The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Are they saying big oil is out-numbered?

Jeez. Then we've been mislead by some in this thread.

Imagine that.




On the penguins, you'd think these people could come up with something less intrusive than a flipper tag. Morons. I like penguins. I don't like people who f**k with 'em.

[Enmore]

Yes, penguins are adorable. These 'scientists' love putting radio collars on polar bears too, but they can only tag females because the male polar bears' necks are broader than their heads, so the collars don't stay on.

As for funding from Big Oil and their friends in the energy sector, this is from the website of the infamous Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

Acknowledgements

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

Well over half of these are government bodies in one form or the other. Just like my previous post, you can see how the politicians are really pushing the global warming agenda.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Woah there sparky... the cult's faithful in the MSM are singing a different tune about them thar penguins.



Imagine that.

Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.

Funny thing that... warming cultists never wanna talk about the billions wasted in the name of their religion.

[otoc]

Funny thing that... warming cultists never wanna talk about the billions wasted in the name of their religion.

Really? I thought the issue I keep bringing up is science (and the need for more) that seems to constantly disprove your blogger points, as well as the rhetoric you use that shows you have decided that the science is 100% wrong. Go figure.

[AMDScooter]

Really? I thought the issue I keep bringing up is science (and the need for more) that seems to constantly disprove your blogger points, as well as the rhetoric you use that shows you have decided that the science is 100% wrong. Go figure.

Like I said.. the cultists never wanna talk about it. Never kept you from tossing the OMFGBIGOIL accusations out though did it? Thanks for agreeing and proving my point emphatically for me.

You may now return to your prayer mat and continue praising your false prophets while reciting passages they have posted for the faithfuls consumption over at realclimate blog.

[SteveW]

Like I said.. the cultists never wanna talk about it. Never kept you from tossing the OMFGBIGOIL accusations out though did it? Thanks for agreeing and proving my point emphatically for me.

You may now return to your prayer mat and continue praising your false prophets while reciting passages they have posted for the faithfuls consumption over at realclimate blog.

Amen

[Enmore]

The study to determine they were harming the penguins took 10 years !!

Oh well, what's a few thousand stupid birds when you have a mortgage to pay?

I was amazed to see the study result published in Nature, which is usually such a global warming mouthpiece.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1101...s.2011.15.html

[otoc]

The study to determine they were harming the penguins took 10 years !!

How about that. A scientific study takes time to actually come to a defensible position.

Oh well, what's a few thousand stupid birds when you have a mortgage to pay?

This means what? That the learning about the impact of how we study things might actually affect the outcome of the study shouldn't be done and instead the money should go to you to pay your mortgage?

I was amazed to see the study result published in Nature, which is usually such a global warming mouthpiece.

Yeah, how about that. Kinda takes the wind out of your bias sails when a peer reviewed journal simply puts out science. Just like that CO2 plant study that you posted a while back that argued against current thinking.

I can't help but wonder if the issue of bias isn't really an issue of science finding evidence that says you are wrong in your opinion and as such science should be banned.

These arguments-time, stupid animals, mortgage, surprise-are tough to put my fingers around because all they do is attempt to influence opinion with ridicule. Lot's of that tactic going around here I see. Good one, nicely done.

[otoc]

Like I said.. the cultists never wanna talk about it.

Really scoot. The red herring issue is not wanting to talk about it? So in your bravado you throw in ad hominem? Calling me a cultist? And you wonder why I think your debate style is on a downward spiral of emotional nonsense?

So let's take a gander at the issue of "not wanting to talk about it". And don't worry, I'll address the funding point an a subsequent post.

Our last exchange, the one where you used a flawed posting by Watts and cyclones, the one where I went to the source while pointing out the bias you post when you exclude the original source and use one sided OpEds to force your views on people. You know, the one where I asked you a few questions of clarifications regarding why you were defending the position of a scientist who specializes in policy decisions, but also agreed with the IPCC in the actual science of climate change? Seems like you didn't want to talk about it because your position fell flat. And I would have let it go without giving you the taunts and personal attack you like to use daily. But this shift in strategy, where you ignore the results of scientific study because it blows your cult hypothesis away, and simply rattle off funding numbers and imply that is proof of anything warrants a repeat to the questions asked here that get back to your cult illusion.
Still waiting Mr. Silence who objects to silence...
http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3510

Never kept you from tossing the OMFGBIGOIL accusations out though did it?

