'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

[Joe Fan]

ruh roh

"How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data"

"...... the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

 

[Joe Fan]

The House 'Committee on Science, Space, and Technology' is looking into NOAA.
Committee chair Lamar Smith subpoenaed NOAA in late 2015 for records related to the so-called “Karl study” that adjusted global sea surface temperature upwards, eliminating the “pause” in global warming since 1998. But the study’s lead author, Tom Karl, left NOAA.

The Karl study made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend of that period to 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade from 0.039 degrees per decade. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632

See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06...mpt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is another article on the manipulation of data

"A recently-retired top scientist from the America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has accused his superiors of fudging data to hide a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015.

John Bates told the Mail on Sunday that Thomas Karl, the head of the climate change department at the government agency, authored a paper based on doctored data, “rushed” it into publication, and then saw his work used to make international commitments to fight global warming worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

********
Despite the fierce controversy around the paper, its contents were widely disseminated by the media. It was also prominently referenced during the Paris conference in November and December 2015, at the conclusion of which world leaders promised to transfer $100 billion per year from wealthier countries to poorer ones to fight climate change, and vowed to ensure that temperatures do not rise by more than 2C....."

http://www.hangthebankers.com/us-go...e-climate-change-un-conference-whistleblower/

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

.

 

[Joe Fan]

EPA: Solar panels increased toxic greenhouse gas emissions

"According to a new study released by the federal government, toxic greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise as a result of solar panel manufacturing.

The greenhouse gas in question, Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is one of the principal chemicals used to manufacture solar panels, and is 17,200 times more potent than C02. Over the past 25 years, emissions of this chemical have increased a whopping 1,057 percent, as opposed to C02 emissions rising a paltry 5 percent...."​

ftp://halo.ess.uci.edu/public/prather/papers/131_2008GRL_PratherHsu-NF3+errata.pdf

 

[Joe Fan]

brief Peter Thiel commentary on 'climate science'

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

You know who else feels duped about climate change?

Everybody.

 

[OUBubba]

I think most of climate change is solar based. However, I worry that we're impacting the earth's ability to heal itself as it kind of does. Kind of like an elder diabetic who's wounds don't heal nearly as well as a 19 year old healthy adult.

 

[mchammer]

I think most of climate change is solar based. However, I worry that we're impacting the earth's ability to heal itself as it kind of does. Kind of like an elder diabetic who's wounds don't heal nearly as well as a 19 year old healthy adult.

CO2 is plant food. The earth is greener today because if it. Plants actually used to starve during times of low CO2 concentration. Volcanic activity replenished CO2 prior to fossil fuels.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This fiasco involving Bret Stephens is illustrative of why I remain a climate change agnostic. For those who don't know, Stephens was a longtime columnist at the Wall Street Journal who was a vocal Never Trumper and a staunch neocon. He was never one of my favorite columnists, but I don't hate his guts either. Sometimes I think he's right, and sometimes I think he's wrong and occasionally obnoxiously smug.

Anyway, he got hired by the New York Times (basically so they could hire a conservative while still maintaining universal Trump-contempt), and his first column caused a massive, vitriolic shitstorm on the Left. What's interesting is that if you read the column, he doesn't deny climate change at all or even deny the human element of it. Basically his point is that there isn't absolute certainty on every facet of the issue, especially when predicting future temperatures and pointed out that the science isn't completely aligned with the political advocacy (which really is indisputable).

What the response from the Left basically tells me is that for many, this issue isn't about science and truth anymore but has become almost a religion and an ideological purity test. If you're a fair-minded and objective person, how the hell can you embrace such a mentality? I can't.

 

[Crockett]

What the response from the Left basically tells me is that for many, this issue isn't about science and truth anymore but has become almost a religion and an ideological purity test. If you're a fair-minded and objective person, how the hell can you embrace such a mentality? I can't.

Yes, I guess we have to leave clear-eyed, objective discourse on climate science to the Republicans.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes, I guess we have to leave clear-eyed, objective discourse on climate science to the Republicans.

That's snarky, but that isn't the point. The point is that we have a lot of politics masquerading as science, and the demonization of those who advocate adhering to the science shows how unscientific and anti-intellectual the climate apocalypse believers really are.

 

[Crockett]

Sorry for the Snark, but when I think about it, I get angry. Not at you Deez.
I'm genuinely troubled that Bret Stephens entirely reasonable look at the politics of climate science wasn't accepted as a thoughtful expression of worthwhile ideas.

Almost everyone is entrenched in their oversimplified version of the truth and there is no home for objective, rational discussion of the subject. Maybe the science isn't completely settled, but reasonable people have reason to squalk about the environmental implications of more coal-fired power plants and exploitation of Canadian tar sands. Stridency among the politicians creates MEGO (my eyes glaze over) for masses.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Maybe the science isn't completely settled, but reasonable people have reason to squalk about the environmental implications of more coal-fired power plants and exploitation of Canadian tar sands

I honestly don't think you'd get that much pushback from the rank and file on things like that. Obviously there are some that are more nuanced, such as fracking and pipeline projects, but people will almost always reject something that's going to clearly make the air or water less safe (unless it's in Flint, Michigan.)

The reason those people are having trouble getting traction is that they got greedy. When you start trying to regulate CO2 and spend political capital on projects that try to regulate a gas that occurs naturally and is in fact vital to the planet's survival, it starts to look less like you're really working for clean air and more like you're working for complete control of life on earth.

Almost all of us agree with keeping the earth clean. That's not what modern environmentalism is about.

 

[UTChE96]

Yes, I guess we have to leave clear-eyed, objective discourse on climate science to the Republicans.

Or Jack from Titanic.

 

[4th_floor]

Almost everyone is entrenched in their oversimplified version of the truth and there is no home for objective, rational discussion of the subject. Maybe the science isn't completely settled, but reasonable people have reason to squalk about the environmental implications of more coal-fired power plants and exploitation of Canadian tar sands. Stridency among the politicians creates MEGO (my eyes glaze over) for masses.

First of all, if it's "settled", it's not science. It's science if any data to the contrary is carefully considered, not emotionally rejected without review. If the data is not applicable, you have to explain why, in detail, before you dismiss it. Scientific conclusions are valid if they are repeatable and can hold up to alternative explanations and data.

Second, if you are going to squawk or "squalk" about the environmental implications of coal or oil from tar sands, you should be prepared to explain yourself. I know that coal can be burned or turned into chemicals in an environmentally acceptable manner. I would be perfectly fine living down wind of a clean coal plant. I'm not sure such a plant would be economically feasible, but it can be built. To reject coal and oil from tar sands on emotional basis alone is ignorant.

 

[OUBubba]

That was a good article. Climate science and climate denial are like religious doctrines. I think there's something there but I don't know what. I think that ignoring it is silly. I think that makes me a reasonable environmentalist. To the right it makes me a far left nut job and to the left it makes me a climate denier. Funny, I think a majority of people fall in between those two poles.

I learned a new word from that article: traduces https://www.google.com/search?q=traduces&oq=traduces&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The first time I've ever seen it.

 

[Brad Austin]

That was a good article. Climate science and climate denial are like religious doctrines. I think there's something there but I don't know what. I think that ignoring it is silly. I think that makes me a reasonable environmentalist.

Oh hell, I actually agree with OUBubba.

IMHO, the climate change cult created the climate change denial movement out of necessity. They are/were manipulating data without impunity, ramming it down the country's throat, and bullying any sign of opposition.

It took a defiant, collective resistance to at least pump the brakes so we can discuss and research this important subject responsibly.

I think most reasonable people are perfectly fine with the gov funding research under the strict rules of using the scientific method which prohibits a preconceived conclusion.

I'd be very willing to consider real dangers and solutions uncovered in the process. But the big gov power/money grab system in place (corrupt research practices, Paris Agreement, etc) is economically and scientifically worthless.

 

[mchammer]

It was rammed down our throats before any real discussion was had. However, by then, it was said that no discussion was needed. See the leftist trick?

