REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It's OK to lie about climate change

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2014 22:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2179
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.ab
stract






Any questions ?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:46 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


One question that you should have asked: who are the authors of this article? You seem to have assumed that they are climate scientists who are pro AGW?

Question 2: Where did you hear about this article?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:53 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
One question that you should have asked: who are the authors of this article? You seem to have assumed that they are climate scientists who are pro AGW?

Question 2: Where did you hear about this article?

It's not personal. It's just war.



Question 3: Why did the final episode of "How I Met Your Mother" suck?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 3:43 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
One question that you should have asked: who are the authors of this article? You seem to have assumed that they are climate scientists who are pro AGW?

Question 2: Where did you hear about this article?

It's not personal. It's just war.



Question 3: Why did the final episode of "How I Met Your Mother" suck?


All episodes of that show suck. How I Met Your Mother sucks ass like there's no tomorrow.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 3:49 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Question One: Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao are Assistant Professors, Division of Economics at Nanyang Technological University in China (China, you know; the country causing the worst pollution in the world). They are not "economists", they are ASSISTANT professors in the "Division of Economics" at a Chinese TECHNOLOGICAL college.

Question Two: It came from Breitbart, of course:
Quote:

James Delingpole reports at Breitbart:
Quote:

"Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists..." http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/04/Lying-About-Clima
te-Change-To-Advance-The-Green-Agenda-Is-Good-Says-Peer-Reviewed-Paper


http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/tag/fuhai-hong/



Also note: The article even states "It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change." Nothing whatsoever about climate SCIENTISTS or anyone else. And "accentuate" and "exaggerate" are not "lie".

Hong and Zhao have also responded:
Quote:

[Update: Authors of paper claim "misrepresentation" by media.: The authors Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao sent out a note to members of the media which read in part: "Unfortunately, our points in the paper have been mis-interpreted and exaggerated by a few media. In the link below, please see our reply to the blog of Jayson Lusk. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2014/3/6/information-manipulation-revisited - Hopefully, this link helps clarify our point. We never advocate lying on climate change."] http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advoc
ates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics
/



Two Chinese assistant professors wrote something. Right wing goes nuts. They deny right wing's obvious misinterpretation. End of story. Debunked. So much for this thread.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 4:02 PM

REAVERFAN


Thank you, Niki, for exposing the bullshit that is anything one will ever read in Breitbart, once again.

Seriously, they've never printed anything true. Ever. They function as a propaganda wing of fascist disinformation, as they so amply demonstrate for the 1000th time here.

Only trolls seeking confirmation of their own erroneous biases would be stupid enough to start a thread with such garbage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Nothing was 'exposed', save for the warm-mongers lust for lying and deceit.

Just like w/ the E. Anglia e-mails, we're seeing a quick retreat and cries of 'distortion! Misinterpretations ! ', etc...



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


definition of a troll: "and I refuse to chase others in a mindless, endless circle of " debate " on the internet. If I 'bitch out' of a discussion, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter, my views have been presented, and there's nothing left to add."



RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is
whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies


Reaverfan Oh, wait. There are no liberal shows.
Rappy Those are liberal. Ultra far left, uber extremists.


"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:43 PM

CHRISISALL


The Rappy Crappyfesto:

I am never wrong. But in rare cases where I am, I'm really NOT- someone else misinterpreted what I said.

I post truth and accuracy only. I am not responsible for the misinterpretation of truth.

I do not listen to Rush; I advise him.

My erroneously documented IQ is 90, but since I only put half my energy towards the test, my actual official IQ is 181.

My greatest fictional hero is Alex Keaton (except for the last season where he became a kind of left wing version of a righteous Right Wing character).

Contrary to popular belief, I have been wrong many times in my life. But once I learned to speak & walk at age two, that was thankfully all behind me.

If it weren't for Jayne, Firefly would be a shit series.

Is the glass half full or half empty?
That all depends on Obama, and whether he's lying about its contents. Because he lies. Like no other politician ever. No other politician on Earth in the past or the future was as vile. Barry would welcome the lizards in "V" with wildly open arms. Barrys' favourite scene ever in a movie was the end of Beneath The Planet Of The Apes, where the Earth was destroyed. Why does Barry not shave his head? You'd clearly see the three sixes then.
I'd go on, but I was never one to belabour a point.
But Barry IS evil.
I have proved it.
But enough on that.
(Barry lied about going to the bathroom yesterday; he just can't help it)









NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


LOL!!!



"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



The glass is always full. Air, water,beer, what ever, it contains something. Always.

You just can't quit me, can you Chrissy ?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 7:06 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You just can't quit me, can you Chrissy ?

I'm an easy mark; you paint that big ole red target on yourself with your endless, petulant & generally ignorant verbal diarrhea, and I just have to take a shot.
Thanks for makin' me feel better, even if it IS a bit of a lowering of my Shaolin sensibilities to do so... heh heh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 7:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by CHRISISALL:

I'm an easy mark...




That you are, Chrissy. That you are.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That you are, Chrissy. That you are.

HA HA, yep. Don't worry on it none though, you'll say something surprisingly stupid again (probably sooner than later) that'll cause me to temporarily flounce out again, I conjure.
You are singular sir. One of the smartest absolute fools I have ever come across.
Rush is just a mean opportunistic prick; YOU actually seem to believe the shit you spew. LOL!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:24 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Auraptor's posts almost don't need to be parodied. Take his insane nonsense rant above for example.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:41 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Auraptor's posts almost don't need to be parodied. Take his insane nonsense rant above for example.

Call it my need to make lemonade out of feces.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:53 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

You are singular sir. One of the smartest absolute fools I have ever come across. Rush is just a mean opportunistic prick; YOU actually seem to believe the shit you spew.


Well said, my man. I enjoyed your parody, it made me smile, but I refrained from responding, knowing it would only continue the asininity. Since it's continued anyway, figured I'd pop in to say "well said, my man". I find it increasingly absurd how he can continue to claim something is true which has been quite clearly, carefully and in detail debunked as false, and can in all seriousness come back with shit like "Nothing was 'exposed', save for the warm-mongers lust for lying and deceit." Just really so damned sad and pathetic, it leaves me shaking my head. You, at least, somehow manage to find humor in it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 10:08 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
You, at least, somehow manage to find humor in it.

At times, yes. He's so stuck in his predictable right wing rhetoric that it's not always possible, yet mining sometimes yields results.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 5, 2014 11:31 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by CHRISISALL:

Call it my need to make lemonade out of feces.


Maga sees right through you and knows you're not what you pretend to be.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 7:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That you are, Chrissy. That you are.


HA HA, yep. Don't worry on it none though, you'll say something surprisingly stupid again (probably sooner than later) that'll cause me to temporarily flounce out again, I conjure.

You are singular sir. One of the smartest absolute fools I have ever come across.
Rush is just a mean opportunistic prick; YOU actually seem to believe the shit you spew. LOL!



I fail to see what Rush ( not the Rock band, right ? ) has to do w/ this matter, in the least.

And more so, it's not mere 'belief', but actual reality. I am stating that the Earth goes around the Sun, and you're laughing at me, still operating under the false construct that all in the heavens revolve around the Earth.

This is the level of disconnect you're displaying, Chrissy. So hell bent on taking sides, are you.

Mock, insult, ridicule all you wish, it won't change the facts. It'll just make YOU look all the more a fool.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2: I find it increasingly absurd how he can continue to claim something is true which has been quite clearly, carefully and in detail debunked as false, and can in all seriousness come back with shit like "Nothing was 'exposed', save for the warm-mongers lust for lying and deceit." Just really so damned sad and pathetic, it leaves me shaking my head. You, at least, somehow manage to find humor in it.




Point of fact, Niki, is that it was NOT " debunked ", in the least. There in lies the lynch pin of your whole delusion.

But first, let's go back to the part about the authors of the original paper. The Chinese non-economists. I have to ask, what is your point? To try to discredit them, for not being climatologists? Or economists with degrees ? ( They are, and they do, btw ) Or that they're from China, which is really really bad ( or good ) at polluting the planet ? Please clarify.

And despite your attempt to trash the origins of this story by association, it did NOT come from Breitbart. I first heard of it via another forum, w/ links to the American Thinker, which was referencing the peer-reviewed piece from The American Journal of Agricultural Economics, written by the two Chinese authors.( Fuhai Hong is an assistant professor in the Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University. Xiaojian Zhao is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. )

The abstract, which was free for all, was linked, where as the full text of the article written, was for subscribers only.

At no time did I visit or read anything which connected this story to 'Breitbart '. Your inclusion of such into this story shows clear intent on your part to poison the well with what you proclaim to be a biased, tainted and discredited news organization. Hell, in your eyes, ANY conservative news is discredited, out of hand, so that's no big surprise.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Question One: Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao are Assistant Professors, Division of Economics at Nanyang Technological University in China (China, you know; the country causing the worst pollution in the world). They are not "economists", they are ASSISTANT professors in the "Division of Economics" at a Chinese TECHNOLOGICAL college.




Fuhai Hong has a PhD in Economics, so I'd tend to consider him an economist. http://fhhong.weebly.com/

Xiaojian Zhao also has a PhD in Economics, and teaches at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. See her c.v. at https://sites.google.com/site/xjzhao81/

Anyone here got an PhD in Economics?

Too bad that their paper is not available without paying for it. It'd be interesting to see folks discuss the facts rather than smear the authors.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:56 AM

REAVERFAN


The secret word is "asininity."

Whenever anyone says "asininity," SCREAM REAL LOUD!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 9:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So hell bent on taking sides, are you.

....and of course the standard accusation which is ironically more true of the accuser.
(That was my more sophisticated version of the rubber/glue gambit)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:19 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Point of fact, Niki, is that it was NOT " debunked ", in the least. There in lies the lynch pin of your whole delusion.

Auraptor. You titled this thread 'It's OK to lie about climate change', and then posted this quote:

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

The implication is that the authors of this article are advocating lying about climate change. That is completely wrong and has been debunked.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:19 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, that's the simple answer, KPO. But further, Rap, Breitbart and all the others flat-out lied to begin with. The title they use is "lie about climate change", and even the article doesn't say that, it says "accentuate or even exaggerate", and BOTH AUTHORS also clearly stated that IS NOT WHAT THEY WROTE.

The right wing states it as "It's okay to lie about climate change"; first, the authors never said anything about "lying", second, they never said it was "okay", in fact they clearly stated the opposite, third, they clearly stated "the media and SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS" "accentuate or exaggerate"--nowhere is there anything about SCIENTISTS doing so.

This thread has been debunked over, under, around and through…to say it has not is merely trolling.

I'm not "dissing" the authors, I've pointed out that they are merely ASSISTANT professors, of an UNRELATED field, at TECHNOLOGICAL universities, and that their opinions thus have nothing to do with what SCIENTISTS say or do. It is ONLY on right-wing websites that they have extrapolated it to scientists, climatologists, etc.

I also never claimed RAP "got it" from Breitbart. I stated THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM, because that's where it shows up first (4/4/2014) on Google. Google "Lying about climate change", and Breitbart is the first thing that comes up ( http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/04/Lying-About-Clima
te-Change-To-Advance-The-Green-Agenda-Is-Good-Says-Peer-Reviewed-Paper
). Googling Rap's exact title brings up "AmericanThinker" first, but I can't get on their site, so I can't tell if it showed up there the same day. But right-wing sites glomed onto it, as I posted above, by QUOTING Breitbart (the next day) in their articles ( http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/tag/fuhai-hong.

Breitbart's title is cute--still a lie, but cute: "Lying About Climate Change To Advance The Green Agenda Is Good, Says Peer-Reviewed Paper". Again: Nowhere did the authors say "lie", they did not say it was "good".

It's astonishing the pretzels some will tie themselves into to try and claim black is white.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Point of fact, Niki, is that it was NOT " debunked ", in the least. There in lies the lynch pin of your whole delusion.

Auraptor. You titled this thread 'It's OK to lie about climate change', and then posted this quote:

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

The implication is that the authors of this article are advocating lying about climate change. That is completely wrong and has been debunked.




information manipulation is a clever way of saying " to lie ".

Claiming the * title ( which wasn't mine ) implies the authors were NOT advocating about lying is false. They were, and nothing was 'debunked'.

Niki - Because YOU googled something, you falsely assume that *I* MUST have obtained what ever info YOUR search yielded.

Guess again, sweet heart. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

But you do seem perplexed about how to deal w/ these economists. On the one hand, you're discrediting them, as being ONLY " assistant " professors, but on the other, you're saying they're not telling anyone to lie. They're from China, which is guilty of polluting, but they're also ... well hell, you really don't know WHAT to think , now do you ? Only that Breitbart is wrong, and you think anything they say has been 'debunked', simply because it goes against what you WISH were true.

