Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby kramer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:53 am

The [climate] science is settled:

However, the point that I would like to make is that in the late 1980's and in the 1990's we notice a clear tendency in our model for greater than average warming in the southeast United States and the midwest.

- James Hansen et al, 1988


The 20th century cooling trend over the southeastern United States

Abstract
Portions of the southern and southeastern United States, primarily Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, have experienced century-long (1895–2007) downward air temperature trends that occur in all seasons.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-1437-6


“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

MDDad
Posts: 12093
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby MDDad » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:00 pm

There's an old joke that says the only job in which you can be wrong 90% of the time and not get fired is TV weatherman. I think it may be time to add "climate scientist" to the list.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby Parrotpaul » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:47 pm

So...all these guys and their opinions and research are bogus...no?

Evidence turns Kramer's stuff into goo.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby kramer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:02 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:So...all these guys and their opinions and research are bogus...no?

Evidence turns Kramer's stuff into goo.


Goo right back at you. Why? Your politifact link used a think tank as a source of it's 'factual' info that gets Rockefeller funding.

From your link:
A recent study of a proposed cap-and-trade policy’s effect on Wisconsin consumers showed it could "raise gasoline prices by 141 percent and electricity rates by 171 percent" by 2030.
Rating: Mostly false.


Here's the link that gives more details on this one politifact. link

Here's the meat of what's in that page:
The study does have numbers very close to what Johnson cited -- 141 and 177 percent increases, for gas and oil, solely because of the bill. The study broke out price effects for each state, as well as a national figure.

But several things jumped out at us about the study.

In predicting price effects over nearly 25 years, the study presents a range of low and high price-hike estimates, not single figures. The low-cost estimate for gasoline is 72 percent, half of the worst-case estimate. For electricity, the low end increase was 126 percent.

Johnson mentions only the worst-case scenario, though he did frame it as prices "could" jump by the higher figures.

The study was commissioned by two groups that have opposed legislative efforts on climate change on the same economic grounds that Johnson cites. They are the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).


So, right away, we see this "unbiased" source pointing out that this study was commissioned by two anti-climate pro-industry legislation groups implying it's probably BS or that those groups are nothing but organizations run by rich white men looking to enrich themselves or the companies they support or blah blah more leftist drivel...

Farther down, the politifact page says:
Gasoline: The Johnson-cited study projected hikes of $1.70 to $3.25 per gallon by 2030, while the federal government’s official source of energy statistics, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), predicted increases of 40 cents per gallon. The non-profit Clean Air Task Force put the hike at 25 cents.


So I looked up who funds the Clean Air Task Force and sure enough, it gets Rockefeller funding!
http://www.catf.us/resources/publicatio ... _Grave.pdf

So, your unbiased politifact site made sure to expose who was behind the 'right-wing' report yet had no problem using a 'non-profit' as a source of truth and facts and also did not disclose that this non-profit has connections to a funding organization that funds mostly left-wing causes.

Did you see my thread on how Rockefeller (and others) are working with corporations for global control and how they are using science to manage and control people and have ties to the CIA and the MSM? Perhaps you did see it but didn't make a comment because it was linked to a left wing site instead of Alex Jones?
Anyway, the fact that politifact is using a Rockefeller funded think-tank or NGO for fact checking is proof of what that thread says.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby kramer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:18 pm

Other Rockefeller ties to the politifact link above are in the following section:

"Wayne Smith says science has not shown greenhouse gases to be a problem"
"Barack Obama slams Rick Perry on climate change, citing Texas wildfires"
"Do scientists disagree about global warming?"
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby Parrotpaul » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:34 pm

What do you have against Rockefeller?
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23919
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby Wabash » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:41 pm

Yup. The Rockefellers were all known as liberal wackos.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: S. East US warm up claim fails to occur

Postby kramer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:50 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:What do you have against Rockefeller?


They fund a variety of left wing causes.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Return to “Science and Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest