natural process and that humans have played a small part when it comes to the cause of climate change. That's just my opinion. I'm not an expert. Does that mean I'm against science? Nope. And does that mean I think humans should just shit on the Earth and not take of it? Nope. People should recycle and not litter when they can. And don't waste electricity either. Use common sense.

[clambake]

just put a stick of butter on your counter to check the temp.

[baseline bum]

People need to understand the process and history of temperature taking and record keeping. I just have a hard time believing a scientist when he/she says that so and so year was the warmest ever. Now if that scientist says that so and so year was the warmest year on record then it's different.

LOL, what? I'm pretty sure no climate scientist thinks last year was warmer than when the earth was in a molten state 4.5 billion years ago.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny there are decades of evidence the over the top scare tactics from the left. If you want to nit pick about whether they were organized or not then suit yourself. Considering that they have lost the argument so badly it would be hard to make a case that they were anything more than poorly organized.

Do you think decades of claiming doomsday is just around the corner has helped or hurt the agw agenda in the court of public opinion?

I think anyone claiming an overtop the scenario is likely is doing a disservice. I don't think that isolated people making outlandish claims is anything near the same as an organized effort to spread misinformation. Its not a left or right thing except that for some reason the right has decided in many cases to discard science. I've seen no proof that isolated cases of making outlandish claims has had anywhere near the effect that this very organized effort that a couple of think tanks has embarked on.

I do think what they are doing is a temporary stall tactic at best, though. AR5 from the IPCC is being put together as we speak and climate change is only accelerating.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL, what? I'm pretty sure no climate scientist thinks last year was warmer than when the earth was in a molten state 4.5 billion years ago.

He makes that same argument all the time. Its been explained to him but he's either a moron or he's trolling.

[DMX7]

Koch brothers actually fund PBS programming like Nova.

[DMX7]

The really sad thing is people like the Koch brothers are not stupid -- they know global warming is real, but they care more about their economic interests than anything else, so what makes it really sad is the fact that their minions actually believe it when they tell them it's a lie.

[baseline bum]

Koch brothers actually fund PBS programming like Nova.

LOL, half the episodes of Nova are just episodes of BBC's Horizon with American English narration edited over the original English English narration; most of the video is the same. It's the best thing on American TV right now, but that's because of the BBC's incredible work creating those episodes.

[Jacob1983]

Again, why is it that climate change has to be gloom and doom and involve end of the world scenarios and predictions?

[Wild Cobra]

It said that 97% of scientist polled agreed that climate was warming and that humans were a significant contributors.
Yes, that was the response from the scientific community. I'm surprised 100% didn't say we are warming. The number for AGW being significant was not 96% though. Now depending on your perspective, 10% being anthropogenic can be significant!

It never discussed the science, dimwit.
No shit Sherlock. Where did I claim it did?


The piece was not about the science. It was about the denier movement, its organizers, and methods.
Yes, but narrated in such a way that they were wrong. The narration itself implied that AGW is a serious threat being pushed out of the way.


I'm not surprised that you missed the entire point of the piece.

I understood it. I'm also not surprised you are blind to what I pointed out.

Keep throwing that shit. I will make a mistake at some point.

[Wild Cobra]

I just finished watching too. I don't see how you think it was a hit piece. The topic was how the AGW activist camp has had their ass handed to them. In that respect it was well documented.
I disagree. They have not had their asses handed to them at all. I see you fell for the narration that implies AGW is undeniably, the primary reason for warming. Sorry, the science isn't solid enough for that, in fact, there is plenty of evidence that shows AGW cannot be as strong as the alarmists claim.

[Wild Cobra]

That wasn't the point of the show, as Fuzzy said. The bias that I saw was that it only focused on the tactics of the anti agw crowd that won the argument when they could have also talked about the scare tactics the agw alarmists used to promote their agenda. By using untrue doomsday scare tactics, I think the alarmists did as much to kill their own goal as these opposing groups did.
But you miss what I pointed out. Yes, they showed tactics used by the proper scientific skeptics. The entire narration was from a viewpoint they are wrong! That is my point!

[Wild Cobra]

just put a stick of butter on your counter to check the temp.
Absolutely.

I can deal with hot and cold, but my sandwiches like butter that spreads properly.

[Wild Cobra]

AR5 from the IPCC is being put together as we speak and climate change is only accelerating.
I guess they haven't figured out how to scare policy makers enough with the downward revised CO2 numbers and upward revised Black carbon and Solar numbers...

Else... I bet it would already be out!

[Wild Cobra]

The really sad thing is people like the Koch brothers are not stupid -- they know global warming is real, but they care more about their economic interests than anything else, so what makes it really sad is the fact that their minions actually believe it when they tell them it's a lie.
Yes, Global warming is real.

When are the alarmists going to chill, and accept a reasonable debate on what is really natural caused and what is human caused?

Until they are willing to be honest... Fuck them!

[DMX7]

LOL, half the episodes of Nova are just episodes of BBC's Horizon with American English narration edited over the original English English narration; most of the video is the same. It's the best thing on American TV right now, but that's because of the BBC's incredible work creating those episodes.

I know what you're talking about, but not even close to "half" are essentially BBC episodes. Best episodes are the ones hosted by Brian Greene and Neil deGrasse Tyson and i'm pretty sure they're original content. Also, BBC is state run television.

[DMX7]

Yes, Global warming is real.

When are the alarmists going to chill, and accept a reasonable debate on what is really natural caused and what is human caused?

Until they are willing to be honest... Fuck them!

Whether it's human cause or naturally caused is becoming an increasingly less popular counter-argument. The new vogue claim is that it's all just a hoax. That was what I got from this episode and it's also my general sense from watching the news.

[MannyIsGod]

Whether it's human cause or naturally caused is becoming an increasingly less popular counter-argument. The new vogue claim is that it's all just a hoax. That was what I got from this episode and it's also my general sense from watching the news.

Exactly. The case isn't that the numbers are wrong but rather that the IPCC is outright lying to everyone. Its laughable considering the level to which the IPCC backs up the physical science behind climate change.

[boutons_deux]

TIMELINE: Fox News' Role In The "Climate Of Doubt"

Fox News Aired A Special Explaining The Science Of Climate Change With No False Balance.

In 2005, Fox News aired a special titled "The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming," which reportedly did not dispute the science. Fox News' preview of the special stated that "producers traveled to Alaska's Glacier Bay to see evidence of climate change and to speak with scientists who have studied this phenomenon for more than 30 years." In addition to scientists, Fox News interviewed President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and climate activists who are "committed to teaching everyday Americans and the rest of the world about what can be done to cut down on greenhouse gasses that threaten our children's future." Fox News unequivocally stated the threat of climate change:


Drastic climate changes during the last 100 years have experts worried about the effects of greenhouse gasses.

[...]

Increasingly, as you will see in this special, scientists and government officials alike are agreeing that man's impact on climate has been extreme and the air that we breathe may hold a degenerating quality of life for our children.

[FoxNews.com, 11/11/05 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html)] [FoxNews.com, 11/14/05 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175358,00.html)] [Grist, 11/12/05 (http://grist.org/article/fair-and-bala-uh-accurate/)]


Fox News' Senior Vice President Called Global Warming One Of The Top 10 Issues We Face. The Los Angeles Times reported on the special:

Bill Shine, the network's senior vice president for programming, said Fox decided to do the special because global warming is a significant news story.

"There are at least 10 big issues out there today, and that's one of them," Shine said.

[...]

Shine said that the network sees the program as fitting squarely in its mission to deliver the news. Fox has not devoted substantial time to global warming in the past, he said, and felt it was a good time to do so. [The Los Angeles Times, 11/12/05 (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/12/entertainment/et-david12)]


Exxon-Funded Groups Lashed Out At Fox News For Running The Special.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/24/timeline-fox-news-role-in-the-climate-of-doubt/190906

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All from the perspective that AGW as the primary reason for Global Warning was 100% real.

This is what you said.


Yes, that was the response from the scientific community. I'm surprised 100% didn't say we are warming. The number for AGW being significant was not 96% though. Now depending on your perspective, 10% being anthropogenic can be significant!

No shit Sherlock. Where did I claim it did?

Yes, but narrated in such a way that they were wrong. The narration itself implied that AGW is a serious threat being pushed out of the way.

I understood it. I'm also not surprised you are blind to what I pointed out.

Keep throwing that shit. I will make a mistake at some point.

They said that the scientific consensus is that climate is warming and that humans are the primary cause. Frontline made no comment on what was 'real' or not beyond what was in that statement . why do you have to be such a dickless intellectual coward?

You can sit there and say that scientists do not agree that it's humans are causing it but you are full of shit. Vision Prize, most of the Science Academies of the world including our own, most science institutions of the world and on and on and on. Only dumbfucks such as yourself try and argue that 95% of the worlds scientists agree that humans are the primary cause.

Why do you have to try and fill in the gaps with your vapid thoughts? The bolded portions are you doing just that. The people interviewed said that they were more interested in winning the policy/political debate or the red scare than they were about the science. At one point they said that if they won the political debate they would have won the science debate. They didn't have to narrate shit as it was laid out by the people that were leading the charge within the movement.

No one buys you 'you just don't understand' shit from you. Nobody but your own dumb delusional self. Go change some parts hit yourself with some 220.

[Agloco]

Yes, Global warming is real.

When are the alarmists going to chill, and accept a reasonable debate on what is really natural caused and what is human caused?

Until they are willing to be honest... Fuck them!

You seem bent on turning every climate-related thread, however tangential, into a 30 page shitstorm.

[Drachen]

You seem bent on turning every climate-related thread, however tangential, into a 30 page shitstorm.


Set your comments per page to 100. So far, this thread is still on its first page.

[Wild Cobra]

You seem bent on turning every climate-related thread, however tangential, into a 30 page shitstorm.
Just interested in getting to the truth. Aren't you?

Yes, close to 100% scientists say the earth is warming. Even myself, I believe the earth is warming overall, and that AGW is only somewhere between 10% to 30% of the warming we have. I would say it at least might be significant too. If it is the upper range of my belief, then yes. 30% is significant. Think of the way the message is stated and how most people perceive the message. Even though I am one that claims to be a skeptic, and others call be a denier, I fit their claim!

[Wild Cobra]

Let me correct that. I believe our added greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for 10% to 30% of the warming trend. I am also a firm believe that Black carbon (soot) is responsible for as much warming than CO2 is. Will you accept that I believe AGW may be as much as 60%... Just not the way the alarmist crowd says it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are a poorly educated service technician. Who cares what you think? At the end of the day 97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions. Your napkin math and simpleminded models combined with a desired outcome cause you to come to your conclusion. You do this with everything. You try to will things to be as you want them rather than take them as they are.

[boutons_deux]

"97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions."

and the 3% who deny are whores paid by BigCarbon, etc. to deny.

[MannyIsGod]

lol WC maths.

[DarrinS]

You are a poorly educated service technician. Who cares what you think? At the end of the day 97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions. Your napkin math and simpleminded models combined with a desired outcome cause you to come to your conclusion. You do this with everything. You try to will things to be as you want them rather than take them as they are.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice blog. I always have like how you get your takes from blogs as opposed to a place like the National Academy. I also note how you once again don't read the shit that you post. Read the links, dipshit. I'll help.

From your blogs citation:


An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

I learned a long time ago not to trust you much less your sources. You have zero desire to look past what you think confirms your bias for closer inspection.

You and your blogger apparently do not know what an online self selected poll means. I'll give you a hint: invitations.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol self-selecting polls.

[DarrinS]

Nice blog. I always have like how you get your takes from blogs as opposed to a place like the National Academy. I also note how you once again don't read the shit that you post. Read the links, dipshit. I'll help.

From your blogs citation:



I learned a long time ago not to trust you much less your sources. You have zero desire to look past what you think confirms your bias for closer inspection.

You and your blogger apparently do not know what an online self selected poll means. I'll give you a hint: invitations.



Yeah, it's about as scientific as a "who won the debate?" poll on SpursTalk political forum.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, it's about as scientific as a "who won the debate?" poll on SpursTalk political forum.

:cry

The opinions of specific leading scientists at North American Earth science institutes are not equivalent to a self selected poll of random people on an internet forum. I really don't think you are this stupid, D. It's shit like this that makes me think that you intentionally try to mislead people.

[DarrinS]

:cry

The opinions of specific leading scientists at North American Earth science institutes are not equivalent to a self selected poll of random people on an internet forum. I really don't think you are this stupid, D. It's shit like this that makes me think that you intentionally try to mislead people.

Yep, 30% of those "invited", actually took the survey (some 3146 participants). "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2"

So, it's totally reasonable to assert "97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions". It's science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep, 30% of those "invited", actually took the survey (some 3146 participants). "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2"

So, it's totally reasonable to assert "97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions". It's science.

Actually, polling is approached as to a science. Now you are being a petulant child. Quit being a little bitch , Darrin.

1) Do you know what the difference between a targeted and self selected poll is?
2) What are the typical response rates for surveys and polls?

The quote I linked you from above answers both of those concerns.

If you want to be accurate i suppose it would be better to say that 97% of climate scientists believe the warming is due to humans and 82% of all scientists who study earth sciences. Maybe you really are that stupid.

[DarrinS]

Lol, Fuzzy mad.

[Wild Cobra]

You are a poorly educated service technician. Who cares what you think? At the end of the day 97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions. Your napkin math and simpleminded models combined with a desired outcome cause you to come to your conclusion. You do this with everything. You try to will things to be as you want them rather than take them as they are.
Here is the transcript of the program. Please notice, the 97% number is the number of scientists who believe it's warming. It is the narrator that twists and says 97% of the scientists believe that AGW is the threat. There is no place otter than Hockenberry's words that apply the point you carried out as being the scientists saying "warming -and- AGW." He didn't get that from anything he cites.

Transcript: Climate of Doubt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/)

Please show me the distribution of that 97% that agrees that the agreed warming, is primarily due to human activity. You may be interested to read what this points out as well:

The Myth of the 98% (http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf)

That 97% to 98% number pointed out at the 18:35 time index does not contend the same meaning as what this Frontline piece says.


JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Against the backdrop of all the pressure from skeptic groups, Congress ordered a comprehensive review of climate change research by the National Academy of Sciences. The findings came back even stronger on human-caused climate change, and a subsequent study showed 97 percent of active climate scientists agreed.

Text in screenshot:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

That statement out of the study doesn't match well with what Hockenberry says now, does it? Where is the "and human caused" fit in? It only says "suggest striking agreement." Suggest is not fact!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin, I don't like epople that are intentionally deceptive. Mad is not really the right word. I guess there is a fine line between contempt and anger. I have never felt that stoicism is a virtue anyway even if it is fun to fuck with people who do.

partschanger:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These are the questions referred to verbatim. You are an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

There you go again with your childish, pathetic, and wrong assumptions.



partschanger:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These are the questions referred to verbatim. You are an idiot.
You are the fucking idiot.

I know those are the questions, and like I said in an earlier post... I too, would say YES to both!

Don't you comprehend such simple stuff?

Question #1 only effectively asks if the the earth has warmed.

Question #2 specifies asks if the level cause via AGW is significant or not. Not a level of significance. I don't know about your world, but in my world when looking at multiple variable, anything that affects the largest significant digit in a calculation is significant. That means 10% is significant! How about other scientists that understand how significant digits in math affect calculations?

Can you really, in all honesty, extrapolate question 2 as meaning 97% of the scientists agree the warming is human caused?

You are falling for their game!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/the_consensus_on_the_consensus_-_an_opinion_survey_of_earth_scientists_on_global_c limate_change.pdf

Here is a copy of the study in question. From it:


Survey tampering through “ballot box stuffing”

The online survey administration site that was used for this survey has a security
feature that allows only one survey response (full survey) from a unique IP address.
o Survey tampering through uninvited participants

Potential participants were sent an email through QuestionPro.com that contained a
URL, which linked them directly to the online survey. A unique URL was assigned
to each invited respondent, and was logged on a response recorder when they
accessed the survey. No access could be gained to the survey without following the
invitation URL, and once a specific email had been logged on the survey site, it
could not access the survey again, even from other computers.

This survey was sent to many geoscientists, regardless of publication history. It
accounts for scientists that are and are not able to publish in refereed journals.
Publication history was accounted for in demographics, but did not preclude
respondents from participating. In fact, the list contained a number of known
climate change skeptics

Potential response rates not maximized
Using the largest accessible list of geoscientists available and sending email
invitations to all potential participants maximized the survey’s response rates.


The final number of survey participants was 3146, which is greater than a 30% response rate
when our target was greater than 10% (pers. comm. with Karen Retzer, 09/06/2007).


We see the percent of participants responding that, yes, human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing temperatures, go from 77 % in the group of participants who do not publish and
do not list their expertise as climate science, to 88 % among climate scientists and active publishers,
to 92 % among those who publish more than 50 % of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate science, all the way to 97.4 % among those participants who list their area of
expertise as climate science AND who publish more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers
on the subject of climate science. When these numbers are compared with the 2008 Gallup poll that
found only 58% of Americans think that human activities are a major factor in increasing
temperatures, the take home message from these data seems to be that the more of an authority you
are on the subject of climate change and the more active you are in climate change research, the more
you are likely to believe that humans are a significant factor in recent climate change. Interestingly,
among our survey participants the perception of a consensus on climate change issues in their own
professional communities also increases with expertise in the area of climate change.

It seems that the debate, whatever its origins, on the authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who are most able to understand
the nuances and scientific basis of the issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you really, in all honesty, extrapolate question 2 as meaning 97% of the scientists agree the warming is human caused?

You are falling for their game!

Yeah I can 'extrapolate' cause from that. If you are going to call me stupid at least do not fail completely at 4th grade vocabulary.

Question 2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

By all means continue. It's amusing in a Jerry Lewis kind of way.

[Borat Sagyidev]

WC is a loser-moron who will die alone, probably from a heart attack initiated from masturbation.

Stop wasting your time people. He only does it for attention.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah I can 'extrapolate' cause from that. If you are going to call me stupid at least do not fail completely at 4th grade vocabulary.

Question 2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

By all means continue. It's amusing in a Jerry Lewis kind of way.
OK, then I see you are retracting past statements of yours. I no longer need to continue. I won this argument.

[Borat Sagyidev]

http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/resize/550x600/http://www.blogcdn.com/www.mandatory.com/media/2012/10/menacing-josh-romney-meme-lovely-skin.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, then I see you are retracting past statements of yours. I no longer need to continue. I won this argument.

If you mean 'winning' means an admission that over 90% of earth scientists believe humans are causing climate change then you have won, Jerry. It's not my fault you don't understand the meaning of simple words.

[Wild Cobra]

If you mean 'winning' means an admission that over 90% of earth scientists believe humans are causing climate change then you have won, Jerry. It's not my fault you don't understand the meaning of simple words.
But that is not what was said. You are once again changing the argument because you cannot win the actual argument.

1) 97% of climate scientists believe the world is warming.

2) A very high percentage, number i forget, believes humans are a "significant contributor."

"Significant contributor" is not the same as saying they believe humans are changing the climate!

One significant digit is about 10%. 10% is a significant contribution. If the human contribution to climate change was only 10%, does that mean humans are causing climate change?

[Wild Cobra]

So Fuzzy.

Would you say that 88% is scientific consensus, when stated as AGW is the primary cause for warming, when it only says "significant contribution" in a poll to get that number?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

Continue on with your vapid strawman

:lol 10%

thanks for the laugh about significant digits. keep making shit up. go look up those charts manny has posted about 50 times describing the contributing factors and teh degrees of error.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Fuzzy.

Would you say that 88% is scientific consensus, when stated as AGW is the primary cause for warming, when it only says "significant contribution" in a poll to get that number?

When you consider that 7% say they are not sure and the experts in te field are at 97% I would say that's a consensus no matter how you look at it. Excuse me how people that are not idiots look at it.

Flat Earth Society folks are out there so there must not be a scientific consensus of gravity or geometry either huh?

[Wild Cobra]

You are twisting their words.