I do have to laugh.


* Title comes from a blog - http://www.cfact.org/2014/04/04/peer-reviewed-paper-its-ok-to-lie-abou
t-climate
/


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


definition of a troll: "and I refuse to chase others in a mindless, endless circle of " debate " on the internet. If I 'bitch out' of a discussion, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter, my views have been presented, and there's nothing left to add."



"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:04 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


He is funnier than hell, isn't he? I QUALIFIED that the opinion of the authors in question has no bearing on what SCIENTISTS do or say, and CORRECTED the lie that they wrote "lying" was "good"--in fact they have stated flatly and unequivocally that they did NOT write that and do not believe that, and HE'S confused?

Thanks Kiki, you're right; any further time wasted on this is just that, a waste...Obviusly now he's trolling, and since I just took a bit of time to debunk his latest lie, anything beyond that is feeding the troll...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Yeah, he'll do ANYthing to get a response - even play the idiot.



"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
He is funnier than hell, isn't he? I QUALIFIED that the opinion of the authors in question has no bearing on what SCIENTISTS do or say, and CORRECTED the lie that they wrote "lying" was "good"--in fact they have stated flatly and unequivocally that they did NOT write that and do not believe that, and HE'S confused?




Of course they didn't say " LYING is good ", dumb ass. But that was the message they were pimping, none the less.

Quote:



Thanks Kiki, you're right; any further time wasted on this is just that, a waste...Obviusly now he's trolling, and since I just took a bit of time to debunk his latest lie, anything beyond that is feeding the troll...




I lost count at how many declarations of this sort you've wasted time typing, only to keep on doing exactly what you claim you're going stop doing. You really must suck at keeping promises.

You've debunked absolutely nothing, btw. You've just strongly denied reality, and then posted silly cartoons about trolls.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.






"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
The title they use is "lie about climate change", and even the article doesn't say that, it says "accentuate or even exaggerate", and BOTH AUTHORS also clearly stated that IS NOT WHAT THEY WROTE.



Any cite for where the authors say that is not what they wrote?

Do you have a link to their article? If so, please share it.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Niki2 Saturday, April 5, 2014 3:49 PM



"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:20 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Any cite for where the authors say that is not what they wrote?

Yes, the link to both the author's response and their detailed explanation are right there in my previous post, but sure, if it's easier for you to see it here (underlining mine):
Quote:

The authors Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao sent out a note to members of the media which read in part: "Unfortunately, our points in the paper have been mis-interpreted and exaggerated by a few media. In the link below, please see our reply to the blog of Jayson Lusk. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2014/3/6/information-manipulation-revisited - Hopefully, this link helps clarify our point. We never advocate lying on climate change." http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advoc
ates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics
/


The explanation (linked above) is written in "professorese", but note the underlined part:
Quote:

1. Our paper consists of two parts of messages, one positive (why there is media bias), while the other normative (what is the outcome of media bias). For the first part, media bias emerges as the unique perfect Bayesian equilibrium in our model. This provides an explanation on the phenomenon we observe from reality. Our abstract thus states that "This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement model with asymmetric information." By the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, rationale means "the reasons and principles on which a decision, plan, belief etc is based." Our "rationale" is essentially an explanation on why the media has incentives to accentuate or even exaggerate climate damage. It belongs to the approach of positive economics and is value neutral, up to this point.

2. Then we do have a "normative" analysis on the media bias. The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it; the strong free riding incentives lead to a serious under-participation in an IEA. We show that the media bias may have an ex post instrumental value as the over-pessimism from media bias may alleviate the under-participation problem to some extent. (In this sense, we are close to Dessi's (2008, AER) theory of cultural transmission and collective memory.) Meanwhile, we also address the issue of trust/credibility as people have Bayesian updating of beliefs in our perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We show that, ex ante (when there is uncertainty on the state of nature), the media bias could be beneficial or detrimental, due to the issue of credibility; as a result, the welfare implication is ambiguous.



