The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

"say kev..

take this simple test for me would you:

is it warmer, cooler or about the same where you live?

everyone i've talked to says it's been about the same or cooler over the past year or so."

How can you argue with that?

:rofl:

On that thread - some of the stuff is pretty desperate. I keep asking to post actual scientific research, not suprisingly, no takers yet - never is.

Unfortunately for our side, the occupations of the signers of the Global Warming Petition is similar to the occupations of the signers of the pro-Kyoto petition put together by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997. Like this petition, that petition was also criticized because such a small percentage of its signers where actual climatologists. Most were biologists and environmentalists.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

We're not interested in debating things like whether the earth is round, whether germs cause disease, or whether climate change is happening and caused by man. If you want to be a total dumbass and fall for the same kind of shit that the tobacco companies cooked up to stonewall action resulting from acceptance of the causal link between smoking and heart disease/cancer, then be my guest and be a dumbass. But please don't come around here where people actually do have an inkling of what the science behind climate change is and, under the guise of a concern troll that voted for for Gore (HA!), proceed to recite talking points crafted by the VERY SAME OUTFITS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT PUT TOGETHER THE TOBACCO "SCIENCE" THAT SAID CIGARETTES ARE SAFE.


http://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since you seem to have missed the essence of my post in favor of a fictitious creation of your politically motivated little mind I'll be very succinct and clear:

There is no scientific "debate" on anthropogenic climate change in the sense the word is used in science. There is, however, an attempt by those who stand to lose vast sums of money to deflect action by CREATING THE ILLUSION of a scientific debate for POLITICALLY motived idiots.

You are no more WORTH arguing science with than a person who insists the earth is flat or that the moon mission was a hoax.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes please, move on. Here is a pat on the behind to hasten your exit...

I asserted you are politically motivated and have no true interest in the science involved. You assert you want a discussion of the science.
This demonstrates the truth between those two statements. You wrote:

"The climate changes all the time. It is called, summer, fall, winter and spring."

Weather:
Weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time. Weather phenomena lie in the troposphere. Glossary of Meteorology. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

Season:

*A season is a division of the year, marked by changes in weather.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

*one of the natural periods into which the year is divided by the equinoxes and solstices or atmospheric conditions;
http://www.google.com/search?ned=tus&hl=en&q=define%3A+season&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

Climate:
the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time;
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Science *begins* by defining the terms of the subject. Since it is impossible to understand the arguments related to climate change without understanding the concept of climate, if you don't understand the vast chasm that exists between the concept of /season/ and /climate/, then it is absolutely certain that your protests about climate change have no validity.

are those who fall for the shit junk science of AGW. I'm sorry, is my disbelief threatening your grant money? It could lower sales of your snakeoil AGW book sales. I know you've been wanting to buy another big boat Lexus? Or are you the type who buys a Prius so you can feel good about flying B-class to Australia for vacation....I mean a global warming conference?

But we know for a fact that it is indeed included, it's even explicitly mentioned as a warming factor.

A total dumbass is someone that thinks "science" is something they hear from the likes of Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, or LImpballs.

The argument that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by economically motivated scientists is probably the stupidest in a very long list of very, very, very stupid arguments thrown out by deniers. The role of the moneys and actions of the fossil fuel industry are a matter of open public record. Note the significance of the numbers $34 billion and $35 million below.


A Brief History of Global Warming Science
1859: Tyndall establishes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

1890s: Arrhenius surmises that the climate of the earth could potentially be changed by the CO2 emitted from the human use of fossil fuels.

1930s: Guy Callendar assembles evidence that the effects of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are capable of being perceived.

1950s: Plass, Suess and Revelle follow up on Callendar’s research.

1960s: Keeling uses systematic measuring to establish that concentration of atmospheric CO2 is rising.

1965: Environmental Pollution Board of the President’s Science Advisory Council warns that by 2000 there will be 25% increase in CO2 concentrations from 1965 level. “his will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate...could occur.”

1965: President Johnson states in Special Message to Congress that “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

1966: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification repeats warning.

1974: Weinberg, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory “realized that climatological impacts might limit oil production before geology did.”

1978: Robert White (NOAA’s first administrator and a President of the National Academy of Engineering states “We now understand that ... carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society ... The potential ... impacts ominous.”

1979: JASON committee (Stanford Research Insitute) publishes 184 page technical report warning of expected doubling of CO2 concentrations “by about 2035” with wide variety of undetermined possible geophysical, economic, political and social consequences.

1979: Carter Science Advisor Frank Press requests National Academy of Sciences for review of JASON committee report. Academy committee headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney concurs with JASON report “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” (Oreskes, 2006)

Global warming as a threat to the ecology was widely recognized within the scientific community by the 1980s. Within a decade, this recognition resulted in global political acknowledgment and action commencing with the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an agreement setting voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The international effort was sharpened by a move to mandatory emissions reductions with an agreement by the 3rd Conference of Parties (Kyoto Protocol) which was signed in 1997. Although the United States signed the agreement at the COP3, the treaty was not ratified by the US legislature and entered into force in 2003 without the US as a signatory. This means that even though not required to implement the provisions of the Protocol, the US is expected by international law to “refrain from actions that would undermine the Protocol’s object and purpose”. (Ackerman, 2002, 2)


Exxon/Mobile as an example: Specific objectives and methods
The reasons that the US has gone its own way are at least partially to be found in the ability of negatively affected industries to frame the treaty in a manner that encourages public perception of it as a threat to both US economic competitiveness and US sovereignty. This framing by economically motivated entities such as oil companies, automobile manufacturers and mineral mining companies is part of a coordinated campaign built around the conservative “free market” ideology. Some of the strategies regarding how this was accomplished are well documented in a 2007 paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists (Shulman et al. 2007).

Modeled on the “manufactured uncertainty” strategy of the tobacco industry, this effort to blunt regulatory reaction to climate change began with the formation of Global Climate Coalition in 1989 (Ibid) and continues today. The specific assertions documented are limited to the efforts of Exxon/Mobile between the years 1998 and 2005, however, the continuing, ethically questionable conduct of the company was highlighted at the May 2008 shareholders meeting where management had to defend itself from a shareholder revolt against the companies tactics led by descendents of the founder, J.D. Rockefeller. (Mufson, 5/29/2008, D01)

Although there is opacity in the details of a similar role for domestic coal and the electric utilities that are the prime consumers of coal, the record establishes their participation in the Global Climate Coalition. (Shulman, 2007) This industry represents a vast economic resource which includes not only future earnings from the coal still in the ground, but also the sunk cost of infrastructure for mining and the generation of 50% of the nation’s electricity. Of the 1,162,000,000 short tons (s.t.) of coal produced in the US in 2006, 1,026,000,000 short tons (88%) of it was burned for the production of electricity. The average price for electrical generation use in 2006 (using NYMEX references on closed futures trading in Appalachian coal, prices have approximately doubled as of 5/08, but total average is not available) was approximately $33/s.t. making it, exclusive of the value of the electricity generated, a $34 billion dollar industry employing nearly 83,000 workers. (EIA Annual Coal Report, 2006)

As of year 2000, the latest date of EIA statistics, there were 1032 utility owned coal fired generating facilities, all of them in the lower 48 states. This represents an aggregate nameplate generating capacity of 328.3 gigawatts. There is an additional 59.2 GW of non-utility generation at an unknown number of facilities. While an aggregate value of the coal fired generating facilities hasn’t been found, it is obvious that it represents an amount of wealth and power that should be expected to wield considerable political and social power.

A review of the actions of the tobacco, automobile, and petroleum industries, which were designed to confound policies aimed at holding them accountable for the external costs of their products, is reasonable evidence on which to base an inquiry as to whether the interests of those vested in coal production and use are engaged in similar protective action. A January 18, 2008 Washington Post article sports the headline, “Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign”. The article alleges that a coal and mining industry group “is waging a $35 million dollar campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change.” (Mufson,1/18/08, D01)

Check it out.

:eyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

"Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.<7><32> He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."<33>, and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."<7>"

snip

"Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.<8>""