Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

The IPA aren't even a scientific body. It's some sort of Christian, Libertarian publication. Well colour me surprised in the shade of obviously.

http://ipa.org.au/

Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit and don't come back.

[Animavore]

Oh! And of course (genuine) fake news Breitbart, Trump's favourite news rag, published it also.

[mistermack]

Ha ha.

The climate science fat cats are outraged that someone should question their cash cow's importance.
You can expect major attacks and attempts to rubbish the study.
These people have careers and pensions to defend.

This is what happens to ANYBODY that dares to question the "consensus".
Which is exactly why there IS a consensus. Very few dare to even publish stuff that points elsewhere.
They would rather bury it, than risk being shunned.

So you have to admire these Ozzies for daring to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

[Animavore]

Let me remind you who the lying fat cats are.

Exxon Mobil ‘Misled’ Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds

Researchers found a “systematic, quantifiable discrepancy” between what the oil giant said about climate change in private versus what it told the public.


Exxon Mobil Corp. deliberately deceived the public about the dangers of climate change for four decades, a new Harvard University study finds.


For the peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters Wednesday, two Harvard researchers analyzed nearly 200 documents related to Exxon Mobil’s climate change communications. The researchers found that America’s largest oil producer had repeatedly made “explicit factual misrepresentations” about global warming in advertisements aimed at the general public, while simultaneously acknowledging its risks behind closed doors.


“Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications,” study authors Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran wrote in a New York Times op-ed this week. “Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.”


The discrepancy, the researchers said, was staggering. About 80 percent of Exxon Mobil’s research and internal memos acknowledged that climate change was real and caused by humans. However, 80 percent of the company’s newspaper ads regarding climate change questioned this fact, the study found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exx ... mg00000063

And that's the type of shit you can't sweep under no rug.

[Hermit]

The climate science fat cats are outraged that someone should question their cash cow's importance.

O well. There blows another one.

[mistermack]

You people just love your "he said, she said" bickering.

I don't give a fuck about who said what. I don't trust any of them.
That's one thing that Donald Trump has to be admired for. He has blown apart the cosy circular reinforcement by the climate science fat cats in their well paid cosy labs and made the world realise that you don't have to take their word for it.
Which is what I've said all along. I don't believe or disbelieve the people. But I'm highly suspicious of everyone's motives, and so I'm just interested in bare facts.

And even the facts have been doctored, you have to take the latest facts with a pinch of salt, as every effort is made to make the facts look worse by changing how they are measured and assembled.

My reserve position is climate change is natural. It's always happened. You prove otherwise.
I'm open to good evidence that can't have been doctored.

[Animavore]

Lol. Your position has lost all credibility and you know it. The lies have been exposed. Go home. You're drunk.

[Animavore]

Heh! A whole video on that idiotic Dilbert cartoon 42 stupidly posted.

[Animavore]

Those 3% of papers denying climate change. Nearly all flawed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/limbaugh-h ... via=mobile

Exactly what I pointed out yesterday.

In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

But like I said yesterday, they don't care about the inconsistency. They only care about getting their papers published in lying, morally bankrupt, right-wing rags like The Daily Fail, The Telegraph, and Breitbart.

[Brian Peacock]

To say that human activity has no impact on climate is like saying bacillus cereus has no impact on digestion - the evidence shows you're simply wrong.

[pErvinalia]

The IPA aren't even a scientific body. It's some sort of Christian, Libertarian publication. Well colour me surprised in the shade of obviously.

http://ipa.org.au/

Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit and don't come back.

The IPA is a defacto wing of the far right of the conservative party in Australia.

[pErvinalia]

Ha ha.

The climate science fat cats are outraged that someone should question their cash cow's importance.
You can expect major attacks and attempts to rubbish the study.
These people have careers and pensions to defend.

This is what happens to ANYBODY that dares to question the "consensus".
Which is exactly why there IS a consensus. Very few dare to even publish stuff that points elsewhere.
They would rather bury it, than risk being shunned.

So you have to admire these Ozzies for daring to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

You need to understand who the IPA are. They are a party political organisation whose only goal is to promote conservatism. There is nothing objective about anything they do. Half the conservative party in Australia were either IPA members, or their main advisers are former IPA members.

[Rum]

Hurricanes and the role of climate change here. If you can't be arsed to read it the answer is yes.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ate-change

[mistermack]

Reading and believing are two different things.

But when it comes to climate change, the two go together for some people.

There's nothing in that article except claims. He said, they said.

Worthless stuff. And Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth have form for lying.

[Rum]

Oh I forgot. 97% of those who agree are idiots, fools, the subjects of insidious influence and wrong. What fools.