Obama Ignores WarmerGate...

[Sinatra]

In spite of the ongoing data scandal surrounding several prominent figures in the global warming debate, President Obama, with agendized blinders firmly in place, is heading to Copenhagen to help open the international climate change conference, followed by his picking up his Nobel Peace Prize award...

___


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change meeting on December 9, hoping to add momentum to an international process despite slow progress on a domestic bill to cut carbon emissions.

Obama planned to make a visit at the beginning of the climate negotiations in Denmark, an administration official told Reuters on Wednesday, before picking up the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in neighboring Oslo.

...In such an agreement, developed nations would set goals for cutting emissions by 2020, developing nations would agree to slow the rise of their emissions, and the rich would come up with new aid and clean technology to help the poor cope with climate change.

Obama to attend beginning of U.N. climate meeting | Politics | Reuters

____

Ah yes, distribute global wealth in the name of now -proven tainted "climate change science".

Ladies and gentlemen - our president is achieving moronic status of epic proportions...

 

[Annie]

In spite of the ongoing data scandal surrounding several prominent figures in the global warming debate, President Obama, with agendized blinders firmly in place, is heading to Copenhagen to help open the international climate change conference, followed by his picking up his Nobel Peace Prize award...

___


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change meeting on December 9, hoping to add momentum to an international process despite slow progress on a domestic bill to cut carbon emissions.

Obama planned to make a visit at the beginning of the climate negotiations in Denmark, an administration official told Reuters on Wednesday, before picking up the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in neighboring Oslo.

...In such an agreement, developed nations would set goals for cutting emissions by 2020, developing nations would agree to slow the rise of their emissions, and the rich would come up with new aid and clean technology to help the poor cope with climate change.

Obama to attend beginning of U.N. climate meeting | Politics | Reuters

____

Ah yes, distribute global wealth in the name of now -proven tainted "climate change science".

Ladies and gentlemen - our president is achieving moronic status of epic proportions...

I saw that, made me want to spit. Not one mention of the data scandal.

 

[Big Fitz]

The socialists are in "hurry hurry" mode to push through as much as they can as fast as they can to either collapse the system or to put the pieces on the board that they can ultimately bring about their revolution afterwards.

The next president and congress needs to pretty much reverse almost all laws pushed through between 2006 and potentially the end of P-BO's disastrous reign.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Meister]

Obama's ultimate goal will be to reduce emissions by 83% by 2050. Has anyone really thought just how much our industry would be maimed if this ever went into effect?
I do believe this Senate and Congress make-up will be changing considerably in light of what Obama and them are trying to push through. it certainly will be a train wreck if it isn't changed.

 

[keee keee]

Global warming is a bigger FRAUD than Social security and Ponzi combined!!!! Now the facts are out and they are still pushing this scam!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

The cost of ignoring climate change will many orders of magnitude greater than the cost of addressing this issue.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf

STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change
vi
Summary of Conclusions
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take
strong action now.
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global
threat, and it demands an urgent global response.
This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate
change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to
assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the
Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far
outweigh the economic costs of not acting.
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world –
access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions
of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world
warms.
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t
act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least
5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each
year.
The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect
on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and
over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and
social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the
economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or
impossible to reverse these changes.
So prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a
global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a
shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate
action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at
national, regional and international level.

 

[Oddball]

Pascal's wager is yet more flawed logic, to go with the flawed and fudged "research".

 

[Andrew2382]

The cost of ignoring climate change will many orders of magnitude greater than the cost of addressing this issue.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf

STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change
vi
Summary of Conclusions
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take
strong action now.
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global
threat, and it demands an urgent global response.
This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate
change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to
assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the
Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far
outweigh the economic costs of not acting.
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world –
access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions
of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world
warms.
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t
act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least
5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each
year.
The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect
on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and
over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and
social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the
economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or
impossible to reverse these changes.
So prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a
global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a
shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate
action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at
national, regional and international level.

yawn


majority of this global warming bullshit comes from al gore and the politically motivated IPCC who basis their conclusions from research data from people like the CRU whom we now know manipulate their data for their own benefit.

