g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 1 This past March, 17 attorneys general launched a coordinated effort to
investigate, pursue and prosecute companies, think tanks and other
organizations that say there is little credible evidence that human “
greenhouse gas” emissions are causing “dangerous” or “catastrophic”
manmade climate change.
The AGs said their targets’ actions constitute “fraud” – which they
described as using “polished public relations campaigns” to “muddle the
truth,” “discredit prevailing climate science,” and “mislead” people
about threats from higher temperatures, rising seas, floods and more severe
weather. Their real goal is to intimidate and silence targeted groups, and
bankrupt them with legal fees, court costs and lost funding.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, ExxonMobil and
other “climate denier” organizations fought back vigorously, refusing to
surrender their constitutional rights to participate in this vital public
policy debate. The AGs’ bravado and prosecutions began fraying at the edges.
But one wonders: How will these intrepid protectors of the public interest
respond to Real Climate Fraud? To intentional misrepresentations of material
facts, with knowledge of their falsity, and for the purpose of inducing
persons or institutions to act, with resulting injury or damage.
Will those AGs – or other state AGs, Congress, state legislatures or the
Justice Department – investigate the growing list of highly questionable
actions by scientists and others who receive billions in taxpayer and
consumer funds for renewable energy programs and research into manmade
climate cataclysm scares … to justify policies, laws and regulations that
raise energy costs, destroy fossil fuel companies and jobs, force layoffs in
other industries, and harm poor, minority and working class families?
Or will they respond the way FBI Director Comey did to Hillary Clinton’s
reckless disregard for national security secrets: ignore the bad conduct,
and reward transgressors with more money, prestige and power?
The case for widespread misconduct by members of the $1.5-trillion-per-year
Climate Change & Renewable Energy Complex grows more compelling, and
disturbing, by the day. A complete listing and analysis would require books,
but these few examples underscore the seriousness of the global problem.
Crisis fabrication. After warming 1910-1940, cooling 1940-1975, warming 1975
-1998, not budging 1998-2015, Earth warmed slightly 2015-2016 amid a strong
El Niño. No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a
record 10-1/2 years. Seas are rising at 7 inches per century. Arctic ice is
near normal; Antarctic ice is at a record high. There are more polar bears
than ever.
But the White House, EPA, UN and media falsely claim we face an
unprecedented crisis – and must quickly replace reliable, affordable
hydrocarbons with expensive, subsidized, unreliable renewable energy, and
let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats control our lives, livelihoods and
living standards.
Data manipulation. When actual measurements don’t support climate chaos
claims, dishonest scientists “homogenize” and manipulate them to create
imaginary warming trends. Phil Jones, his British team and their US
counterparts eliminated centuries of Little Ice Age cooling and created new
records showing planetary temperatures suddenly spiking in recent decades.
They used ClimateGate emails to devise devious schemes preventing outside
analysts from examining their data, computer algorithms and methodologies –
and then “lost” information that peer reviewers wanted to examine.
NOAA’s clever climate consortium adjusted accurate sea-surface temperature
data from scientific ocean buoys upward by a quarter-degree, to “homogenize
” them with records from engine intake systems contaminated by shipboard
heat – thereby creating a previously undetected warming trend.
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology revised Rutherglen weather station data
to convert 100 years of data showing a slight cooling trend into a warming
of several degrees per century. As with other “adjustments” (by NASA, for
instance) the revisions always create warming trends – never a slight
cooling – and climate crisis scientists always say humans caused the
warming, even though they are unable to separate natural forces, cycles and
fluctuations from alleged human influences.
GIGO computer models. Climate models assume post-1975 warming is due to
manmade carbon dioxide; exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2 levels; and
simplify or ignore vital natural forces like solar energy variations, cosmic
ray fluxes, heat-reflecting clouds, and recurrent phenomena like El Niñ
;o and La Niña. They conjure up “scenarios” that alarmists treat as
valid predictions of what will happen if we don’t slash fossil fuel use.
Models replace actual evidence, and play an important role in climate
battles.
It’s complete GIGO: faulty assumptions, data, algorithms, analytical
methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out. That’s why “
hockey stick” and other models are so out of touch with reality. In fact,
an official IPCC graph showed that every UN climate model between 1990 and
2012 predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9
degrees C (1.6 F) higher than they actually were! The inconvenient graph was
revised for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report.
Report manipulation. Activists and bureaucrats always finalize the Summary
for Policymakers, the only IPCC climate document that most voters, elected
officials and journalists ever read. They want to ensure that already
politicized climate “science” does not undermine or contradict political
themes and agendas.
A 1995 State Department document reveals the extent of this interference and
manipulation. The 30-page document gave detailed instructions as to how the
Clinton White House wanted the summary’s scientific explanations and
conclusions revised, to make alleged climate and weather trends even more
worrisome. Donna Laframboise and others document the bias, distortion and
deception that dominate IPCC actions.
Consensus fabrication. Claims of a 97% consensus on climate cataclysm
science are likewise slippery, and based on bait-and-switch tactics that
look only at study abstracts of studies and then misrepresent what the
abstracts say, ask one question but base their conclusions on a different
one, or use other strategies and misrepresentations to hide the
disagreements and debates that still dominate this topic.
Cost-benefit falsification. The US Government has mastered this fraudulent
tactic, especially in its “social cost of carbon” calculations. EPA and
other agencies blame methane and carbon dioxide emissions for every
conceivable impact on agriculture, forests, water resources, “forced
migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea
levels, flooded coastal cities, too much or too little rain. They totally
ignore the way more CO2 makes plants grow faster and better, with less water.
They also ignore the enormous benefits of fossil fuels for 80% of all the
energy we use to transport people and products, generate reliable,
affordable electricity, and manufacture fertilizers, plastics and thousands
of other products. And they ignore the ways anti-energy regulations raise
hospital, factory and small business costs, kill jobs, and reduce living
standards, health and welfare for millions of people.
Why would they do these things? The US federal government alone spent $11.6
billion on “green” energy and climate “research” and “mitigation”
programs in 2014. That money did not go to scientists who question “
dangerous manmade climate change” doctrines.
Recipients and their parent institutions are determined to preserve this
funding, protect their reputations and prestige, and maintain their
influence and control over policies, laws, regulations, and wind, solar and
biofuel mandates and subsidies. It is all inextricably tied to silencing
inconvenient questions and, if needs be, engaging in systematic and systemic
exaggeration, falsification and misrepresentation.
So, AGs, by all means let’s investigate. But let’s not criminalize
differences of opinion. Let’s root out actual fraud, let real science
prevail, and protect our livelihoods and living standards from unscrupulous
people and organizations that are using fraudulent climate chaos claims to
control energy use, transform the US and global economic systems, and
redistribute the world’s wealth.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2016/07/16/the-hillary-treatment-for-climate-fraudsters-n2193168 | g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 2 Donald Trump:
"And actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out, so
they changed it to extreme weather, and they have all different names, you
know, so that it fits the bill. But the problem we have, and if you look at
our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem
that I don’t think in any major fashion exists. I mean, Obama thinks it’s
the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on
the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove
something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and
I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes
depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much
bigger problems."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-global-warming_us_5601d04fe4b08820d91aa753 | t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | 3 赞common sense
at
problem
’s
and
changes
【在 g********2 的大作中提到】
: Donald Trump:
: "And actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out, so
: they changed it to extreme weather, and they have all different names, you
: know, so that it fits the bill. But the problem we have, and if you look at
: our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem
: that I don’t think in any major fashion exists. I mean, Obama thinks it’s
: the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on
: the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove
: something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and
: I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes
| t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | 4 发信人: ElectricBro (Peace de Wars), 信区: USANews
标 题: 英国女首相第一弹：废掉Climate Change部门
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Jul 17 15:04:05 2016, 美东)
不让暖球逼们再祸害本土企业 | p********y
发帖数: 301 | 5 不能因为左派‘支持’气候变化的研究，就一味的打压这个学科。
整个大气科学界，正经反对气候变化的人，就那么几个，但是你仔细看看会发现，他们
的研究经费很多是来自private的，和能源石油相关的企业的。 | V*****i
发帖数: 9883 | 6 没有打压学科的问题
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 不能因为左派‘支持’气候变化的研究，就一味的打压这个学科。
: 整个大气科学界，正经反对气候变化的人，就那么几个，但是你仔细看看会发现，他们
: 的研究经费很多是来自private的，和能源石油相关的企业的。
| r***i
发帖数: 9780 | 7 气候变化和太阳直接相关
地球影响几乎可以忽略
关键问题在于左逼拿住这个话题方便自己搞破坏获取更多权力
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 不能因为左派‘支持’气候变化的研究，就一味的打压这个学科。
: 整个大气科学界，正经反对气候变化的人，就那么几个，但是你仔细看看会发现，他们
: 的研究经费很多是来自private的，和能源石油相关的企业的。
| s*****l
发帖数: 7106 | 8 同意
立场决定观点=屁股决定脑子
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 不能因为左派‘支持’气候变化的研究，就一味的打压这个学科。
: 整个大气科学界，正经反对气候变化的人，就那么几个，但是你仔细看看会发现，他们
: 的研究经费很多是来自private的，和能源石油相关的企业的。
| s*****l
发帖数: 7106 | 9 瞎扯
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 气候变化和太阳直接相关
: 地球影响几乎可以忽略
: 关键问题在于左逼拿住这个话题方便自己搞破坏获取更多权力
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 10 私有资金没有原罪。
这年头，一提对方是能源石油华尔街，就好像已经赢了。
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 不能因为左派‘支持’气候变化的研究，就一味的打压这个学科。
: 整个大气科学界，正经反对气候变化的人，就那么几个，但是你仔细看看会发现，他们
: 的研究经费很多是来自private的，和能源石油相关的企业的。
| p********y
发帖数: 301 | 11 没错，但是不禁让人怀疑他们发表的言论，论文，是否会受到这些funding 来源的影响。
何况这些skeptic几乎没有发表什么学术论文来支持他们的观点。
怀疑别人的论点远比证明自己的论点要容易多了。 | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 12 这不用怀疑。
能源价格上涨，能源行业首当其冲。当然抵抗埋二氧化碳之类的总统令。
只要他们在论文里提到了资金来源就行了。
响。
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 没错，但是不禁让人怀疑他们发表的言论，论文，是否会受到这些funding 来源的影响。
: 何况这些skeptic几乎没有发表什么学术论文来支持他们的观点。
: 怀疑别人的论点远比证明自己的论点要容易多了。
| t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | 13 带着政治任务的发表的言论，论文就不受影响？
响。
【在 p********y 的大作中提到】
: 没错，但是不禁让人怀疑他们发表的言论，论文，是否会受到这些funding 来源的影响。
: 何况这些skeptic几乎没有发表什么学术论文来支持他们的观点。
: 怀疑别人的论点远比证明自己的论点要容易多了。
|
|
