And now we know the underlying reason..

[SunsetBengal]

..for all of the "climate change" propaganda.

http://www.allenbwest.com/derrick-wilburn/scam-unraveling-right-eyes

Quote:This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Quote:And just to make certain there was no room for ambiguity or confusion, Figueres added,
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

And there it is. Straight from the mouth of the United Nation’s person who is most senior in charge of that body’s development of a multilateral agreement among nations to cut emissions and clean up our planet for future generations? What does changing the economic development model for the first time in human history have to do with carbon emissions and the use of plastics? Precious little.

So, there it is. It's all a scam to manipulate the Worldwide economic development model. Can hardly wait to see what our resident gallery of climate change apologists have to say about this.

[GMDino]

(02-11-2017, 07:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..for all of the "climate change" propaganda.

http://www.allenbwest.com/derrick-wilburn/scam-unraveling-right-eyes






So, there it is.  It's all a scam to manipulate the Worldwide economic development model.  Can hardly wait to see what our resident gallery of climate change apologists have to say about this.

1) Allen West?

2)  You do know there wasn't any "propaganda"?  Right? Other than from people who want to deny the numbers to save a buck.

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

Quote:On Sunday February 5th, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a press release alleging, based on questionable evidence, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated climate records.”

The source of their evidence, according to Committee spokesperson Thea McDonalds, was a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid most famous for outlandish headlines such as "Is the Bum the New Side Boob” and "ISIS Chief executioner winning hearts with his rugged looks.” This is not the first time that the House Science Committee has used spurious evidence to dispute the existence of human-driven climate change.



The piece, which quotes John Bates—a scientist who NOAA once employed—challenges the data used in the famous 2015 Karl study. The study, named after Thomas R. Karl—the director of the NOAA’s Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and the paper's lead author—was published in Science and debunked the notion of a climate “hiatus” or “cooling.”

The House Science Committee press release, which includes quotes from committee Chairman Lamar Smith as well as Darin Lahood (R-Ill) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz), misrepresents a procedural disagreement as proof that human caused climate change is not occurring. It's akin to pointing to a family argument as proof that they aren't actually related.

"What the House Committee is trying to do, like they did in the past, is debunk the whole issue of global warming,” said Yochanan Kushnir, a Senior Scientist at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

At the center of the argument is contention over how NOAA maintains climate data records. Climate researchers receive grants to process and develop climate-related data sets. Once those data sets are fully developed, it becomes the responsibility of NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) to preserve, monitor, and update that data—which can sometimes be what data scientists refer to as messy.

“The problem,” said Kevin Trenberth a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “is that this is quite an arduous process, and can take a long time. And, of course NOAA doesn't necessarily get an increase of funds to do this.”

Maintaining this data fell under the purview of Bates' group, and it’s this data that he has taken issue with publicly.

“Bates was complaining that not all of the data sets were being done as thoroughly as he wanted to," said Ternberth. “But there's a compromise you have to make as to whether you can do more data sets or whether you can do more really thoroughly. And the decision was made that you try and do more.”

[/url]

NOAA

Ice core samples are used as proxy indicators for past global climate temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


Bates takes particular issue with the way Karl handled land temperature data in the Science study which addressed the so-called “climate hiatus." Early analyses of global temperature trends during the first ten years of this century seemed to suggest that warming had slowed down. Climate change doubters used this analysis to support their belief that—despite climatological data which includes 800,000 year ice-core records of atmospheric carbon dioxide—humans have not affected the atmosphere by releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year.

“His primary complaint seems to be that when researchers at NOAA published this paper in Science, while they used a fully developed and vetted ocean temperature product, they used an experimental land temperature product," said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with Berkeley Earth. Because climate data comes from a number of different sources, methods of handling that data go through a vetting process that ultimately dictates the use of one for the official government temperature product. That can mean controlling for known defects in the devices that gather climate data or figuring out the best way to put them together. The product that Karl used for land temperature data hadn't finished that process.

"That said," said Hausfather, "the land temperature data they used in the paper is certainly up to the standards of an experimental or research product.”

So what does that mean for those of us on the outside?

Not much.

The record data that Bates takes umbrage with showed roughly the same amount of warming as the old record. And the evidence that the Karl paper cites as to why there’s no hiatus is based on ocean temperatures—not land. A government source who does not wish to be named emphasized that there is no evidence or even a credible suggestion that NOAA falsified data in the Karl et al (K15) study. And even if Bates' critiques were valid—and given that this methodology, after much peer review, is now the default way that NOAA calculates land temperatures, his complaints seem problematic—it doesn't upend the study's conclusion.

As for the differences in water temperatures, that can be easily be accounted for by differences in the tools used to measure water temperatures. In the past, as PopSci previously reported, most ocean temperature data was taken by ships which pulled water into their engine rooms—rooms warmer than the ocean outside, making ocean temperature recordings slightly higher. When ocean temperature tracking switched to buoys, which stay in the water all of the time and don’t heat up, NOAA failed to control for the cooler (and arguably more accurate) water temperatures due to the lack of hot ship engines. The Karl study corrects for that temperature difference and Bates’ complaints do nothing to discredit it.

