IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 23 December 2012 02:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Dear Geoff,

If it is to be believed the peer reviewed 'science' already says we are too late to stop what their science says is going to happen but when we get to that part of this science the 'non sceptics' become the 'deniers'. The scientists already think it is too late, based on their data, it's just that they cannot go tell the public this because their sense of hope would be gone.

http://www.world-science.net/o...ws/121018_warming.htm

"It's probably too late to stop glob­al warm­ing by cut­ting emis­sions of heat-trapping green­house gas­es, a new study says."

http://marketclues.blogspot.co...p-climate-change.html

"All the models which called for a gradual rise in Global Warming to 2100 have been proven wrong. The Earth is spinning out of control. Scientists have formed a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) to try to mitigate the damage."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...ucture-climate-change

"World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns."

That was a year ago. The EIA in essence says that by 2017 we will be beyond the point of no return if appropriate action is not taken. Then it goes onto say ""There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way." Note the use of the word urgent. What urgent action has been taken?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...e-chang_b_786158.html

"It's too late. The world has missed the opportunity to avoid serious, damaging human-induced climate change."

http://www.sfgate.com/science/...tists-say-3615965.php

"The Earth is reaching a "tipping point" in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction of the global environment unless its forces are controlled by concerted international action, an international group of scientists warns.

Unchecked population growth, the disappearance of critical plant and animal species, the over-exploitation of energy resources, and the rapidly warming climate are all combining to bring mounting pressure on the Earth's environmental health, they say."

"The rapid growth in the world's human population - to 9 billion or more by 2050 and possibly 27 billion by the end of the century - is quickly consuming available resources."

No matter what you write or how logical you are or how passionate you argue most of the world is not listening and will not be listening until it is too late, if the peer reviewed data is to be believed. You will not overcome human nature because you cannot overcome your own. Probably you have bred and added your own CO2 emitters to the world and now all of a sudden you wish to save the planet. If you are so concerned you should have thought about your own human nature. What was it Gandhi said 'be the change you want to see.'

The world is over populated what are you and anyone else going to do about it, because if you want to tackle the climate change you are so concerned about then you are going to have to tackle human nature. What are you ideas for that? Are you going to sit down and tell your children not to have children and add yet more resource consumers to the Earth?

http://communicate2011.bnhc.or...hant-in-the-room.html

"I do assure you there are many population deniers, those who do not recognise population as a concern or a priority issue."

"I am constantly reminded of a most deplorable asymmetry in the attitudes of people who are campaigning on environmental issues in the broadest sense. If I go to somebody from Christian Aid or the Worldwide Fund for Nature or Friends of the Earth or the Green Party and start talking about the population problem almost without exception they respond with variations on, "Oh it's not population, it's greed, gross inequality, poverty, the status of women and anyway twenty Bangladeshis don't consume as much as one Briton." On the other hand when somebody approaches me and says, "I'm very concerned about poverty and inequality." I do NOT respond, 'Oh it's not poverty and inequality, it is population. There can be no question but that eventually population control must come because without it we are effectively climbing a down escalator."

"Any biologist will recognise one particular elephant in the room and must seek to communicate some awkward facts - there is certainly more than one 'inconvenient truth.' I'm reminded of the wonderful words of Aldo Leopold, best known for A Sand County Almanac, who reflects that, 'the penalty for an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.' Most people, he argues, are quite unaware of the damage we wreak on the natural world. But the biologist sees those wounds all around."

"The immediate conclusion from this situation must be that, for our long term survival the Earth is already grossly overpopulated."

Regards.
 23 December 2012 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Geoff Benn, regarding the bile you posted about the 'deniers' and 'denialists' at the GWPF. You asked where they get their funding. I can tell you: From people like me. I'm an electronic engineer working for various small companies. I was a paying member of the IEE for 18 years however when the IET began to promote the same sort of unquestioning agressive alarmist nonsense you've been copy and pasting into this thread, I transferred my payments to the GWPF. They appear to be the only organisation prepared to speak up for common sense and reason against the appalling scientific and economic fraud of the man-made global warming industry.

Regards
 23 December 2012 07:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

Originally posted by: geoffbenn



Hi Dave,



Apologies, my mistake due to you simply referring to yourself as "Dave Nunn MIET" rather than referring to your BSc...



I note that you make no comment to my challenges (sources cited, no need to trust anything I type) to the climate related opinions that you stated...?



Regards




Geoff,



I think it is wise to not make assumptions of peoples expertise on this forum. I've tried to keep my remarks and references concise. I've posted a number of links that should give you a broad spectra of opinion not least GWPF


I hardly think the Global Warming Policy Foundation is worth much at all, just look at the way they start with mis-information on thier web-site as gathered for us by OurceWatch.org:

Global Warming Policy Foundation
Founded by Nigel Lawson
Although founder Lawson claims to accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, this acceptance appears to be "considerably less than half-hearted;"[3] the GWPF webpage banner image sports a short-term (2001-2010) temperature graph (blue, below) giving the appearance that the world is not warming.
Compare the 10-year GWPF graph (blue) to the longer-term graphs to the right: 1979-2010 showing the true global warming signal[4] (with natural variability removed) and 1880-2010 (including natural variability).


The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.
Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions.


After 3 govt enquiries cleared climate scientists, a denialist "enquiry" by skeptic Montford



When the three British Government enquiries into the CRU email saga were completed Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced it would to stir the issue up once more.[12] Andrew Montford was commissioned to write an "enquiry" into the climategate emails claims and was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010.



The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.[13] Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding is mired in controversy whilst it enjoys charitable status, yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls 'fake charities'.[14] In his "enquiry" Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is a distortion of the truth however, since the Parliamentary Enquiry at the least included Graham Stringer Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, a man who has consistently voted very strongly against laws to stop climate change.[15] [16] Montford knows this and records a cosy chat with Stringer on his blog.[17]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers



In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[18] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -



- 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil



- "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and



- the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[19]



and it's run by Benny Peiser
Benny Peiser (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and as of fall 2011, he is a Visiting Fellow at the right wing University of Buckingham, whose current and former vice chancellors serve on the GWPF academic advisory council.






Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

You on the other hand seem to be wedded to a single organisation opinion (the ironicly titled sceptical science), it is just that - opinion, any engineer should be sceptical of his/her own work. I definately want people to challenge my work for the simple reason that I want confidence in the product.
I'm most certainly wedded to what I have found to be consitent and recognised as main-stream peer-reviewed science. Sites like SkepticalScience.org, RealClimate.org, ScienceDaily.com, SourceWatch.org, DeSmogBlog.com, etc, etc, are all doing a great job ;-)



Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

You earlier accused me of using foul language. The only word I could find was the word 'tit' in the context of "the taxpayer's tit". I could have used the common biological mammalian term 'teat'. If you are so sensitive may I suggest you do not play here?



Regards



Dave
You don't even realise that you're doing it... I'm not sensitive, I just recognise that when people start using foul language, mess up their presentation, grammar, spelling, then they're getting a bit stressed, and probably not thinking straight...



I note that you make no comment to my challenges (sources cited, no need to trust anything I type) to the climate related opinions that you stated...?



Regards,



Geoff,

You are clearly on a mission. You are attached to the usual suspects but have yet to explain in your own words your fear of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide that can only be perceived as small in the context of the atmosphere at the present time. The reality that 40ppm of molecular content, that might be attributed to man seems to pass you by. Call me old fashioned but I had to ask what was being proposed by the IPCC some ten years ago. I looked at the numbers, anyone with 'O' level maths and physics can see the tenuous nature of the theory. How do you fudge it all in to the vast and heat consuming oceans? The school boy physics of latent heat should tell you something. If it wasn't for the politics we would not be discussing this.
It is likely that warming is in a hiatus and the IPCC is now taking a view on solar effects.
Thanks for your critic of my language, please point out where I went wrong, I'm always open to other views. As for links, I've posted a multitude including media and blogosphere sites. I read the stuff that might be termed 'green' too.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 23 December 2012 at 08:35 PM by HazelGroveWolf
 23 December 2012 07:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn: "Instead, Shakun et al. show that while CO2 lagged Antarctic temperatures, they led the major changes in the global average temperature (including many regions in the Northern Hemisphere and tropics)."

Thanks for taking the time, but I feel I should point out that you have just repeated, in more words, what you said last time.

I know that my analogy was simpler than the real climate but surely that is why you use one?

The quote above re Shakun is based on model data as I pointed out before. Model data is not acceptable to me as scientific evidence. So you still have not convinced me that a later event can trigger an earlier one - no matter how complicated things might be. Sorry.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 24 December 2012 01:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 205
Joined: 10 February 2012

Geoff,

My best wishes to you. See you after Xmas!
 24 December 2012 06:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Thanks Cookers!,

Yes, here's wishing everyone a Very Merry Christmas!

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 31 December 2012 01:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Wakey, wakey!

The IPCC AR5 is already looking dodgy Leaked AR5.

Valid political view here Sunday Telegraph.

Some do not subscribe to the carbon dioxide hypothesis When does a theory become fact?

In essence I think that engineers need to assert themselves on both sides of the debate, where they are informed of course. We are probably the best people to do it after all. The best products have always been devised by engineers that made mistakes and realised it (hopefully before the customer sees it).
The problem with many of the self appointed climate dictatorship such as Hanson, Mann and Jones is that they cannot recognise when they might be wrong and that they get away with this because the media is full of sympathetic arts graduates that are easily manipulated into a cause.
My opinion is that if there is a carbon dioxide problem then the solutions to that have not been properly explored. Existing over subsidised 'renewable' sources have proven pointless and inefficient. German energy policy has run hell for leather back to coal! The UK has the odious 'Climate Change Act' devised by a Friends of the Earth activist now Baroness Bryony Worthington (she has a degree in english literature FHS).
I'm not advocating waste, efficiency should be the language. Politicians should be asking engineers for the solutions to energy efficiency and coping with a larger population. Taxing the pants off everyone will maybe fix the latter only. As engineers we should be strenuously questioning the value of 'renewables'. The resource intensive (land, resourse, transmission) wind provides a tiny proportion of electricity generation, only a politician would propose such a system. Electricity generation is a relatively small, but versatile, contribution to the energy mix in the UK. The rest is direct burn. You might argue to change the mix but I will argue that for now direct burn has to be more cost effective and efficient than converting lossy sources of electricity to heat or motive power (over head power line trains excepted, perhaps due to regenerative braking), most of which will always by combustion of fuels.

Regards

Dave Nunn MIET

Edited: 31 December 2012 at 01:25 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 31 December 2012 10:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Wakey, wakey!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too Dave!
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
The IPCC AR5 is already looking dodgy Leaked AR5.

Well we've already looked into the WattsUpWithThat site and it's owner Anthony Watts
non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials
Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries
Heartlands are making the news these days as their true nature is recognised and hence their funding dries up. I'm surprised any educated professional engineers are still associating themselves with it, the mark of a true global warming denier?...

Genuine skeptics will no doubt find the following of interest
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
Alec Rawls, an occasional guest poster on the climate contrarian blog WattsUpWithThat who signed up to review the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (as anyone can), has "leaked" a draft version of the report and declared that it "contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing." This assertion was then repeated by James Delingpole at The Telegraph (with some added colorful language), and probably on many other climate contrarian blogs.

If the IPCC was to report that the sun is a significant player in the current rapid global warming, that would indeed be major news, because the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature and data clearly show that the sun has made little if any contribution to the observed global warming over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).
- I've pasted in a small part here, but there's lots more there with links and charts.