No one argues the planet is going through changes...thats what it does. It's done it time and time again before lunatics like you took one step on Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course President Obama is ignoring this tempest in at teapot. Why should anybody with any intelligence pay any attention to it? The 'Evidence' is either e-mails out of context, or possibly manufactured. But it is amusing that you people have not had such a gleeful time since the clown landed on the aircraft carrier off San Diego in his cute little flight suit and cod peice, and decared "Mission Successful". The end of this little misadventure will be just as positive for you as that was.

 

[Andrew2382]

lol there ya go Old cock

deflect deflect deflect


now the evidence was manufactured of taken out of context.

Sure it was

Any evidence that may contradict what you lunatics may same is always taken out of context

 

[Oddball]

Of course President Obama is ignoring this tempest in at teapot. Why should anybody with any intelligence pay any attention to it? The 'Evidence' is either e-mails out of context, or possibly manufactured. But it is amusing that you people have not had such a gleeful time since the clown landed on the aircraft carrier off San Diego in his cute little flight suit and cod peice, and decared "Mission Successful". The end of this little misadventure will be just as positive for you as that was.

Wow...Bold font...We must've hit him pretty close to the mark here, boys and girls!

We're having fun with clowns, but not in the way you may have thought.

Boyking is ignoring this because he already doesn't know his ass from a hot rock. Best just shut up and throw another party.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I could have made it big and red. But I leave that to you, Doooodeeee........

But you, and the others that are crowing have achieved something that I thought would be impossible. I am seeing the start of a galvanizaton of the scientific community. This politically based effort to cast them as misreants with no integrity has created some anger in places that count.

 

[Oddball]

What you're seeing is a bunch of crooks circling the wagons, just like Nixon's toadies did when the Pentagon Papers came out and the Watergate break in was busted.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you are seeing is the scientists in this and other nations realizing for the first time that their integrity and honor are being attacked and lied about for the political reasons.

I don't think that you will see a circling of the wagons, I beleive that you will see a push back that may just surprise you with it's effectiveness.

 

[Oddball]

They said that about Nixon, too!!

 

[Andrew2382]

they are being attacked because the truth is finally coming out and now they are trying to backtrack

 

[Old Rocks]

The Merchants of Doubt, and the past lies that they have told. Come, good little girls and boys, you must believe them, lead, mercury, asbestos, global warming, and tobacco smoke are good for you.

Rabett Run

Merchants of Doubt is a forthcoming (May 25, 2010, mark your calendars little girls and guys) book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway about


how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.


The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is “not settled” denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one tobacco executive. These “experts” supplied it.


Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We certainly do not expect Mr Obama to know what is happening outside his own little world do we?

Remember he had no Idea that the April 15th Tea Parties even happened.

And he didn't know About these other 16 Items either,
MyDD :: Barack I-didn't-know Obama


One has to wonder what he does know.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sunday, November 22, 2009
Something interesting comes this way

Ed Darrell has found something interesting in the CRU Emails (Ed has a nice bathtub to wash in after wading in so you don't have to)



Sure enough, with just a few minutes of searching the e-mails, I found references to ethical breaches in cooking of data, and a discussion about how to talk about the data and the issue in public.

The paper involved is this one:

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, Int. J. Climatol. (2007). Published online in Wiley InterScience (Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

and the discussion of what to do about it


One of the e-mails is quite explicit:

I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.

Fraud? Right there in front of everyone? In the climate debate?

In the end, the scientists in the discussion determined not to hold a press conference to announce a finding of fraud, but instead to hunker down and work on publishing datasets that would contradict the alleged fraudulent paper, and establish their case with data instead of invective and press conferences.

Of course, outright scientific fraud is also in their menu. And example right here, if you follow the links.

Rabett Run

They even declined to rush to inform the public of the fraud after a lengthy series of attempts to duplicate the results with well-known, accurate methods on accepted data:

More at the link with links to the correspondence. Eli eagerly awaits comments from Douglass, Christy, Pearsona and Singer. Eli is a foolish, but ever hopeful bunny. You can pull the angora over his eyes.