"People should be aware of the fact that there are different groups that analyze the data," said Kushnir. "if you look at all of the sources together you get a bigger, more reliable picture of what's happening. There's the Hadley Center from the UK meteorology office that puts together a data set of global mean temperatures, there's NASA, NOAA, then there's the Berkeley group and the Japanese who have their own way of putting information together."

NOAA

Zeke Hausfather at Berkeley Earth independently developed an updated version of Figure 2 in Karl et al 2015. The black line shows the new NOAA record, while the thinner blue line shows the results from raw land stations, ships, and buoys with no corrections for station moves or instrument changes. The two are quite similar over the last 50 years; over the last 100 years the corrected data [the one Karl uses] actually shows less global warming.


The Karl paper is also not the only one to tackle the hiatus. Studies in [url=http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784]Nature by Stephan Lewandowsky of the Cabot Institute University of Bristol, and this one in the journal Climate Change by Bala Rajaratnam of Stanford University, all say the same thing.

The Karl study’s high profile, however, has made it a frequent target for criticism.

“The whole issue of this hiatus issue was discussed quite heavily in science,” said Kushnir. "And as scientists we understand what happened in this long period.”

Basically, there’s the natural climate variability, and then there’s the variability caused by climate change. The natural variability during this period was cooler, but the climate change impact on top of it was not.

But that isn’t even Bates' complaint, as the House Committee would imply—his complaint is that the data wasn’t vetted heavily enough.

“I interpret a key part of the issue,” said Trenberth, “as, how deep do you go and how far into the research do you go for one particular data set, as opposed to moving onto the next data set and getting that into a much better state than it would have been otherwise.”

Trenberth points to a backlog of data that hasn’t yet been released or updated, pressuring NOAA to focus on volume over perfection. If this sounds to you like an argument for more funding for climate change research instead of less, you're not alone.

“Recommendations about doing these things have been made, but they've never been adequately funded. So we muddle along,” said Trenberth. “And Lamar smith under the house has been responsible for some of this, because they actually cut the funding to enable NOAA to properly deal with and process the data by 30 percent in 2012. So the ability to do this properly has actually been compromised by the House Science Committee and by Lamar Smith in particular.” 

The current administration has talked a lot about the “politicization of science.” Meanwhile on the House Committee’s website, Representative Smith states that Bates has exposed the “previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” With the House Committee misrepresenting both Bates' complaint and the overarching scientific consensus, it does indeed seem that the politicization of science is a problem the administration needs to deal with.


Note: An earlier draft erroneously wrote that, The White House press release, rather than the House Science Committee press release quoted Lamar Smith

But Allen West surely understand the science better than the scientist.  lol

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 08:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Allen West?

2)  You do know there wasn't any "propaganda"?  Right? Other than from people who want to deny the numbers to save a buck.

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records



But Allen West surely understand the science better than the scientist.  lol

The "science"?  Their sample size is but less than a pin prick sized dot in the cumulative history of the Earth.  Blah! 

I see that you decided to completely sidestep and deflect from the open mic and camera quotes of the UN's exalted climate change spokeswoman..  Nice play.

[GMDino]

(02-11-2017, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The "science"?  Their sample size is but less than a pin prick sized dot in the cumulative history of the Earth.  Blah! 

I see that you decided to completely sidestep and deflect from the open mic and camera quotes of the UN's exalted climate change spokeswoman..  Nice play.

And you cited Allen West.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/allen-west/statements/

[*bfine32*]

(02-11-2017, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The "science"?  Their sample size is but less than a pin prick sized dot in the cumulative history of the Earth.  Blah! 

I see that you decided to completely sidestep and deflect from the open mic and camera quotes of the UN's exalted climate change spokeswoman..  Nice play.

If you ever what an evolutionist to ignore the earth is millions of years old, just suggest global warming stats are insignificant. 

As to the OP: Is man effecting his environment? Of course. It's just some over-react or under-react depending on his motive. Nothing wrong with reducing my carbon footprint; however, I shouldn't be forced to. 

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 08:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: And you cited Allen West.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/allen-west/statements/

Nevermind the source.  Despite the fact that none of the so-called news outlets cared to shed any light on this obvious gaffe by the UN climate change spokeswoman, at least a bozo like Allen West cared enough to put it out there.

Now, do you care to address the comments from the UN Secretary?

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you ever what an evolutionist to ignore the earth is millions of years old, just suggest global warming stats are insignificant. 

As to the OP: Is man effecting his environment? Of course. It's just some over-react or under-react depending on his motive. Nothing wrong with reducing my carbon footprint; however, I shouldn't be forced to. 

Especially when the motives behind those trying to force you to do so, are agenda driven..

[CKwi88]

I'm sure in some Bizarro World there is a publication that uses the exact same quotes that reads:

"UN Official recognizes unprecedented global economic challenges in the fight against climate change."

I'm guessing that headline wouldn't have sold too well among Clayton, NC readers.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 10:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'm sure in some Bizarro World there is a publication that uses the exact same quotes that reads:

"UN Official recognizes unprecedented global economic challenges in the fight against climate change."

I'm guessing that headline wouldn't have sold too well among Clayton, NC readers.

Sure, they can sugar coat the meat of the issue anyway they want.  But, in the end, the quote reads as it reads... 

[NATI BENGALS]

Yea. A push to use renewable resources and clean energy changes the economic development model.

Instead of economies and countries being built around oil and coal the economic model changes.

So?? I guess I totally missed the part where this became the destruction of capitalism.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 11:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yea. A push to use renewable resources and clean energy changes the economic development model.

Instead of economies and countries being built around oil and coal the economic model changes.

So?? I guess I totally missed the part where this became the destruction of capitalism.

Again, another person that fails to address the words of the quote.  Fail!

[CKwi88]

(02-11-2017, 11:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yea. A push to use renewable resources and clean energy changes the economic development model.

Instead of economies and countries being built around oil and coal the economic model changes.

So?? I guess I totally missed the part where this became the destruction of capitalism.

It take less critical thinking to look at the quote and say "Aha! The powers that be were caught revealing their nefarious plan to push people towards cleaner energy energy, cleaner air, renewable resources and energy independence."


Edit: And yes, this has nothing to do with capitalism. Economic Systems =/= Economical development model.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-11-2017, 11:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Again, another person that fails to address the words of the quote.  Fail!

I directly addressed them in 2 of the 3 lines I wrote?

The economic development model of the industrial revolution is all about fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there is no industrial revolution. 

Not all countries are as rich and prosperous or as advanced as us. We lead the pack. Many still lag behind. If all those lagging behind caught up by following the same development path as us and China etc burning fossil fuels and pretending humans can not have a negative impact our planet, no matter how much you refuse to believe, that would have environmental consequences. 

By changing the economic development model of these not as advanced countries and setting them on a different path energy wise in the long run it could benefit humanity. 

If every country less advanced than us caught up to us by having their own industrial revolution and followed our same economic development path like coal burning power plants, oil booms, and polluted waters it would have a negative impact on our planet. Agree or disagree?

[*bfine32*]

We should be able to do what ever the hell we want with our planet. Our planet, our choice. Future generations are not citizens; therefore, they have no rights.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-12-2017, 12:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: We should be able to do what ever the hell we want with our planet. Our planet, our choice. Future generations are not citizens; therefore, they have no rights.

Is that you Kellyanne?

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2017, 12:16 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is that you Kellyanne?

I don't think she's Pro-Choice, she seems more like the Pro-Life type. Infringing our freedoms 

[SunsetBengal]

(02-11-2017, 11:43 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It take less critical thinking to look at the quote and say "Aha! The powers that be were caught revealing their nefarious plan to push people towards cleaner energy energy, cleaner air, renewable resources and energy independence."


Edit: And yes, this has nothing to do with capitalism. Economic Systems =/= Economical development model.

(02-12-2017, 12:00 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I directly addressed them in 2 of the 3 lines I wrote?

The economic development model of the industrial revolution is all about fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there is no industrial revolution. 

Not all countries are as rich and prosperous or as advanced as us. We lead the pack. Many still lag behind. If all those lagging behind caught up by following the same development path as us and China etc burning fossil fuels and pretending humans can not have a negative impact our planet, no matter how much you refuse to believe, that would have environmental consequences. 

By changing the economic development model of these not as advanced countries and setting them on a different path energy wise in the long run it could benefit humanity. 

If every country less advanced than us caught up to us by having their own industrial revolution and followed our same economic development path like coal burning power plants, oil booms, and polluted waters it would have a negative impact on our planet. Agree or disagree?

Sorry to ignore y'all, but it is Saturday night.  Evidently sipping some Vodka mixed with Blackberry gingerale, and getting some from the wife took precedence over responding to your replies. 

However, Cklw88 and Nasti Bengals, you both seem to be fully on the bandwagon that the Earth is going to end next Tuesday.  However, if you look around the glorious internet, you will find that many of these "scientists" are fabricating data, based on "projections".  A few of them have come to acknowledge the error of their fraudulent ways, and spill the beans. 

Now, I can understand your impulse to buy into the notion that the World needs to change it's economic model, because we are destroying the planet and all.  But, have you all ever taken the time to consider that volcanic activity has much more of a dramatic effect on the CO2 volume than anything that man can produce?

Face the real facts that Earth itself dictates climate change much more than man could ever hope to.

[Rotobeast]

(02-12-2017, 01:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sorry to ignore y'all, but it is Saturday night.  Evidently sipping some Vodka mixed with Blackberry gingerale, and getting some from the wife took precedence over responding to your replies. 

You too ?
Right on.
Hotel room and no kids for the wife and I, this weekend.

[Benton]

(02-12-2017, 03:06 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: You too ?
Right on.
Hotel room and no kids for the wife and I, this weekend.

wait.

you and sunset are both getting some from sunsets wife? And there's vodka involved?

why wasn't I invited? I love vodka!

[Rotobeast]

(02-12-2017, 03:44 AM)Benton Wrote: wait.

you and sunset are both getting some from sunsets wife? And there's vodka involved?

why wasn't I invited? I love vodka!

Will pictures and a fifth do for now ?