Thanks for agreeing and proving my point emphatically for me.

Yeah, the classic half-truth. The last time I mentioned big oil funding was in passing in response to a lobby lawyer complaining about UV and a FOIA request filed days earlier in an OpEd that was really a press release. Remember? He forgot to mention that when Greenpeace filed a FOIA, they also filed one for a guy who resigned because it was found he was taking oil money on the side. OMG, what a lie, huh? Nothing in that discussion was about general funding.

Any other time, the point was used to counter your bias theory in the sense that if bias was something to harp about on one side, then how abut talking about it when it comes from the other? Seems like there's a constant going one in regards to silence, dude. Look in the mirror.

You may now return to your prayer mat and continue praising your false prophets while reciting passages they have posted for the faithfuls consumption over at realclimate blog.

On my, the ad hominem comes again. This time complete with the mention of the realclimate blog.

So telling coming from someone (you) who won't even read or address a point from realclimate where the scientists who actually write peer reviewed science try to explain their findings and positions.

No, you simply won't read or address points that come from there. To you only blogs that even I can take apart in rebuttal (showing I actually read your blogs) are to be used in arguments and those not having the same view are simply ridiculed without arguments why.

So Mr. Silence, wave not that red flag of fish in my face. Your argument smells.

[otoc]

Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/0...who-gives.html (Elmore's link)
Funny thing that... warming cultists never wanna talk about the billions wasted in the name of their religion.

Ok, let's talk funding since you can't rebut the science in direct terms and have to use the ad hominems such as "warming cultists" as if that does anything other than to prove how weak your silent position is.

First, let's not stop at alfin2100, for they linked to another blog post and merely colored their position in opinion. let's go to their source...

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/...so-much-money/

US Federal government spending on climate change research in 2011

Until a few days ago I knew that the US government spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on climate change research. It was just a general notion; I had read occasional articles showing the funding of certain agencies like NASA but I didn't know many specifics. Then on New Years Day, I wrote a very quick article where I randomly picked a document from a Google search showing funding for climate change. The numbers astonished me. I decided to take a closer look.
The document is the The American Association for the Advancement of Science's report:

AAAS REPORT XXXV
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
FY 2011

The entire report is here, but I am only looking at chapter 15 which is here. The report is basically a snapshot of US Federal spending on research, including budgets for 2011 and how these numbers compare to previous years. The chapter on climate change is short and easy to read. It shows that all US agencies that conduct climate change research are expected to have larger budgets for 2011. Remember, these numbers are not set in stone, but they will not be drastically different from the actual numbers. I also need to make a caveat. Just because this funding has been labeled 'climate change research' does not mean it is necessarily not linked to another field as well. For example, some of the costs associated are for satellites, which are important in more than just climate research. This is not entirely frivolous spending. Even so, the numbers are staggering. Let's look at some agencies and their budgets.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA’s total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million.

$437 million spent on climate change research in one year, in one agency. Here's another:

National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF would receive $7.4 billion in FY 2011, an increase of 8 percent relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The request includes $370 million under the USGCRP framework, which is an increase of 16.0 percent. The Geosciences Directorate would receive $955 million (a 7.4 percent increase) in FY 2011 with $480 million going to Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would receive $765.5 million. This is intended to promote discoveries and capability needed to inform societal actions in ways that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. NSF’s request also includes $19 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a joint program with the Department of Energy intended to promote education in clean energy research. An additional $10 million would fund Climate Change Education, which seeks to increase understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.

$480 million here, $765.5 million there, throw in another $10 million for climate education and you've got $1.25 billion dollars spent on climate change research just at the NSF, just in ONE YEAR! Next is NASA:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA’s FY 2011 budget request is $19.0 billion. NASA Earth Science is a relatively small fraction of this total, $1.8 billion or 9.5 percent, but would increase substantially relative to the FY 2010 appropriation (up 26.8 percent). NASA Earth Science funds climate change R&D through several programs. Two of particular note are Earth Science Research, which would receive $438.1 million (an increase of 14 percent)...

It seems like the $450 million mark is a common budget for climate research among these agencies. NOAA's funding, the NSF's atmospheric science funding, and NASA's Earth Science research are all around $450 million. It may be an interesting coincidence. Next is the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy (DOE).

The President’s budget request for DOE in FY 2011 is $28.4 billion. This includes $4.6 billion for R&D in the Office of Science (an increase of 3.8 percent), and $2.4 billion for energy R&D (an increase of 6.8 percent). Within the Office of Science, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), which supports basic research in atmospheric sciences, terrestrial ecosystems and climate modeling, would receive $627 million (an increase of 3.8 percent). BER’s request includes $28.6 million for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) program, which examines the impact of climate change on biological systems and land-surface carbon cycle feedbacks to climate change.

$627 million taken from a taxpayer or borrowed from a future taxpayer, spent in one year. Next the Department of the Interior:

Department of the Interior (DOI).
DOI requests $171 million (an increase of 26.0 percent) for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative, which seeks to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies. Of this, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would receive $77.9 million for climate science (an increase of 15.5 percent).

How many jobs could be created in 2011 if $171 million were still in the hands of US taxpayers, instead of being spent on climate studies which have been done many times before? Studying areas vulnerable to climate change? That's already been done by every agency, twice. Next is the EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA requests $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (an increase of 1 percent). Of this, $43.5 million is new funding for regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. EPA requests $22 million for its Global Change Research Program, which assesses the impacts of global change on air and water quality, ecosystems, human health, and socioeconomic systems in the United States with a primary goal of promoting adaptation efforts.

I don't even understand what this means. How does giving the EPA $169 million reduce emissions? Also, does it really cost $43.5 million a year (more) to regulate greenhouse gases? Lastly, the USDA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
USDA requests $159 million for climate change research, an increase of 42.0 percent, and $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41.0 percent. USDA’s climate change efforts (and those of the U.S. Forest Service which is part of USDA) center on helping farmers and land owners adapt to climate change impacts (e.g., enhanced fire stress, insect outbreaks, droughts, floods, and heat stress) and promoting carbon storage in soils and forests.

A 42% increase in climate change research? $159 million spent in a single year, by the USDA? Crop yields are up! CO2 helps crops! Imagine spending $159 million in 2011 to research things that actually help people.
The amount of money being spent on climate change research this year is astounding. I urge you to read the document yourself. Here is the question to take away: what are we getting for the billions of dollars we've spent? When 2011 is over will we look back at the published research and be satisfied with how our billions have been spent? This type of spending has occurred for some time, and what do we have to show for it? Multiple federal agencies having multi-hundred million dollar budgets in the same (controversial) field is wasteful. Let's make sure 2011 is the last year these budgets increase.

Interesting. CO2 is good. Heard that argument before. Controversial. So that's what the complaint is about? Not about the results of the studies that have every scientific organization posting position papers regarding the seriousness of the overwhelming science regarding climate change as "controversial", but also tallying up funding not directly related to climate change-things dealing with current changes-as an argument against funding. Wow, let's not study the issue any more. Let's not put up better satellites, let's not aggregate the data better. Let's call the results "controversial" and simply stop all funding.

[otoc]

2.
What a weak argument from someone who simply chooses not to see the results or complains about jobs as if these studies don't employ people.

Better still, let's look at federal funding in total thanks to the linked pdf study and not only look at chapter 15 but all funding to put things in perspective.
Chapter 1:

The proposed federal R&D portfolio in FY 2011, will fall slightly to $148.1 billion, a 0.3 percent ($429 million) decrease (see Table II- 1). However, there are dramatic shifts in funding within the R&D portfolio.

So the objection is a false figure of 4 billion, one that includes more than simply climate change as science but how to deal with current climate changes, in terms of a 148 billion budget.

Wow, roughly 2.5% of the total federal funding budget for R&D is being complained about without acknowledging the actual results of science that point to CO2 rising, past climate change events having disastrous results both on societies and economies, as well as the funding of alternative energy sources that would take us away from ME oil.

This is what you want to talk about? Great. Let's talk science, the results, what we fund, and stop this cult crap.

If you want to discuss any specific point of funding, go for it. I'll take the time to research it and rebut your argument. I just won't waste my time with general illusions as you constantly post via c&p of OpEds. If you want discussion, let's do it, but you'll have to exert yourself beyond taunts.

Better still, since we are on the topic about Federal funding research, let's talk about another source of funding for our universities.

Big Oil Goes to College

An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities


Highly profitable oil and other large corporations are increasingly turning to U.S. universities to perform their commercial research and development.

By Jennifer Washburn | October 14, 2010


Updated October 16, 2010.
Read the full report (pdf)
Download the preface and executive summary (pdf)

Methodology

• In nine of the 10 energy-research agreements we analyzed, the university partners failed to retain majority academic control over the central governing body charged with directing the university-industry alliance. Four of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full governance control.
• Eight of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle.
• None of the 10 agreements requires faculty research proposals to be evaluated and awarded funding based on independent expert peer review, the traditional method for awarding academic and scientific research grants fairly and impartially based on scientific merit.
• Eight of the 10 alliance agreements fail to specify transparently, in advance, how faculty may apply for alliance funding, and what the specific evaluation and selection criteria will be.
• Nine of the 10 agreements call for no specific management of financial conflicts of interest related to the alliance and its research functions. None of these agreements, for example, specifies that committee members charged with evaluating and selecting faculty research proposals must be impartial, and may not award corporate funding to themselves. (See summary of main findings for details, pages 52-59, and the Appendices beginning on page 75.)

To our knowledge, this report represents the first time independent analysts have systematically examined a set of written university-industry agreements within a specific research area—in this case, the energy R&D sector—to evaluate how well they balance the goals of the corporate sponsors to produce commercial research that advances business profits with the missions of American universities to perform high-quality, disinterested academic research that advances public knowledge for the betterment of society.

Go for it scoot. Let's talk funding.

[AMDScooter]

Ok, let's talk funding since you can't rebut the science in direct terms and have to use the ad hominems such as "warming cultists" as if that does anything other than to prove how weak your silent position is.

Ya... otoc's cults "science" has never evar been successfully rebutted in this thread. Ole scoot's been silent. Cognitive dissonance much??

First, let's not stop at alfin2100, for they linked to another blog post and merely colored their position in opinion. let's go to their source...

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/...so-much-money/
Interesting. CO2 is good. Heard that argument before. Controversial. So that's what the complaint is about? Not about the results of the studies that have every scientific organization posting position papers regarding the seriousness of the overwhelming science regarding climate change as "controversial", but also tallying up funding not directly related to climate change-things dealing with current changes-as an argument against funding. Wow, let's not study the issue any more. Let's not put up better satellites, let's not aggregate the data better. Let's call the results "controversial" and simply stop all funding.

Man.. you wanna toss some mustard on that too?? How about bigbird?? If not.. your gonna need a lot more lipstick on that piggie than your boilerplate "consensus" crap. The issue was funding for you warmer cultists vs. that of OMFGBIGOIL! For all those items you just listed in your whine above... just think about how much more could be done researching those real tangible items if so many of the resources were not being wasted chasing your cults non-existent MMGW threat.

[otoc]

Ya... otoc's cults "science" has never evar been successfully rebutted in this thread. Ole scoot's been silent. Cognitive dissonance much??

Then answer my questions in that post.

Man.. you wanna toss some mustard on that too?? How about bigbird?? If not.. your gonna need a lot more lipstick on that piggie than your boilerplate "consensus" crap. The issue was funding for you warmer cultists vs. that of OMFGBIGOIL! For all those items you just listed in your whine above... just think about how much more could be done researching those real tangible items if so many of the resources were not being wasted chasing your cults non-existent MMGW threat.

wow. You talk about tangible but can't answer any tangible point backed by tangible numbers with anything tangible other than "big bird", "consensus"-which it is by any definition of the word, warmer cultists, and OMFGBIGOIL.

I think you just can't talk points scooter for you haven't addressed any I made here. You are good at ranting and throwing ad hominems, I'll give you that. But that is debating points to you? Weakness in an argument is not a position no matter how many names you call me.

[SteveW]

Somebody forget to take their medication this morning?

[otoc]

Somebody forget to take their medication this morning?

I don't know. Did you? Or is the wish and willingness to discuss actual coherent points without insult a disease to you?