And from realclimate.orgIPCC draft (redux)
Amid the manufactured spin and excitement of the unofficial release of the IPCC WG1 Second Order Draft, it is worth remembering that this happened last time too:
IPCC draft: No comment

May 4, 2006

As everyone has now realised, the second-order draft of the new IPCC report has become very widely available and many of the contributors to this site, commenters and readers will have seen copies. Part of the strength of the IPCC process are the multiple stages of review - the report is already significantly improved (in clarity and scientific basis) from the first round of reviews, and one can anticipate further improvements from the ongoing round as well. Thus no statements from this draft report can be considered 'official'. While most of the contents of the report will come as no surprise to frequent visitors here, we have decided that we are not going to discuss the report until it is finalised and released (sometime in February 2007). At that time, we'll go chapter by chapter hopefully pulling out the interesting bits, but until then, we feel it's more appropriate to respect the 'Do not cite or quote' injunctions that can be found on every page. We trust that our commenters will likewise respect the process. Patience, people, patience!
The only change is that AR5 will be released in September 2013.
It's important that every time anyone in denial refers to this as 'the leaked IPCC report', or, 'the leaked AR5′, they're told very firmly that these are just drafts and that the real AR5 will not be available until September 2013. I completely agree that it's best not to be cajoled into discussing the supposed content.

Second: look out next September for those in denial looking for differences between these drafts and the published AR5, and trying to use them to show... well, anything really that diverts attention away from the fact that there's even more evidence to indicate that the world is warming and it's caused by humans.


From New Scientist: Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change
A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.


Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
Climate sceptics' claims that UN climate science panel's AR5 report show the sun is causing global warming don't stack up


And who is this Delingpole?:
From SourceWatch.org: James Delingpole, a few select quotes:
Delingpole has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford University. He does not appear to have any science qualifications.
To his regular readers this may seem balanced but the fact is that no scientific institution of national standing now endorses Mr Delingpole's creed of scepticism of anthropogenic global warming.
"I haven't got the time I haven't got the scientific expertise" Explaining to Sir Paul Nurse why it is not his job to read scientifc papers

Tory MP running Corby campaign 'backed rival in anti-windfarm plot'
Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Valid political view here Sunday Telegraph.
He really should get out more and look more widely at what the scientists are saying. Perhaps he could research a piece on the connection back from floods, droughts, heatwaves and cold snaps to the position of the jet stream, and back to why that has been moving, hint, it's the Arctic melt... Posts in this thread have already covered this if he'd like a helping hand... and who is Christopher Brooker
Booker wrote an article, titled ""The world has never seen such freezing heat," published in the UK's Telegraph, which purports to be a "shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees." Yet, according to EcoWorldly, the article falls considerably short of its goal, especially in terms of its scientific integrity
Booker is frequently derided for his inaccurate and sometimes dishonest reporting. ...
Booker attempted to refute it by using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies
In December 2009 Booker (along with Richard North (blogger) made allegations of financial impropriety against IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. These were published in the Sunday Telegraph which subsequently withdrew them after a libel action[4]. In August 2010, the Telegraph apologized to Pachauri after accounting firm KPMG found his business dealings spotless[5].
To highlight the level of inaccuracy and falsehood in skeptical journalism the Guardian launched a prize in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize" [6] The first nomination was inevitably Christopher Booker for an article about arctic sea ice with six errors in 900 words. [7]
Booker interferes with freedom of bookseller to categorize his work. When Amazon in the UK re-categorizinged Booker's work, he published a lament of that in his Sunday Telegraph blog.[8] He also has gets his publisher to intervene with the online bookseller and agitates for other skeptic publishers to act.[9] Whilst a minor issue, putting literature into categories is the task and the freedom of the bookseller. This is an instance of Booker trying to control the context of his skepticism.
- and Heartlands features there yet again...!


Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Some do not subscribe to the carbon dioxide hypothesis When does a theory become fact?