To quote EXACTLY from their original abstract (note underlining, which the right-wing articles leave out:
Quote:

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex anteperspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.” http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.ab
stract




Put simply, they looked at two things: WHY there may be exaggeration by the media and SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (not scientists, please note) and WHAT the result of that may be. They come at it from two different perspectives; from one perspective, the exaggeration/accentuation by media which has happened (NOT which they are saying is good or are encouraging) MAY have been beneficial; from the other perspective, it's ambiguous whether the effect has been positive or negative.
Quote:

Do you have a link to their article? If so, please share it.

The full article isn't available (the abstract of the original article, as quoted above, is at http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.ab
stract
One has to subscribe--in other words pay--to obtain the full article)

Personally, I think they were wrong to write "induces"; given the inherent ambiguity, in my opinion they should have stated it as "may have induced". Since we can't read the entire article, we can't know if they found any actual proof it "induced" anything.

Either way, that this is somehow turned into them having stated that "it's good for scientists to lie about climate change" is a reach of enormous proportions.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:25 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"it's good for scientists to lie about climate change" is a reach of enormous proportions.

Ignorance & political will have a pretty big reach.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"it's good for scientists to lie about climate change" is a reach of enormous proportions.

Ignorance & political will have a pretty big reach.




Most of the science community view the general public to be dolts and simpletons. Same w/ the politicians, who also view themselves to be better than, above, the very folks who put them there.

" It's for our own good " becomes a common point of view.

They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

Whether it's telling us we need to " invest " more in education, for the good of the children, or put a carbon tax on all of us, or we all die, it's exactly the same pile of go-se.

The " smarter " people are doing us a favor, actually. We all should be grateful.

Suckers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

It's really sad that you take PRECISELY the wrong lesson from those great words, but I'd expect no less from a dude that doesn't understand the words in the Constitution either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 7:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Chrissy - You're being lied to ( information manipulation ) , and you're embracing the lie.

That's a you problem.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 7:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chrissy - You're being lied to

Constantly. I agree. Like changing carbon emissions will stop it (that's just good for the air quality). Like it won't be that bad in a couple of decades. Like the corporations & authorities aren't gearing up for the possible unrest during projected food shortages...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 10:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Put simply, they looked at two things: WHY there may be exaggeration by the media and SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (not scientists, please note) and WHAT the result of that may be. They come at it from two different perspectives; from one perspective, the exaggeration/accentuation by media which has happened (NOT which they are saying is good or are encouraging) MAY have been beneficial; from the other perspective, it's ambiguous whether the effect has been positive or negative.



So from looking at your links, it appears that they didn't say that it was OK to lie about climate change, but that the media had been doing so, incentivized by the idea that such lies would strengthen support for climate change action.

Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 10:26 AM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action?

Yes.

This sort of lying is inexcusable.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 11:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action?

Yes.

This sort of lying is inexcusable.




That fat gay guy lying IS inexcusable. Agreed.

But I suspect you think FOX news, reporting the actual news,and branding them " deniers" , should be tossed in jail, for insolence, huh?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 11:30 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action?

Yes.

This sort of lying is inexcusable.




That fat gay gay lying IS inexcusable. Agreed.



Isn't it adorable how incomprehensible he becomes when he gets frustrated?




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 11:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Does anyone have access to the full article, references and all?

Because it seems to me that all of the discussion is swirling around this one, rather cryptic sentence...

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.

Where does the "appearance" of exaggeration occur, and what does it consist of?

Is the accentuation/ exaggeration beyond the bounds of reasonable scientific assessment? (In other words, since it is impossible to "prove" that any ONE event is a result of global climate change, but a series of events can form a pattern consistent with AGW, is it an "exaggeration" to point to the pattern and mention it as a possible cause?)

Which news media?

Which pro-environmental groups? All? Some? A very few?


-------------------

It seems that you all are jumping the gun, taking the author's words at face value without having read the paper to see whether or not you agree with their conclusion, and then using that paper FAR beyond the author's intent- immediately branding exaggeration a "lie" when it may be absolutely based in truth.

And yanno, if there is one person who has a VERY stringent definition of "a lie", it's gotta be rappy. Because according to him, GWB never lied. In other words, proving a "lie" to rappy will take lots and lots of evidence... specifically, someone tape-recording themselves saying "Now, I'm going to lie". So whatever is found as a result of reading the original article, you can be sure that -according to rappy- it's not a a lie.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 11:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Does anyone have access to the full article, references and all?

Because it seems to me that all of the discussion is swirling around this one, rather cryptic sentence...

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.

Where does the "appearance" of exaggeration occur, and what does it consist of?

Is the accentuation/ exaggeration beyond the bounds of reasonable scientific assessment? (In other words, since it is impossible to "prove" that any ONE event is a result of global climate change, but a series of events can form a pattern consistent with AGW, is it an "exaggeration" to point to the pattern and mention it as a possible cause?)

Which news media?

Which pro-environmental groups? All? Some? A very few?


-------------------

It seems that you all are jumping the gun, taking the author's words at face value without having read the paper to see whether or not you agree with their conclusion, and then using that paper FAR beyond the author's intent- immediately branding exaggeration a "lie" when it may be absolutely based in truth.



Well, yeah. You do have a valid point there. I've not seen the actual article. Nor does it seem anyone who has written about it.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 12:21 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action? 

Do you take that as indisputable truth now?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 12:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action? 

Do you take that as indisputable truth now?



Does the claim, " The debate is settled ", answer your question ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 12:51 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action? 

Do you take that as indisputable truth now?



Does the claim, " The debate is settled ", answer your question ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall


My question was what Geezer thinks, so no.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2014 12:59 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Does it disturb you that the media and others are lying about climate change facts to advance support for climate change action?

Of course it does; very much; if it's true. It should disturb everyone. But again, given the use of "it appears" and the lack of any verifiable data, I will say it would disturb me greatly IF any media or environmental organizations were lying about climate change facts.

Equally, it should disturb everyone that FauxNews (see below), right-wing media ( http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-climate-change-myth-cr
eated-money-hungry-scientists
), some private enterprise ( http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2013%2Ffeb%2F14%2Ffunding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network&ei=CdtCU87rFc6CyAH-poCADw&usg=AFQjCNE7i3ls0XYpSKouiID32h9dBTSdYg&sig2=LESWC0v_U4WrT-pXyYfyVA&bvm=bv.64363296,bs.1,d.aWc
) and many politicians ( http://www.examiner.com/article/religious-lies-scientific-facts-and-th
e-political-fraud-of-climate-change
) have been determinedly lying that there IS no climate change, that man could never be involved, and especially that some state legislators have essentially OUTLAWED scientific proof of the problem ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea
-level/story?id=16913782
). All those are totally wrong.

On the other hand, thank you, Sig, I had missed "It appears that". In other words, they had no verifiable proof, at least that we can access, since all we have is their abstract. In fact I would postulate that they HAVE no verifiable proof, or they wouldn't have termed it "appears". I, too, would VERY much like to know what media and what "environmental organizations", and specifically what the "accentuation" and/or "exaggeration" was. While it nonetheless has no bearing on what scientists are doing/saying, it would unquestionably be important to me to know I was getting the facts.

Everything else is just bullshit.

Let's go further: Does it disturb YOU that the media and others are lying about climate change facts? How about this. Here are links to videos of people on FauxNews and what they said, as well as links to sources showing that what they said is not true:


1. "2009 was "the coldest year on record""

--Hannity: November 10: "This is one of the coldest years on record, ladies and gentlemen." [Fox News, Hannity, 11/10/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/25/hannitys-not-even-close-on
-2009-temperatures/157502
]

--November 24: "You can also look it up, this is one of the coldest years in history, this past year." ( http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/25/hannitys-not-even-close-on
-2009-temperatures/157502
)

--November 18: "Senator, this is the coldest year on record ... or one of them." ( http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/25/hannitys-not-even-close-on
-2009-temperatures/157502
)

--Hannity: "We Have The Coldest Year On Record." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/5/10] http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/01/05/hannity-repeats-false-claim-t
hat-2009-was-colde/158663


REALITY: 2009 Was Among Warmest Years On Record For The Globe. By the time Hannity first made this claim in November 2009, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had determined that "[f]or the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record." [National Climatic Data Center, http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/25/hannitys-not-even-close-on
-2009-temperatures/157502
]

--With 2010 taken into account, NOAA lists 2009 as tied with 2006 as the sixth-warmest year on record. [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13]

--NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies ranks 2009 as "the third warmest year" on record. [NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html]

--The UK Met Office ranks 2009 as the sixth-warmest year on record. [Met Office, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010/record-temperat
ures
]


2. "The Earth is actually cooling now"

--Beck: "We're In A Cooling Period." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 10/30/09 http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/10/30/beck-and-monckton-agree-were-
in-a-cooling-perio/156349
]

--Baier: "Several Scientists Have Detailed A Recent Cooling Trend." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 7/7/09 http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/07/08/special-reports-baier-weve-re
ported-several-sci/151843
]

--Baier: "The Earth Has Actually Cooled Over The Last Decade." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/15/09 http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/05/15/on-special-report-baier-claim
s-that-the-earth-h/150218
]

--Baier Cites Unnamed Studies Showing "The Earth Is Actually Cooling Now [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/8/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/11/on-special-report-baier-pr
omoted-unnamed-global/150021
]

--Baier Promotes Claim That "The Earth Has Been Cooling For The Last Six Years." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 1/5/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/03/30/media-promote-claims-of-gl
obal-cooling-despite/148737
]

REALITY: 2000-2009 Was By Far Warmest Decade On Record. In a January 2010 article on its GISS website, NASA reported that its analysis of global surface temperature showed that "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade." [NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1/21/10]

--NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F)." [National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, December 2009 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2009/13]

--Met Office: "The first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record. New figures released today in Copenhagen show that -- despite 1998 being the warmest individual year -- the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia." From the report:


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/warmest-decade

Statisticians Debunked Global Cooling Claim. The Associated Press "gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented." They concluded:
Quote:

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers. [Associated Press, 10/25/09 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2009/13]



WMO Secretary-General: "It Is A Misinterpretation Of The Data And Of Scientific Knowledge." Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization, wrote in March 2009 that "It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record ... and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects." Jarraud further wrote:
Quote:

The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit. Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years. [The Washington Post, 3/21/09 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009
032003191.html
]



NASA: "Global Warming Theory Does Not Posit A Linear, Year-To-Year Increase In Temperatures." From a February 2010 article on NASA's GISS website:
Quote:

Even as man-made greenhouse gases exert a consistent pressure on the climate, trapping more heat close to the surface of our planet, surface temperatures from year to year will fluctuate depending on the naturally variable forces at work around the globe. In the early 1990s, the mass of sulfates blasted into the atmosphere by the eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano reflected sunlight and counteracted much of the man-made warming effect for several years. In 1998 El Niño combined with the man-made effect to give us one of the warmest years ever.

Allowing for this variability, global warming theory does not posit a linear, year-to-year increase in temperatures. Nor does it say that harsh winter weather will simply end. What it does say is that increasing concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, with unchecked growth, will contribute a greater and greater warming influence on the world's climate. [NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2/23/10 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201002_coldsnap/]




3. "NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming"

--Napolitano Mischaracterized NASA Report To Deny Humans Cause Global Warming. Fox News' Andrew Napolitano stated, "NASA's Goddard Space Center made a remarkable discovery. The headline from the DailyTech is -- you're not going to believe this -- quote: 'NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming.'" Napolitano then asked if James Hansen, head of GISS "will give up on trying to say people heat the Earth and people cause global warming, or if the man who produced the report will get fired for going against the green -- I mean, against the grain." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/8/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/06/08/foxs-napolitano-mischaract
erized-nasa-report-to/150938
]

REALITY: NASA Report Said "Greenhouse Gases Have Been The Dominant Influence On Recent Climate Change." The NASA report to which Napolitano referred explained that the sun has influenced Earth's climate "since life began" and that "before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change." NASA went on to state: "Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate," namely, "greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere." From the report:
Quote:

The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
[...]
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene," said Cahalan. "Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
[...]
Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years. [NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, 5/7/08 http://erc.ivv.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.
html
]


Napolitano Misquoted Headline From His Source. Citing a DailyTech blog post, Napolitano stated: "The headline from the DailyTech is -- you're not going to believe this -- quote: 'NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming.' " In fact, the headline of the blog post is: "NASA study acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for past warming" [emphasis added]. [DailyTech, 6/4/09 http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+R
esponsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm
]


4. "The Middle Ages Were Warmer Than ... The Climate Now"

--Varney: Jones Said "The Middle Ages Were Warmer Than ... The Climate Now." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 2/16/10 http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/16/fox-news-twists-words-of-c
limate-scientist-phil/160474
]

--Hannity: Jones Said "The World May Have Been Warmer In Medieval Times". [ [Fox News, Hannity, 2/15/10 http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/16/fox-news-twists-words-of-c
limate-scientist-phil/160474
]

--Beck: Jones Said "To Quote, Obviously, The Late 20th Century Was Not Unprecedented." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 2/15/10http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/16/fox-news-twists-words-of-climate-scientist-phil/160474]

--Fox & Friends Claimed Jones "Hints 'Warming' May Not Be Man Made." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, [2/16/10 http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/16/fox-news-twists-words-of-c
limate-scientist-phil/160474
]

REALITY: Jones Said We Don't Know "Whether The Medieval Warm Period Was Global In Extent." From the BBC Q&A with Jones:
Quote:

[BBC:] G -- There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

[JONES:]There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

--Jones: Cause Of Previous Warming Periods Differs From "Recent Warming," Which Is "Predominantly Manmade." During his Q&A with the BBC, Jones stated that "the warming rates" of previous warming periods after 1860 are "similar and not statistically significantly different" from the most recent warming period. Jones was later asked, "If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP [Medieval warm Period] is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?" Jones responded, "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." He further stated that it would not be reasonable to conclude that "recent warming is not predominately manmade" from the evidence that there have been previous periods of warming since 1850.

--Jones: "There's Evidence That Most Of The Warming Since The 1950s Is Due To Human Activity." Jones was asked by the BBC, "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?" Jones stated that "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and that "I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 -- there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." As noted above, Jones also stated that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" indicates that recent warming is manmade. [BBC News, 2/13/10 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm]




5. "Hacked Emails Show Scientists Are "Fudging Data To Make Their Case For Global Warming"

--Varney: Hacked Emails "Suggest Scientists Are Fudging Data To Make Their Case For Global Warming." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/24/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/24/quick-fact-varney-claims-a
pparently-hacked-cru/157469
]

--Kilmeade: Hackers "Found Out" That Scientists "Are Fudging The Numbers And Massaging The Statistics To Get Conclusions." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/2/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/03/fox-amp-friends-coverage-o
f-cru-emails-disregar/157711
]

--Hemmer: "Leaked Emails Reveal That Scientists Use, Quote, 'Tricks' To Hide Evidence Of A Decline In Global Temperatures." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/3/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/03/hemmer-falsely-claims-cru-
emails-show-scientist/157702
]

--Doocy: Emails Prove Academics, Scientists "Have Been Doctoring" Data To Prove Global Warming. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/3/09 http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/12/03/tucker-carlson-seems-more-lik
ely-a-whistleblowe/157686
]

--Hannity Cites Emails To Claim Scientists "Were Certainly Fudging" Data. [Fox News, Hannity, 12/3/10 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/04/quick-fact-hannity-advance
s-falsehood-about-cru/157748
]

--Kellogg: Emails Suggested Scientists "Were Trying To Manipulate The Data." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/10/09 http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/12/10/fox-news-kellogg-baselessly-c
laims-hacked-cru-e/157973
]

--Kilmeade: "They Actually Say The Word 'Trickery.'" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/3/09 http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/03/fox-amp-friends-coverage-o
f-cru-emails-disregar/157711
]

REALITY: Numerous Inquiries Found No Evidence That Scientists Falsified Data. The AP reported on March 31, 2010, that "[t]he House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming of two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues." [CBS/Associated Press, 3/31/10 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climategate-researchers-largely-cleared/]

--An independent panel led by Lord Oxburgh similarly found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention." [CBS News, 4/14/10 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-researchers-cleared-of-malpractice/]

--CNN reported that a seven-month review conducted by Muir Russell "found no evidence to question the 'rigor and honesty' of scientists involved" and concluded that "scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." [CNN.com, 7/7/10]

--Email Referencing A "Trick" To "Hide The Decline" Was Misrepresented By Fox. As FactCheck.org explained:
Quote:

Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from [CRU director Phil] Jones, who wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that's not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we've noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.

Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it's a "trick" in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat -- "a clever thing to do," as he put it -- not a deception. What's hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn't track with thermometer measurements. [FactCheck.org, 12/10/09 http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate]



That's just a sample. It's easy enough to go on and on, but here you have specific instances of "accentuation", "exaggeration", "information manipulation" and even outright "lying". Does that disturb you Geezer?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:26 - 12 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:13 - 3 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL