Obama Attacks ‘Climate Deniers’ For Wasting Time Debating ‘Fact’

[Meister]

Yes its a world wide conspiracy! Every scientist in the world is in on it!

Sorry....no matter how many times you goofballs spew a lie, it's still a lie.
It's your MO, I understand that.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes its a world wide conspiracy! Every scientist in the world is in on it!

Sorry....no matter how many times you goofballs spew a lie, it's still a lie.
It's your MO, I understand that.

"Because I said so!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you ever suspected that the AGW cult doesn't care whether the sky is really falling or not, here's the smoking gun:

Obama Attacks ?Climate Deniers? For Debating ?Fact? | The Daily Caller

President Obama took time in his Friday speech at a California Wal-Mart to bash “climate deniers” for obstructing him by debating the science behind man-made global warming.

“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.”

“Here in California, you’ve seen these effects firsthand,” Obama told the audience at a Mountain View Wal-Mart. “You know what’s happening. And increasingly, more and more Americans do — including, by the way, many Republicans outside of Washington.”

Obama’s speech to announce more executive orders to promote solar energy development and energy efficiency subsidies comes just days after the White House released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA).

The NCA claimed that global warming was already happening and had caused the U.S. to warm about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. The report also claimed that temperatures could increase another 4 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels could rise 4 feet in the coming decades if no action is taken.

“Hundreds of scientists, experts and businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years,” Obama said. “What they found was unequivocally that climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now. It’s causing hardship now.”(continued)​

Yeah, that 'consensus' was derived from the Cook et al. paper. However, Dr. Richard Tol systematically destroyed the 'consensus' assertion. So much so that he was threatened with a lawsuit and possible arrest by the University of Queensland. Shown here:

My Hundredth Post Can?t Be Shown | Izuru

Here: the person responsible for the Cook et al. paper, Dana Nuccitelli, has been accused of sampling bias, and thus possibly manufacturing this so-called '97% consensus' that Obama is referring to:

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656856057106432


And here:

“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
​

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers. Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus | Watts Up With That?

 

[TheIceMan]

If you ever suspected that the AGW cult doesn't care whether the sky is really falling or not, here's the smoking gun:

Obama Attacks ?Climate Deniers? For Debating ?Fact? | The Daily Caller

President Obama took time in his Friday speech at a California Wal-Mart to bash “climate deniers” for obstructing him by debating the science behind man-made global warming.

“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.”

“Here in California, you’ve seen these effects firsthand,” Obama told the audience at a Mountain View Wal-Mart. “You know what’s happening. And increasingly, more and more Americans do — including, by the way, many Republicans outside of Washington.”

Obama’s speech to announce more executive orders to promote solar energy development and energy efficiency subsidies comes just days after the White House released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA).

The NCA claimed that global warming was already happening and had caused the U.S. to warm about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. The report also claimed that temperatures could increase another 4 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels could rise 4 feet in the coming decades if no action is taken.

“Hundreds of scientists, experts and businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years,” Obama said. “What they found was unequivocally that climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now. It’s causing hardship now.”(continued)​

Yeah, that 'consensus' was derived from the Cook et al. paper. However, Dr. Richard Tol systematically destroyed the 'consensus' assertion. So much so that he was threatened with a lawsuit and possible arrest by the University of Queensland. Shown here:

My Hundredth Post Can?t Be Shown | Izuru

Here: the person responsible for the Cook et al. paper, Dana Nuccitelli, has been accused of sampling bias, and thus possibly manufacturing this so-called '97% consensus' that Obama is referring to:

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656856057106432


And here:

“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
​

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers. Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus | Watts Up With That?

Beautiful. Now prove man did it. Pardon me if I DON'T hold my breath.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you ever suspected that the AGW cult doesn't care whether the sky is really falling or not, here's the smoking gun:

Obama Attacks ?Climate Deniers? For Debating ?Fact? | The Daily Caller

President Obama took time in his Friday speech at a California Wal-Mart to bash “climate deniers” for obstructing him by debating the science behind man-made global warming.

“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.”

“Here in California, you’ve seen these effects firsthand,” Obama told the audience at a Mountain View Wal-Mart. “You know what’s happening. And increasingly, more and more Americans do — including, by the way, many Republicans outside of Washington.”

Obama’s speech to announce more executive orders to promote solar energy development and energy efficiency subsidies comes just days after the White House released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA).

The NCA claimed that global warming was already happening and had caused the U.S. to warm about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. The report also claimed that temperatures could increase another 4 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels could rise 4 feet in the coming decades if no action is taken.

“Hundreds of scientists, experts and businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years,” Obama said. “What they found was unequivocally that climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now. It’s causing hardship now.”(continued)​

Yeah, that 'consensus' was derived from the Cook et al. paper. However, Dr. Richard Tol systematically destroyed the 'consensus' assertion. So much so that he was threatened with a lawsuit and possible arrest by the University of Queensland. Shown here:

My Hundredth Post Can?t Be Shown | Izuru

Here: the person responsible for the Cook et al. paper, Dana Nuccitelli, has been accused of sampling bias, and thus possibly manufacturing this so-called '97% consensus' that Obama is referring to:

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656856057106432


And here:

“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
​

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers. Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers. Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus | Watts Up With That?

Beautiful. Now prove man did it. Pardon me if I DON'T hold my breath.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Erand7899]

The "natural cycles!" theory fails completely at explaining why the outgoing longwave radiation is squeezing down in the greenhouse gas bands.

Since the natural cycles theory is contradicted by the data, that theory is wrong.

AGW theory, however, explains all the observed data very well, hence why it has such credibility. If the devoutly religious want the mantras of their right-wing-extremist political-religious cult to have similar credibility, they need to come up with a theory that explains the observed evidence, just as the mainstream scientists have successfully done.

Wow! Longwave radiation squeezes down in the greenhouse gas bands. And, that is why they call it a greenhouse gas. Who would have thunk it?

What is a "mainstream" scientist? Is that someone who agrees with you?

It is not extremely difficult to generate a theory that is explained by the observed data, when you ignore all data that does not conform to your theory.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Wasting money on fixing a erroneous problem is what liberals do.
2. Been that way for 50 years.
3. God controls the weather, you want rain best pray for it, stop acting like scum pond material, get straight.
4. God is in control, and its his world to do with what he wishes.
5. All things come back to God, and come from God.
6. You keep going against God and see how sucky it gets here in America, look who is leading this once Great Nation.
7. The pond scum liberals and the fence sitting shit eating independents who are enhancing America's decline.
8. Sadly most American's are way to fucking stupid to understand any of this.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Newby]

I knew you wouldn't do it. Just Google it.
You gave me the "all the industrialized nations" bs without evidence.....which obviously was wrong.

I provided a link. Too lazy to click it? Oh wait of course you are, you told me to find the proof for YOUR claim.

I take it you wont be providing any source for your claim. Got it.

No, no you didn't provide a link. You made a claim about industrialized countries, NOT your money grubbing academia.

Yeah, where's this link? I didn't see one?

 

[depotoo]

This is from The Institute of Physics, a governmental institute in the UK
Uncorrected Evidence 39
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
*1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.*2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide*prima facie*evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the*IPCC's conclusions on climate change.*3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:*· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.*4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.*5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the*IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.*6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in thee-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.*7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.*8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.*9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with*the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.**Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on*3 December 2009by UEA adequate?*10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the*IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.*11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.*12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.**How independent are the other two international data sets?*13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

*

*

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

*

*

Here's close to 200 that say it's real. Give me 1, just one that says it isn't.

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)
Climate Change: Consensus
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala

Those don't look like 'countries' to me, they look like institutions, you didn't provide a link as to where you got that list, who are they supported by financially, or the individuals that are associated. You also have not listed what any other country is doing about it?

You obviously read my post closely because how else would you miss the link at the very beginning of the post. And these are the scientific bodies of most industrialized countries.

We both know you are a dishonest hack who literally has not one example to point to, so instead you will keep looking for something else to focus on instead of answering what should be a very simple question for someone who is so sure of herself.

There is a reason you're in the minority with this as well as pretty much everything else you think about the world. You're a sheep.

Don't bother responding unless it's with a scientific organization or nation that has declared AGW to be false.

Baaaaaaaaah.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yes its a world wide conspiracy! Every scientist in the world is in on it!

Sorry....no matter how many times you goofballs spew a lie, it's still a lie.
It's your MO, I understand that.

Dozens of nations and thousands of scientists are conspiring against you. They meet next week and throw darts at your pic, then they make everyone pinky swear not to tell

 

[Katzndogz]

Warmists can have a consensus among scientists only if they successfully prosecute and silence scientists trying to tell the truth.

Scientists in cover-up of ?damaging? climate view | The Times

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Republicans have a hard time with sarcasm. Colbert seems to always go over their heads

 

[RKMBrown]

Republicans have a hard time with sarcasm. Colbert seems to always go over their heads

Libtards value their own opinions to highly.

 

[depotoo]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten
Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson has long been considered a cool head in the often heated conflict over global warming. In an interview, he defends his decision to join an organization that is skeptical of climate change.The debate over climate change is often a contentious one, and key players in the discussion only rarely switch sides. But late last month, Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers, announced he would join the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

If you will look at my former posts in this thread, you will see he has been threatened by those behind agw and has already resigned this new post, wihin 3 months of taking it, due to fears for his safety. This is whats happens to many that dare question. They are threatened and blackballed, and the media, for the most part ignores the threats they receive. And you dare question why we don't hear more from other researchers and their findings.

 

[depotoo]

Here is my original post. He is just one of many.

Date: 30/04/14Global Warming Policy FoundationRead moreLondon, 1 May: The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists, has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. Professor Lennart Bengtsson has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He participated actively in the development of ECMWF (European Centre for […]
Professor Lennart Bengtsson Joins GWPF Academic Advisory Council | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Date: 14/05/14The Global Warming Policy Foundation
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. *His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.Dr Benny Peiser,*Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation*

Resigning from the GWPF

Dear Professor Henderson,I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson


Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

 

[depotoo]

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes