Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

[Zute]

Hmmm.... I was hard pressed for a title, go easy on me.

Seems that the right-wing, climate change, think-tank, Heartland, has been caught doing embarrassing things and taking money from embarrassing places.

The Heartland Institute — a self-described "think tank" that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

More on Discover's blog.

[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Yes, because god knows when science is taught people can start to make decisions on their own and we don't want that.

And the Right calls the Left elitists? I just don't get that.

[Fyyr]

...effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Science teachers should be teaching the Scientific Method.

Observation.
Hypothesis.
Method or Procedure.
Experiment and Results.
Conclusion.

Not
Conclusion first.
Hypothesis.
Procedure.
Experiment.
Observation.

Anyway, it's all an excellent jobs program and business stimulation deal. I don't have an issue with it for that reason. But don't call it science; when you stick the conclusion out there first it's not science. It will bias every bit of the whole method.

I don't need a think tank to tell me how or what to think.

Who tells you what to think?

[Fyyr]

Also remember that the hypothesis for human-caused CO2 related climate change is based on the glass box model or the Venus model.

The Earth is not like a glass box, nor is it like Venus. Both are poor models to make any prediction upon.

And secondarily, humans have already burned up more than half of the total world's supply of fossil fuel. It will become harder and harder to come by.

At worst case, we have already done half the damage already, if we are doing damage. And as the curve towards none moves closer and closer, we will take a lot longer getting to total CO2 emissions longer and longer from now.


And I don't deny for one minute that the climate changes. It always changes, always has, and always will. Last year it was snowing into June and July, Silver Lake campground opened July 4th weekend with mucho snow still on the ground. This year? No snow. I just went up yesterday, great skiing, but not a lot of base. This has been one of the coldest and driest winters I can remember.

Of course, there are those here who believe that memory should play no part in rational thought. And that we must rely on others to tell us when it is cold or hot, when it snows or does not snow.

[AbyssalMage]

Also remember that the hypothesis for human-caused CO2 related climate change is based on the glass box model or the Venus model.

The Earth is not like a glass box, nor is it like Venus. Both are poor models to make any prediction upon.

But these are the BEST models we have access to. Secondly, the CORRELATION between "glass box model" and Venus model" are similar to the REAL results (scientific data) they are collecting. So if you want to argue its not the "perfect" model. Show me where in science, they have ever found a perfect model.

And secondarily, humans have already burned up more than half of the total world's supply of fossil fuel. It will become harder and harder to come by.

Carbon is locked up in all LIVING organisms. The destruction of forests and that huge algae bloom in the Pacific (for lack of the correct term) is also contributing to Carbon levels rising. Fossil Fuel is just the largest provider, NOT the only one. And if scientific models are correct (Nothings perfect, see previous point) we are near or past the tipping point already. That means, even if no more fossil fuels where burned starting "tomorrow", global carbon levels would still continue to rise because the release of carbon is greater than the trapping or absorption of carbon.

At worst case, we have already done half the damage already, if we are doing damage. And as the curve towards none moves closer and closer, we will take a lot longer getting to total CO2 emissions longer and longer from now.

Well, you are correct for getting at least 1 fact straight, we have used over 1/2 our discovered fossil fuel supply. To bad nothing else you stated has been supported.

And I don't deny for one minute that the climate changes. It always changes, always has, and always will. Last year it was snowing into June and July, Silver Lake campground opened July 4th weekend with mucho snow still on the ground. This year? No snow. I just went up yesterday, great skiing, but not a lot of base. This has been one of the coldest and driest winters I can remember.

Of course, there are those here who believe that memory should play no part in rational thought. And that we must rely on others to tell us when it is cold or hot, when it snows or does not snow.

Yeah, and you have proven repeatedly you can't tell the difference between GLOBAL weather and LOCAL weather. As hard as it is to believe (for you), the world doesn't revolve around you.

[Tudamorf]

Yes, because god knows when science is taught people can start to make decisions on their own and we don't want that.

Kind of like the "teach biblical creationism as 'science' instead of evolution" bills that have recently popped up in New Hampshire (which specifically requires outing any atheists, if you can believe that) and Indiana. Yes, I'm talking about 2012, today, not 1920.

[Tudamorf]

And I don't deny for one minute that the climate changes.

If you don't deny that it's changing, what's your hypothesis as to why it's changing (in one direction for the past century)?

What evidence supports your hypothesis? What experiments have you performed to confirm or deny that hypothesis, and what were the results?

Confine your discussion to global climate change, not the daily weather in your home town.

[Fyyr]

We know that both Iraq, and the rest of the middle east, and Eqypt, and most of north Africa, were not always deserts.

They once sustained lush growth.

We know that Britain was once covered in glaciers.

It is not now.

Of course there is climate change. Find out what the cause of the change before forming the conclusion first.

[Fyyr]

"Carbon is locked up in all LIVING organisms. The destruction of forests and that huge algae bloom in the Pacific (for lack of the correct term) is also contributing to Carbon levels rising."

We in the US have been conserving forests for over a 150 years. There are more trees now in North American than in human history on it. Any photos of wilderness areas taken 100+ years ago compared today confirms that.

Besides, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a limiting agent in plant growth. More CO2 equals more plant growth, plants grow faster and bigger with additional CO2. Venus has no plants, thus is a poor model for the Earth. Aquatic plants included.

Caulerpa would be a fantastic food source, for example. Nutritious and fast growing, and you don't even need to plant it. And yes, humans are responsible for its introduction to the Mediterranean Sea. Conveniently close to a whole bunch of starving people. And the lower California coast, but all those rich elites in SD or LA can make it into salads then.

Algae do not give off CO2, Mage, they consume it. And give off Oxygen as waste. Your facts are wrong, your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

[Tudamorf]

We in the US have been conserving forests for over a 150 years. There are more trees now in North American than in human history on it. Any photos of wilderness areas taken 100+ years ago compared today confirms that.

You mean, we have been cutting down forests, for well over 150 years.

The entire Eastern half of the United States used to be covered with forest, and it was cut down a long time ago, to make cabins, furniture, and as fuel for fires.



The Pacific Northwest still has a small amount of its original forest left, but is being clear cut as we speak, leaving forests that look like this:


On the ground in Oregon


Aerial view of clear cuts in California

I don't know what "photos" you're looking at, but any claim that there are more trees now is laughable. I don't even think the logging company executives, who are profiting from clear cutting public land, make such a ludicrous claim.

Besides, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a limiting agent in plant growth.

Funny, I thought it was sunlight, nutrient rich soil, and water that limited plant growth.

Amazing, how lush our forests were centuries ago, when carbon dioxide levels were lower.

Then again, in your upside down world, Nature is wrong, and Europeans came to America and didn't cut down trees, but rather planted more of them.

[Tudamorf]

Of course there is climate change. Find out what the cause of the change before forming the conclusion first.

Since the question apparently flew over your head, I will ask you again:

WHY is climate change happening right now, if not because of greenhouse gases? What is your explanation?

Climates change because of changed conditions, such as continental drift, changing ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbit, variations in solar radiation, and volcanic activity, in addition to changes in the atmosphere. However, only atmospheric changes can explain the changes in the past century.

If you have a better explanation, present your data.