97% of the Climate experts that had peer reviewed papers only said yes to the earth warming. The number who was on record of saying the cause is anthropogenic was not 97%, nor did the question reflect a certainty level. As it stands, the published material that states humans as being the primary contributing factor is only at an 80% certainty level, and it does not say how many scientists agree with that assessment. If you take the second view of text on the "Climate of Doubt" film at the 19:20 mark, this is a more complete viewing of the text:

Over the past several decades, the international and national research communities have developed a progressively clearer picture of how and why Earth’s climate is changing and of the impacts of climate change on a wide range of human and environmental systems. Research has also evaluated actions that could be taken—and in some cases are already being taken—to limit the magnitude of future climate change and adapt to its impacts. In the United States, a series of reports by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, also known as the Climate Change Science Program from 2001 to 2008) have synthesized the information specific to the nation, culminating in the report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (USGCRP, 2009a). Internationally, scientific information about climate change is periodically assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently in 2007. Much has been learned, and this knowledge base is continuously being updated and expanded with new research results.

Our assessment of the current state of knowledge about global climate change, which is summarized in this chapter and described in detail in Part II of the report, leads to the following conclusion.

Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.

This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007a-d), recent assessments by the USGCRP (e.g., USGRP, 2009a), and other recent assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change. Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence1 in the following findings: (next page)

footnote:

1


As discussed in Appendix D, high confidence indicates an estimated 8 out of 10 or better chance of a statement being correct, while very high confidence (or a statement than an ourcome is “very likely”) indicates a 9 out of 10 or better chance.

from next page:



Earth is warming. Detailed observations of surface temperature assembled and analyzed by several different research groups show that the planet’s average surface temperature was 1.4°F (0.8°C) warmer during the first decade of the 21st century than during the first decade of the 20th century, with the most pronounced warming over the past three decades. These data are corroborated by a variety of independent observations that indicate warming in other parts of the Earth system, including the cryosphere (the frozen portions of Earth’s surface), the lower atmosphere, and the oceans.

Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—for energy is the single largest human driver of climate change, but agriculture, forest clearing, and certain industrial activities also make significant contributions.

Natural climate variability leads to year-to-year and decade-to-decade fluctuations in temperature and other climate variables, as well as substantial regional differences, but cannot explain or offset the long-term warming trend.

Global warming is closely associated with a broad spectrum of other changes, such as increases in the frequency of intense rainfall, decreases in Northern Hemisphere snow cover and Arctic sea ice, warmer and more frequent hot days and nights, rising sea levels, and widespread ocean acidification.

Human-induced climate change and its impacts will continue for many decades, and in some cases for many centuries. Individually and collectively, and in combination with the effects of other human activities, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems, including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security, among others.

The ultimate magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts depend strongly on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks.

Please not it effectively says climate change is "largely by humans" with an 80% certainty. What number would you apply to "largely?" It most certainly isn't saying 100%. Would you say 90%? 80%? 75%? What number is "largely?"

Would you say the military budget is a large part of the US budget?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not twisting their words. I am not going by the Frontline piece. i am going by the survey they are referring to.

i linked it from above. For the whole of the surveyed participants. This is the quote from the study itself:


89.5% of survey participants thought
temperatures had risen, while 0.5% thought temperatures had fallen, 5.7% thought it had remained
relatively constant, and 4.2% had no opinion or were unsure. To our second question, Q2: “Do you
think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 82% of survey
participants said yes, while 6.7% said no, and 11% said they were not sure.


We see the percent of participants responding that, yes, human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing temperatures, go from 77 % in the group of participants who do not publish and
do not list their expertise as climate science, to 88 % among climate scientists and active publishers,
to 92 % among those who publish more than 50 % of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate science, all the way to 97.4 % among those participants who list their area of
expertise as climate science AND who publish more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers
on the subject of climate science.

Thats not twisting their words. Those were their words. Now go diaf.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You suck at English. Keep trying though.

largely
adverb
1
for the most part <the earth's surface is largely composed of water>
Synonyms altogether, basically, by and large, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially
Related Words about, more or less, most, much, near, nearly, next to, nigh, practically, some, virtually, well-nigh; approximately, broadly, plus or minus, roughly; commonly, frequently, generally, normally, ordinarily, typically, usually; incompletely, partially, partly, rather, somewhat
Near Antonyms completely, entirely, fully, perfectly, thoroughly, totally, wholly; barely, hardly, just, marginally, minimally, scarcely; absolutely, categorically, unqualifiedly
2
to a large extent or degree <with this land purchase, the corporation largely increases its holdings in the area>
Synonyms astronomically, big-time, broadly, colossally, considerably, enormously, extensively, highly, hugely, largely, massively, monstrously, monumentally, much, sizably, staggeringly, stupendously, tremendously, utterly, vastly
Related Words appreciably, noticeably, significantly; abundantly, amply, copiously, healthily, plentifully
Near Antonyms modestly; fractionally; imperceptibly, infinitesimally, insignificantly, invisibly, microscopically, minutely; barely, hardly, just, minimally, scarcely
Antonyms little, negligibly, nominally, slightly

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Still saying things i don't agree with as if I disagree with them

You clearly fail to understand my points. Because of that, you completely fail at arguing against my points.

Again, if I answered the same questions, I would say yes to both. I suggest you try to understand what you are arguing against. It most certainly isn't the points I am making.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are twisting their words.

97% of the Climate experts that had peer reviewed papers only said yes to the earth warming. The number who was on record of saying the cause is anthropogenic was not 97%, nor did the question reflect a certainty level. As it stands, the published material that states humans as being the primary contributing factor is only at an 80% certainty level, and it does not say how many scientists agree with that assessment.

i·ro·ny
1   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry if I don't place much value in a 4 of 5 chance. 20% is plenty of room to be wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Still saying things i don't agree with as if I disagree with them

You clearly fail to understand my points. Because of that, you completely fail at arguing against my points.

Again, if I answered the same questions, I would say yes to both. I suggest you try to understand what you are arguing against. It most certainly isn't the points I am making.

I don't misunderstand your point. Frontline and I are going by what the survey I am citing and quoting. The climate scientists were asked a simple straightforward question. They gave a straightfoward answer. I am not rising to the bait of your typical simpleminded thought on what you think climate scientists think or your poor understanding of their science.

if you want to tak about something else than what the Frontline piece was referring to then keep on and I will keep on ignoring it. You'll just move the goalposts again anyway.

[Wild Cobra]

if you want to tak about something else than what the Frontline piece was referring to then keep on and I will keep on ignoring it. You'll just move the goalposts again anyway.
If I recall, my original point after I watched the video was that they were presenting the case with the presumed assumption that the skeptics were flat out wrong. That AGW is real to the extent the Alarmists claim.

I have since only been responding to those attacking my viewpoint.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I recall, my original point after I watched the video was that they were presenting the case with the presumed assumption that the skeptics were flat out wrong. That AGW is real to the extent the Alarmists claim.

I have since only been responding to those attacking my viewpoint.

Where in the piece do they say the skeptics are flatass wrong? With your latest 80% nonsense I would again point out that they never even addressed the science. They just said all the climate scientists agree because they do. Well at least 97% of them do.

[Wild Cobra]

Where in the piece do they say the skeptics are flatass wrong? With your latest 80% nonsense I would again point out that they never even addressed the science. They just said all the climate scientists agree because they do. Well at least 97% of them do.
Anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell it was edited with a one sided perspective.

There were several instances of bias in the piece. Not just the 97% nonsense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell it was edited with a one sided perspective.

There were several instances of bias in the piece. Not just the 97% nonsense.

So you cannot name one. Do you retract your statement?

[Wild Cobra]

A few selected quotes from the Heartlands response:


OCTOBER 24 — On October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt.” The Heartland Institute had circulated a commentary prior to the program’s broadcast, which appears below, which said in part, “We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither.” We offered some “facts to keep in mind when watching this program.”

So what did we think of the actual show? It wasn’t as bad as we had feared, but it wasn’t as good as it should have been. The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, please contact Tammy Nash at [email protected] and 312/377-4000. After regular business hours, contact Jim Lakely at [email protected] and 312/731-9364.


t appears host John Hockenberry spent enough time with global warming “skeptics” to know we are sincere, honest, and effective, but not enough time to learn we are right on the science. Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.


The quality of the program starts to deteriorate at about the 20-minute mark. Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not. Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all.


A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate. This technique, typical of propaganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” cheapens and discredits an otherwise thoughtful program.


“Climate of Doubt” gives some deserved recognition to the men and women who have sought to bring truth to the debate over climate change and have succeeded despite the odds. But its errors and omissions make it another missed opportunity to tell the true story of the debate over climate change.

Link: Heartland Institute's Comments on October 23 PBS Frontline Special ‘Climate of Doubt’ (http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/10/23/heartland-institute-anticipates-unfair-treatment-tonights-pbs-frontline--0)

[Wild Cobra]

So you cannot name one. Do you retract your statement?
I can, but I will simply ask that you watch the program again with that in mind.

Actually, how about I point out the fact that at about the 20:38 mark, talking to Singer, when he starts to respond, they go to Andrew dessler who then in speaks only to discredit Singer. Now this clip with Singer starts at the 19:20 mark if you are interested.


JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] It’s a time-honored tactic by the skeptics, authentic-looking documents and reports that don’t stand up to independent scrutiny. Singer also signed the Oregon petition, and this is not his first time going up against accepted science.
[on camera] Was the science around chlorofluorocarbons hyped, the science around secondhand smoke hyped, the science around the ozone layer hyped, going back 10, 15, 20 years?
FRED SINGER: I’m happy to discuss all of these since I’ve been deeply involved in all these topics that you mention. Let me start with secondhand smoke—
ANDREW DESSLER: Fred Singer is, I think, a professional contrarian. When I was in graduate school, I worked on stratospheric ozone depletion. And Fred would call me when I was in grad school and talk to me about how he didn’t think humans were depleting ozone.
And before that, he had real questions about whether humans were causing acid rain. And he didn’t think that nuclear winter was sound science. And he really criticized the work that connected secondhand smoke to health impacts. And now he doesn’t think global warming is an issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They were commenting on the paper that the NAS censured Singer for. He was. His tactics are suspect don't you think? That was what the piece was about. Their tactics not the science.

I am waiting for the part where they discounted them all scientifically out of hand. Quoting Heartland was cute though. Why don't you quote Exxon next?

[Wild Cobra]

That's right Fuzzy Troll.

Keep digging. When will you realize you lost?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now you are resorting to this tactic?

I'll give you a hint as someone that has judged CX debates hundreds of times: posturing about how you have won rather than closing on the merits of your argument is indicative of loss.

[Wild Cobra]

So now you are resorting to this tactic?

I'll give you a hint as someone that has judged CX debates hundreds of times: posturing about how you have won rather than closing on the merits of your argument is indicative of loss.
OK, what did I lose over?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, what did I lose over?

As a participant I do not judge the debate. I am not objective, dimwit. That's the point.

[Wild Cobra]

As a participant I do not judge the debate. I am not objective, dimwit. That's the point.
:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol

You... Objective...

:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol:lol :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A participant is by virtue not objective. I don't see what is so funny about that. What is not escaping my notice is that you have decided to stop trying to argue the merits of your position. That too is telling.

[Wild Cobra]

A participant is by virtue not objective. I don't see what is so funny about that. What is not escaping my notice is that you have decided to stop trying to argue the merits of your position. That too is telling.
You have to remember, long ago, I realized you are a joke, and not to be taken serious.

Now I have been drinking tonight, and checking the forum every so often, but have better things to do. That said, I will admit to misreading your "I am not objective" as "I am objective." Hope that clears a little bit up at least.

I don't need to argue the merits of my position any better. If you don't understand what I have said, that's your bad. Not mine.

----edit add... 36 minutes later---

What is amazing, it that drunk on my ass, I can still run circles around you.

Racing GT5 on my PS3 is more challenging than you.

[MannyIsGod]

Is there here anyone other than you, WC, that thinks you run circles around anyone?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LVSSqnOfw3k

[Wild Cobra]

• “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” —Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
• “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” —Dr. David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
• “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” —Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
• “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” —Sir John Houghton, First Chairman of the IPCC
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

[ElNono]

transcripts!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice context, dipshit.