Straight from a 1997 NASA article on the accuracy of temperature measurements from satellites in space. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 06oct97_1/ I'm not sure what exactly you think it proves. That climate science is complex? That there were things we didn't know a decade ago? That's not a exactly a secret. There are still things we're learning. But we do know enough to know we have a problem and what's causing it. There's no serious debate about that in the scientific community. Yes, there are deniers. But time and time again when the deniers have tried to disprove the consensus they've lost. They've even used junk science, fake controversy's and outright dishonesty. The data simply does not support their position. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world and so many National Science Academies take the position that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it. It's not becasue of some vast global conspiracy. It's not because they all just want more grant money. It's not because they're stupid. It's because that's what the evidence indicates. This is also straight from NASA: "Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes." http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/ Who funds these people? Mostly the fossil fuel industry. How do they operate? The same way the tobacco companies did when they said cigarettes weren't harmful or addictive. "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Brown & Williamson company memo, August 21, 1969 There's zero debate now as to whether or not tobacco products cause cancer or if nicotine is addictive, but tobacco companies used doubt and junk science for years to prevent their products from being regulated and to shield themselves from ligation. They didn't give a damn that their products were killing people, which they already knew. It was all about profits. Here's the same tactic: "April 26, 1998 - INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science...An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together...to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases...maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences", with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom". http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/in ... nted=print Same tactic, same goal. Create doubt, prevent regulation, maximize profits. The amusing thing is that these same companies know the climate is changing and are planning on how to profit from it: Oil Companies are Actually Planning for Climate Change http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/oil ... te-change/ They're not stupid. They just think the rest of us are. They'll sell us a bill of goods that they know is crap in order to keep themselves from being regulated as long as they can, but they're making long term plans based on the actual facts. Why? It's all about profits. There's your conspiracy.
Wow black dragon finally gets what I've been saying it's all about the money the government can get from uneducated people who do not know better You deserve a
I like the way you used the tobacco companies in your argument. Although I feel like that can be spun in favor of people against climate change science. It's the same principle they use in arguments. The science is dictated by the money. Doctors use to say tobacco was okay for your health. The same way scientist give us information now. To a skeptic it helps solidify the idea that we are lied too. It's really interesting how they started advertising tobacco in the main stream. They paid attractive women smoking on the streets on New York and LA. Broadcasted it, and made it trendy in fashion circles. I'll try to find the article. Actually it's in a book about social engineering. I think people are starting to question the catastrophic effects of climate change. Minimizing the actual toll on humanity. As the predictions are still really off. Even if the measurements and readings are indicating a warming or change. That's just a shift I noticed in thinking.
I got it. I'll come back with the details. It's about the council of public relations. My source is sloppy, but the information is researchable. People should know this stuff.
The first thing to understand is that it better to people ignorant or the truth. A well informed populous threatens the social structure of society. Many in hierarchy have used techniques that are less than admirable to gain and sustain power. This is done by using the group psychology. Modern group psychology originated in 1875 in a book by Gustave Le Bon. The crowd. Le Bon influenced many psychologist. Such as Walter Lippmann. Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, along with Freud himself. Bernays headed up the council of public information. Formed in 1917 by Woodrow Wilson to garner support for the First World War. Bernays speciality was fashioning public opinion. He opened the council of public relations in 1919. The first public relations office the world seen. He showed this art masterfully with "torches of freedom". Women smoking cigarettes to protest the inhumanity of man towards women. They did this durning the Easter parades. This was used to invalidate the taboo of women smoking. A master stroke of genius. With in a week national paper were reporting women smoking in public squares in protest. This is Bernays 3 point strategy. 1. Create a carefully calculated association with subconscious fears and desires of individuals. 2. Influencing opinion of leaders and authority figures in order to reach those who followed them. 3. Initiating the contagion of behavior and ideas through social conformity. Bernays wrote books such as Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion. On a side note. Techniques in The Crowd were also used by many of the axis leaders during the Second World War. Mussolini, Hitler and other axis leader were well read on Le Bon. They used his works to manipulate support for their war efforts. This goes on and on... This is what they are doing. Pumping the same information over and over again. I feel sorry for dragon. He is a lonely guy with too much time on his hands. Way too much time. His life is online. They fearmonger more than Fox News.
Actually, it's more like how much money the fossil fuel industry can make by manipulating uneducated people like you into keeping the government from regulating them. Here's a clue Don. I know you're some kind of paranoid anti government conspriacy theorist, but the "government" doesn't stand to make a profit from climate change mitigation. The government (meaning you and me via taxes) is going to be the one paying to clean up the mess from things like coastal flooding and storms. I sometimes wonder if you even have a clue as to just what the "government" really is. The U.S. Government isn't a business or a corporation. Its function isn't to make a profit. It's the organization through which the people, via elected representatives, exercises authority and performs necessary functions to ensure the continuance and well being of the nation. WE'RE the government. We're the ones who vote for the politicians who make the laws and set the policies. The only intelligent thing you said so far is "follow the money" so let's do that. The biggest problem with our government is the control special interests have over many of our politicians, and the way they get that control is money. "Companies with interests in oil and gas contributed more than $70 million to federal candidates in the 2012 cycle, more than double the total from 2010. Political donations from the industry - which includes gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline stations, and fuel oil dealers - have taken on an increasingly conservative tint over the past two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 90 percent of its contributions went to the GOP." https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ ... hp?ind=E01 Why does 90% of the fossil fuel industry money go to buy Republican politicians? Because they're the ones spoon feeding people like you crap about climate change being a "fraud" and some kind of "government conspiracy". And people like you eat it up because you're already anti-government. Of course, you never stop to think the very politicians feeding you this BS are PART of the government. If there's a "government conspiracy" they should be able to prove it. There should be evidence. After all, these clowns now control both houses of Congress. So where's the proof? There is none. Why? Because there's no conspiracy. Seriously, what passes for critical thinking among conservatives these days amuses me. You have people like Ted Cruz saying he wants to "abolish the IRS" and people like you eat it up. Of course, Ted Cruz isn't stupid. He merely thinks you are. Cruz knows that government has to have someone collecting revenue from taxes in order to function. Notice Cruz doesn't say he's going to abolish taxes. Just the IRS. So according to Ted's aides, Ted has a plan. He's going to get rid of the IRS and replace it with a tax collection division in the Treasury Department. Here's the thing. The Treasury already has a tax collection division. It's called the IRS. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html Here's what people like you never bother to figure out. The IRS doesn't make tax laws. That's Ted Cruz's job. The IRS only enforces them. If Ted Cruz doesn't like the tax laws, maybe he should get off his ass and fix them, instead of wasting our time with BS like let's "abolish the IRS". Why doesn't he? Because wealthy people spent a lot of money making sure the tax laws are what they are today and don't they want them radically changed. Unless they can pay even less, of course, but then there's limits on just how stupid the voters are and right now there's too much attention on just how wealthy the rich in this country really are. Anyway, the point is uninformed and ideologically rigid people like you are a prime reason why things are so dysfunctional today. You're unmoved by nearly universally accepted facts, evidence and science; and you dismiss the legitimacy of anything connected to the government. Yet you have no problem believing things private corporations motivated primarily by profit pays people to tell you, even if it's totally unsupported by facts, evidence or science. Go figure.
Paranoid anti-government? After all the info and evidence we have about how they've manipulated public opinion in a official capacity since the early 20th century. I feel like you guys ignore anything that gets in the way of your own personal believes. Progressive or conservative, they all use the same tactics. Here something interesting. The Ku Klux Klan was considered a progressive movement back in the day. Progressivism has nothing to do with race. If you are a person of any color who gets in the way of the agenda you become targeted. That's why colored folks get racial insults when talk anonymously to liberals and progressives. Any political affiliation is suspect.
Black-dragon, is not only about uneducated people. Its about people mentality that can't be changed over night. This takes a while. Just thing how was for one to own a 1.4cmc Honda 20 years ago. Most of people was bashing him left and right for not driving a V8. But during time this has changed. Past years 4 cylinder engines was dominating the USA market. And the capacity of engine is keep lowering. But this change of mentality was not due the need to save the environment but due increasing price for gasoline. And car manufacturers started to shrink the engine sizes and developing more fuel efficient engines due pressures that came from government (so much about government that don't give a damn about environment). And any government has their hands tied. A government can bring new regulations very easy. Like ban V8 engine cars. Like allowing the sale only for 2 cylinders engines. This would be good for environment, right? But how would people react? They would be happy with such restrictions just because is good for environment? Or would riot? If I'd have to bet I'd put my money on second.
I'm not sure how many times my life has been threatened, or how many times I have been called a house ninja in the past year. I don't even take up a political side. I just go against the grain. Insults flow. Threats come. This comes from so called progressives. Not on here. You guys are mild in comparison. It's off topic but I wanted it out there for you guys to consider and look for on your own. Hell they are even calling Kendrick Lamar a house ninja before his new record dropped.
Follow the money: "Things just got very hot for climate deniers’ favorite scientist Feb 23, 2015 - Wei-Hock Soon is always in hot demand. Among climate change skeptics, few commodities are rarer. Soon isn’t just a scientist. He’s a scientist who doubts climate change is man-made. Soon doesn’t work for just any university — he works for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. If you doubt man-made climate change, Soon isn’t just your man. He’s your high priest. The Heartland Institute, a bastion of climate-change suspicion, has given him the “Courage in Defense of Science Award.” He has addressed the Kansas state legislature to rebut the overwhelming scientific consensus about man-made climate change. And he’s become something of a personal hero to conservative Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R), who maintains that climate change is a hoax. Soon is his evidence. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” Inhofe intoned last month. But Soon is not without controversy. During the weekend, Greenpeace released a batch of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed Soon received more than $1.2 million from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Soon didn’t disclose the money on at least 11 papers since 2008, reported the New York Times." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html Who funds climate deniers? The fossil fuel industry. Who listens to them? Conservative politicians. Why? "…the fossil-fuel industry directly invested $721 million—and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars more through contributions to outside groups—in order to secure a Congress of its choosing and a friendly energy agenda. Of these investments, the fossil-fuel industry directly contributed more than $64 million to candidates and political parties, spent more than $163 million on television ads across the country, and paid almost $500 million to Washington lobbyists in the two years leading up to the November 2014 elections. Oil, gas, coal, and electric utilities contributed more than $84 million to candidates, political parties, and outside spending groups during the 2014 election cycle. Of this total, more than $64 million went directly to candidates and parties, 79.5 percent of which supported Republicans and 20.5 percent of which supported Democrats." http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/the_fos ... elections/ Remind me again, which party thinks corporations are "people"? Which party supported the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that allows the wealthy to spend as much as they want buying politicians? "The Senate Tried to Overturn ‘Citizens United’ Today. Guess What Stopped Them? ...Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment to clarify in the Constitution that Congress and the states have the authority to do what they did for a century before activist judges began intervening on behalf of wealthy donors and corporations: enact meaningful campaign finance rules and regulations. But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to “filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.” http://www.thenation.com/blog/181590/se ... opped-them Like you said. Follow the money.
nah it seems like far more likely that the us gov run by the republicans has made a worldwide conspiracy with sciency peeps from all the other countrys to say theres climate change despite no real profit for anyone cause of it (giggle)
They will just come up with another virus like AIDS and wipe out a massive amount of the third world population.
That's it! We're going off the grid! *Little Ceasars Commercial* That's it we're going back on the grid! All I could think about while I read this post ._.
Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn’t come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” From Forbes