Well from the outset that link reads like rubbish, so who is he, SourceWatch.org: John O'Sullivan
External articles

Gareth Renowden (2011-07-04). So many lies - and the liar who tells them (here). Hot Topic: Global Warming And The Future Of New Zealand. Retrieved on 2011-07-03.
HT readers with long memories will remember him being wrong about everything before. In this case, amongst the untruths and libels in those few words is one simple mistake that makes the entire crank echo chamber look stupid for providing O'Sullivan with a platform. Jim Salinger's election to the presidency of the WMO Commission for Agricultural Meteorology (CAgM) took place in 2006 - as O'Sullivan's own reference demonstrates! Salinger remains a member of the CAgM, but the president is now
Dr Byong-Lyol Lee of Korea (full WMO membership list here). O'Sullivan's "scoop" is a mere five years out of date! But wait, there's more...


DeSmogBlog Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan (here) 26th July 2012
HT readers with long memories will remember him being wrong about everything before. In this case, amongst the untruths and libels in those few words is one simple mistake that makes the entire crank echo chamber look stupid for providing O'Sullivan with a platform. Jim Salinger's election to the presidency of the WMO Commission for Agricultural Meteorology (CAgM) took place in 2006 - as O'Sullivan's own reference demonstrates! Salinger remains a member of the CAgM, but the president is now
Dr Byong-Lyol Lee of Korea (full WMO membership list here). O'Sullivan's "scoop" is a mere five years out of date! But wait, there's more...



I think it's very clear that Dave Nunn aka HazelGroveWolf is wedded to a whole lot of dodgy sources to say the very least. Sorry, but I can't be bothered with any resultant opinions.

So, genuine climate change skeptics, beware emotive language, and watch out for dodgy sources, if you smell a rat you're probably right.

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 31 December 2012 03:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

Another wall of opinionated abuse from geoffbenn and again he fails at the first opportunity.

Far from Heartland funding drying up they have actually increased receipts.

Then again, who funds who has got nothing to do with the fact that the IPCC's warmer models can now be rejected with greater than 95% confidence.

It's very disappointing to see an engineer write so much without having taken the time to learn even a little about the very real issues with climate science.
 31 December 2012 05:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Mr Benn,

Which fantasy land did you find today at the fancy dress shop?
The websites you promote do not have a monopoly on facts. Anthony Watts provides a platform for all manner of qualified people and other commentators. Have you ever looked to the right of his home page and note that he links to other sites of opinion?

The other links I posted are challenging and by no means can be utterly refuted they remain valid arguements. Complex chaotic systems by their very nature are poorly understood and therefore it is arrogant to pretend to understand the earth system to the point that we humans can control it.

I find it a little difficult to believe you have ever been an engineer, the delusion that you could never be wrong tells me so. You are quite rude to dismiss my comments in the last post in a 'can't be bovvered' style. The Climate Change Act is economically insane. Please give me the courtesy of replying to my postings in your own words rather than links to militant websites. I have requested this before.

Happy calendar changing.

Best Regards

Dave

Edited: 01 January 2013 at 02:44 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 31 December 2012 05:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

A quick Google for Heartlands Funding brings up such fun!

Once certain individuals and organisations have been shown to be disreputable, then they've blown it, trust and reputation are gone. . What's amazing is that they will jump on so many different dodgy band wagons, fall off, and try another one! Think "survival of the fittest"... Some just don't deserve to survive with reputations intact.

Scientists know about reputations and are very careful, many have been attacked by the Climate Change Denial Machine, and have subsequently been vindicated.

I'm not going to make any apology for using sources based on main-stream peer-reviewed science. If only climate change deniers could find worthy sources...

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 31 December 2012 at 06:04 PM by geoffbenn
 31 December 2012 07:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

A quick Google for Heartlands Funding brings up such fun!



Once certain individuals and organisations have been shown to be disreputable, then they've blown it, trust and reputation are gone. . What's amazing is that they will jump on so many different dodgy band wagons, fall off, and try another one! Think "survival of the fittest"... Some just don't deserve to survive with reputations intact.



Scientists know about reputations and are very careful, many have been attacked by the Climate Change Denial Machine, and have subsequently been vindicated.



I'm not going to make any apology for using sources based on main-stream peer-reviewed science. If only climate change deniers could find worthy sources...



Regards


First of all consider this:

Heartland not so well funded

Using emotive expressions such as "Climate Change Denial Machine" isn't something I would associate with an engineer, explain your physics for a start. Geoff, in your own words.........

Regards

Dave Nunn MIET
 01 January 2013 08:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Originally posted by: geoffbenn

A quick Google for Heartlands Funding brings up such fun!

Once certain individuals and organisations have been shown to be disreputable, then they've blown it, trust and reputation are gone. . What's amazing is that they will jump on so many different dodgy band wagons, fall off, and try another one! Think "survival of the fittest"... Some just don't deserve to survive with reputations intact.

Scientists know about reputations and are very careful, many have been attacked by the Climate Change Denial Machine, and have subsequently been vindicated.

I'm not going to make any apology for using sources based on main-stream peer-reviewed science. If only climate change deniers could find worthy sources...

Regards


First of all consider this:

Heartland not so well funded

Using emotive expressions such as "Climate Change Denial Machine" isn't something I would associate with an engineer, explain your physics for a start. Geoff, in your own words.........

Regards

Dave Nunn MIET

Hi yet again Dave!,

Read that link. WattsUpWithThat again! Reads like lawyer speak aka weasel words. If you believe that then you'll believe anything... When you realise you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. And then again, unless you can see that you're in a hole then I guess you'll keep shoveling the proverbial?

Physics? Cause and effect? After we've seen so much climate change denial based on busted myths and disreputable sources, then one effect is to see it as a machine, funded in part by Heartlands, simple.

And to underline the point:

Lovely info-graphic showing progress as the Heartlands funding is withdrawn: Heartland's 2012 Funding: Fading Quickly
In response to the concerns of more than 150,000 people, a growing number of corporations have ended their support of the climate change-denying Heartland Institute, costing Heartland more than $1,000,000. Check out our progress below and then add your voice to push Heartland's remaining corporate supporters to pull their support immediately!


DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
These numbers come from the Heartland 2012 Budget and Fundraising Plan documents (in US dollars). Note that while some of the figures in this graphic have been confirmed, Heartland has not yet confirmed that all the numbers are correct. There is also no reason to doubt their veracity to this point. If any of the numbers are found to be in error, we will revise this graphic accordingly.

Although there are too many donations and programs to include in a single graphic, we selected some of the larger and more prominent contributors for the upper half of the graphic. Most of the programs and individuals in the lower half are potentially climate-related, with the exception of Operation Angry Badger, which we included because it potentially violates Heartland's tax-exempt charitable organizational status, and James Taylor, because he frequently writes climate "skeptic" blog posts for Forbes.


Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed
[Update Feb. 15. John Mashey has released a very timely report on Heartland and SEPP, Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, at Desmogblog (PDF 5Mb) with summaries from Richard Littlemore, and Mashey himself.]
Heartland's list of major projects also includes a new K-12 "global warming curriculum". The curriculum will promote the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a "major scientific controversy", and seems to steer clear of the actual science.

Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on "modules" for grades 10-12 on climate change ("whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy"), climate models ("models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial"), and air pollution ("whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions").

This "teach the controversy" approach (as opposed to teaching the actual science) seems similar to the anti-science effort of the Fraser Institute a couple of years back.


Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst
Firm has 'no plans' to work with thinktank following campaign comparing people concerned about climate to mass murderers
- how many died unnecessarily due to smoking after Heartlands work with Philip Morris... and how many will die unnecessarily due to climate change ...

The Heartland Institute Self Destructs
The once feared "Heartland Institute," funded by the secretive Koch brothers in their campaign to undermine science and deny the plain evidence for climate change has just committed a very public suicide on the Eisenhower Expressway on the outskirts of Chicago.


Heartland Funding Disinformation Echo Chamber
... Heartland also makes large and regular investments in other organizations, such as the web-based climate-change denier (and weather man) Anthony Watts.

Watts, in turn, has stepped up this week as the Heartland public relations department, putting his WUWT site at Heartland's disposal for the release of statements and generally defending his benefactor and attacking its detractors.


FACTSHEET: Heartland Institute, Heartland
In February of 2012, internal strategy and funding documents detailing the Heartland Institutes campaign of global warming denial were released to DeSmogBlog. The documents included strategies for raising funds from Koch brothers foundations, as well as a plan to create school curriculums that cast doubt on global warming science. Documents and analysis are available at desmogblog.com.

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.


Nice list: EXPOSED: The 19 Public Corporations Funding The Climate Denier Think Tank Heartland Institute
One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute's inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. Heartland has issued a press release claiming that some of these documents were sent to an outsider under false pretenses and that one document in the set is a fake, but the AP independently verified their contents.

Internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green reveal that the climate-denial think tank Heartland Institute received funding from at least 19 publicly traded corporations in 2010 and 2011. The companies' combined contributions exceeded $1.3 million for an array of projects. As Think Progress Green reported on Tuesday, the Heartland Institute's projects included a secret plan to teach children that climate change is a hoax.


Nuf said!

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 01 January 2013 10:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



abundy

Posts: 5
Joined: 10 November 2011

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Abundy, would you be kind enough to give some examples these recent 'mass extinctions' that you say are due to recent climate change? I suspect you will find many extinctions caused by hunting or habitat destruction by man or predators introduced by man, but zero caused by the mild 0.7oC warming that occured over the last century.


Consider the following quote from "Extinction risk from climate change" by Thomas , C.D. et al in Letters to Nature Nature Vol 427 |8 January 2004:

Climate change over the past ~30 years has produced numerous
shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has
been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections
of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we
assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of
the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in
which the estimated probability of extinction shows a powerlaw
relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on
the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that
15 - 37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be
'committed to extinction'.When the average of the three methods
and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming
scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to
extinction (~18%) than mid-range (~24%) and maximum change
(~35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance
of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.
 01 January 2013 11:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



abundy

Posts: 5
Joined: 10 November 2011

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

It looks like the date for the Mayan Apocalypse passed without incident. No doubt Geoff and Abundy will be climbing out of their doomsday bunkers about now,  eye's blinking in the daylight. Or perhaps they intend to stay down there until the man-made climate apocalypse which they claim has already started. If so they'll have a very long wait.


You were the person who accused me of rudeness in using the term 'climate deniers'. You don't seem to have a problem, however, in insulting Geoff and I by associating our promotion of mainstream climate science with this kind of crazy doomsday belief.
 01 January 2013 02:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
Read that link. WattsUpWithThat again! Reads like lawyer speak aka weasel words. If you believe that then you'll believe anything... When you realise you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. And then again, unless you can see that you're in a hole then I guess you'll keep shoveling the proverbial?


So here we are suggesting that lawyers speak is 'weasel words'. These lawyers just happen to be the well qualified people who represent clients in legal matters and in courts of law and it relation to matters of the law. I tend to think that if a person wishes to indicate they hold CEng, MIET etc., then they should remain professional, that is what they signed up to when they took the status.

Physics? Cause and effect? After we've seen so much climate change denial based on busted myths and disreputable sources, then one effect is to see it as a machine, funded in part by Heartlands, simple.

The climate scientists mislead people, with regards to key parts of their data, and were found out. Now as I understand things a reputable source does not mislead people. Also as I understand things they were not doing this for free.....they were receiving funding, i.e., getting paid. Both sides of the argument get their funding and political backing and have communicated their fair share of nonsense. However, the IPCC should have set the higher standard from the start but they did not.