 

[Crockett]

Second, if you are going to squawk or "squalk" about the environmental implications of coal or oil from tar sands, you should be prepared to explain yourself. I know that coal can be burned or turned into chemicals in an environmentally acceptable manner. I would be perfectly fine living down wind of a clean coal plant. I'm not sure such a plant would be economically feasible, but it can be built. To reject coal and oil from tar sands on emotional basis alone is ignorant.

If you live in Texas you are probably breathing air fouled by coal fired plants and subject to a much higher likelihood of lung cancer than historic patterns for non-smokers. Maybe it's theoretically possible to burn coal cleanly but since it's only being done in small scale experiments, I feel entitled to have an emotional reaction to the idea of more coal plants. As far as usable fuel from tar sands ... is it even theoretically possible to process that into fuel without enormous emissions? Sorry I had no idea.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you live in Texas you are probably breathing air fouled by coal fired plants and subject to a much higher likelihood of lung cancer than historic patterns for non-smokers. Maybe it's theoretically possible to burn coal cleanly but since it's only being done in small scale experiments, I feel entitled to have an emotional reaction to the idea of more coal plants. As far as usable fuel from tar sands ... is it even theoretically possible to process that into fuel without enormous emissions? Sorry I had no idea.

I think the case for phasing out fossil fuels is actually pretty compelling. There's no doubt that they are polluting (at least to a point) and at least marginally contribute to health problems in some people. Furthermore, at least in the case of petroleum, they force us to be reliant on dangerous regimes in the Middle East.

However, the Left doesn't like those points, because they leave room for debate. People don't mind the risks associated with fossil fuels, because the health issues aren't generally noticeable. Most people don't know anyone who has gotten sick because of them. If they provide cheap energy and economic growth, very few are not willing to take the risks, especially when the alternative is astronomically expensive. (Trust me, I know first hand.) Some people think we can manage things in the Middle East well enough and can make the argument for it.

However, if you can convince people that the consequence of using fossil fuels is a literal apocalypse and the end of civilization as we know it, then no cost is too great, and there is no room for debate. You either go along, or you're suicidal. That's why the Left likes the alarmism even if it's not supported by evidence.

What's sad is that a case can be made for a measured and gradual phasing out of fossil fuels and boosting funding to research ways to make alternative energy sources viable. However, the crackpot claims of imminent catastrophe don't help that cause. If anything, the undermine it, especially when the crackpots are proven wrong over and over and over again.

 

[4th_floor]

If you live in Texas you are probably breathing air fouled by coal fired plants and subject to a much higher likelihood of lung cancer than historic patterns for non-smokers. Maybe it's theoretically possible to burn coal cleanly but since it's only being done in small scale experiments, I feel entitled to have an emotional reaction to the idea of more coal plants.

Certainly there is a history of pollution from coal. Burning coal in your fireplace will produce a great deal of soot and many other pollutants. Older coal-fired power plants produced a great deal of sulfur pollution and other pollutants. The relationship between lung cancer and coal emissions is unproven and suspect, but there is no doubt about the acid rain and other pollution coming from older plants.

The newer plants, with more complete combustion, and with scrubbers and precipitators don't scare me at all. The next generation of coal plants would be as clean as a natural gas fired plant, if they are built. But regulation, cost, and public ignorance will keep us from building these plants in the near term.

As far as usable fuel from tar sands ... is it even theoretically possible to process that into fuel without enormous emissions? Sorry I had no idea.

If you consider carbon dioxide emissions as a problem, then the answer is yes. There are extra steps involved in refining heavy oil, more coking and other steps. But we already refine oil that comes from the tar sands. The tar sands oil is shipped by rail, which is one of the least efficient and least environmentally friendly manners of delivering oil to a refinery. Also consider that we have refined very heavy oil from Venezuela for years without a cross word from environmentalists. The difference is that the Gore family, with their investments and connections to Occidental, have made a fortune from Venezuela. The fact that they are ruled by wonderful, genius-like communist dictators over the last 30 years or so probably has appeased the environmentalists. Luckily, Venezuela has destroyed it's oil industry through incompetence. So there won't be much heavy oil coming out of there.

 

[Crockett]

But regulation, cost, and public ignorance will keep us from building these plants in the near term.

Not the mention competition from relatively cheap, clean, abundant natural gas.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

EPA: Solar panels increased toxic greenhouse gas emissions

"According to a new study released by the federal government, toxic greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise as a result of solar panel manufacturing.

The greenhouse gas in question, Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is one of the principal chemicals used to manufacture solar panels, and is 17,200 times more potent than C02. Over the past 25 years, emissions of this chemical have increased a whopping 1,057 percent, as opposed to C02 emissions rising a paltry 5 percent...."​

ftp://halo.ess.uci.edu/public/prather/papers/131_2008GRL_PratherHsu-NF3+errata.pdf

and from what I can find, NF3 is still less than 0.04% of what CO2 does to the atmosphere. And it appears that most of that is from TVs rather than solar panels. Seems like this author is cherry picking big numbers to make a case.

 

[4th_floor]

and from what I can find, NF3 is still less than 0.04% of what CO2 does to the atmosphere.

NF3 is a much, much stronger absorber of solar radiation compared to CO2. But considering the NF3 concentration is about 1/2 part per trillion, it shouldn't be a concern. But neither should CO2, which makes up 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. The effect of either gas on global temperature is less than the margin of error in global temperature measurement.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

NF3 is a much, much stronger absorber of solar radiation compared to CO2. But considering the NF3 concentration is about 1/2 part per trillion, it shouldn't be a concern. But neither should CO2, which makes up 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. The effect of either gas on global temperature is less than the margin of error in global temperature measurement.

my issue with what I think you're saying, is that it pushes a "you can't prove it to 100%" philosophy. I get that there are still unknowns but there are unknowns in virtually all big/major decisions. I think a wise path is to go with what the preponderance of the evidence is showing. Ultimately, it comes down to this. If the climate change advocates are right and we do nothing, we are risking calamity. If the "it's a normal cycle" advocates are right and the earth takes care of itself, then we are just talking dollars and cents. We spent some money unwisely, some people lost money, some people made money. To sit back and protect fossil fuels income stream when environmental havoc is a possibility is completely ridiculous.

When we really had energy as a security concern, I was much more on the bandwagon with continuing oil exploration and have said so on this board. That's not where we are now. We have plenty of oil and gas and we can tap into it down the road...If/When we have more settled science on the impacts of/to climate change.

To me, the downside of ignoring it, is way too devastating to blow it off or try to explain it away as within the margin of error.

 

[mchammer]

my issue with what I think you're saying, is that it pushes a "you can't prove it to 100%" philosophy. I get that there are still unknowns but there are unknowns in virtually all big/major decisions. I think a wise path is to go with what the preponderance of the evidence is showing. Ultimately, it comes down to this. If the climate change advocates are right and we do nothing, we are risking calamity. If the "it's a normal cycle" advocates are right and the earth takes care of itself, then we are just talking dollars and cents. We spent some money unwisely, some people lost money, some people made money. To sit back and protect fossil fuels income stream when environmental havoc is a possibility is completely ridiculous.

When we really had energy as a security concern, I was much more on the bandwagon with continuing oil exploration and have said so on this board. That's not where we are now. We have plenty of oil and gas and we can tap into it down the road...If/When we have more settled science on the impacts of/to climate change.

To me, the downside of ignoring it, is way too devastating to blow it off or try to explain it away as within the margin of error.

The last 40 years of satellite data (which is the best dataset we have) shows a mild warming of 1 C per century. So, the best data says it is not a major problem. Only biased models show alarmist outcomes.

You are also ignoring the benefits of a slightly warmer world: more food, less deaths from cold.

Also, no one is curtailing their investments in beach front property. Why is that? The smart people realize the alarmist crap is a scam.

Finally, the Washington Post took the absolute worst case scenario for global warming. Guess what, global GDP is only 20% less than otherwise. How is this devastating? Even at that lower growth rate, we will be 9 times richer than today.

The real devastating downside is that we purposely deny known benefits of fossil fuels today for obscure and unknown risks of the future.