The IPCC can no more predict the future than could the financial regulators some years ago. They do not even understand how to manage themselves and yet they profess to understand a very complicated climate through a few cherry picked measurements and inferior software models. I am sure if we went back 6 - 7 years the financial 'experts' could have shown some graphs and measurements and generated some computer models to show how the world economy was robust and was going to continue to grow, grow and grow. As I recall Gordon Brown 'We have abolished boom and bust'. Oh hail the great experts who are all knowing and so 'expert' all they can do is blindly follow their cherry picked graphs and measurements. I once sat in a meeting with a top UK company and a senior manager made a statement that a machine was running. I said "actually if you look out the window you can see it is stopped and it has been stopped for the last 2 hours and will be stopped for the next 2 hours." He replied "it says here on my piece of paper it is running and therefore it is running."

The trouble with this climate change tax scam is that all those involved now have an urgency to reduce human generated CO2 so that when things do not get as bad as they indicated it would they can say that was because of the action they took, whereas if they leave things as they are and then nothing significant happens they will have been found out. The primary driver is to cover up their errors.

Did you know the former chief of the FSA, who was supposed to regulate the financial institutions, has just been Knighted and joined a large high street bank on a £3 million a year salary. I am now going to check and see if any of the IPCC are on the list.

If there is an issue it is more related to an ever increasing worlds population and which is using more of the worlds resources than is sustainable however the politicians do not want to tackle that because it is not a vote winner and so we have climate change instead.

Have a happy and healthy new year.

Regards.
 01 January 2013 02:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: abundy
Consider the following quote from "Extinction risk from climate change" by Thomas , C.D. et al in Letters to Nature Nature Vol 427 |8 January 2004:

On the other hand human population is projected to grow, grow and grow and so it's not all bad news.

Have a happy and healthy 2013.

Regards.
 01 January 2013 06:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Geoff,

I'm not going to post any links, hidden or otherwise. You seem to be blind to the points I have made from my own writing to the point of ignorance. I'm still waiting for your own understanding of the physics and how the engineering to solve the 'problems' should be made to work.
I politely request that you answer the personal points I have made without 'pebble dashing' this message board with 'copy and paste' from skepticalscience. I've posted links which you can chose to read or not but never eye bleeding incomprehesible unsubstatiated quotes as you choose to do.
I've made many points in my own writing that you chose to ignore, I pointed this out to you yesterday. Please have the courtesy to respond in your own words to all my points without a scatter gun copy and paste from your favourite website.
If I am slow to respond it maybe that I have had to go to work to do some real world engineering.

Regards

Dave
 02 January 2013 11:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



tonyfisher123

Posts: 6
Joined: 25 July 2008

I am put in mind of a cartoon that appeared in the days when all unexpected weather was blamed on US (but not Russian) nuclear weapons tests: Two cavemen were shown standing in their cave entrance, looking out at a heavy rainstorm; Caveman No. 1 remarked "You know, we never had rain like this before they invented the bow-and-arrow!"
Is this sort of conclusion not perhaps relevant to the current discussion?
 02 January 2013 11:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



seandanaher

Posts: 4
Joined: 10 June 2009

Geoff you are doing a great job here.
I do not have the time to post in detail having a rather busy job but I will add my tuppence worth.
I have been concerned about environmental impact since my undergraduate placement in KFA Germany working on the Ozone layer in 1976. My opinion on AGW has changed significantly over the past 35 years or so, but I am possibly predisposed to believe in it. My reading of the scientific literature has led me from the 1) precautionary principle to 2) on the balance of probability to 3) beyond reasonable doubt to 4) virtual certainty that AGW is happening.

I find the sceptics arguments deeply unconvincing. Quite frankly I am horrified that so many members of the IET believe their arguments. I would very much prefer if AGW was not happening - business as usual would be far better than having to change. The debate seems to have become highly politicised particularly in the US.

Professor Sean Danaher
BSc(Hons) MSc PhD MIET CEng MInstP CPhys
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.