Climate Corruption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kilbourne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kilbourne

Guest
Whereas, it hath been proposed that Man hath produced Carbon Dioxide in excess for many years; and
Whereas, it hath been alleged by Climate Science that said excessive Carbon Dioxide introduced by Mankind into the atmosphere will produce Dangerous Global Warming; and
Whereas, Climate Science Skeptics hath shown that the Science behind the Dangerous Global Warming Hypothesis is the Product of Bias and Corrupt Scientifick Practice.

Now therefore, be it resolved that Mankind is justified in ignoring the claims of Climate Science until such time as she can be purged of such Bias and Corrupt Scientifick Practice.

What sayest thou all concerning this Resolution?
 
You have two sides leaning to their extremes - the truth lies some where in the middle - they both have their own agendas with neither hitting the mark 100 percent.I will say we need to be better tenders of the garden and take action before some things get out of hand and at the same time not ruin the economy by overkill.
 
Hi Peter,

Let’s put the focus on the purveyors of mainstream climate science. If they were expert witnesses for the prosecution in a trial, say the case of Earth v. Humanity for the crime of emitting excessive CO2 and causing Dangerous GW, would we in the jury be justified in ignoring all or most of their testimony by reason of their credibility being seriously impeached?
 
Let’s say the IPCC has been put forth as the world’s leading authority on climate change. Rajendra Pachauri, gets up on the stand with all 4 IPCC reports and testifies for the prosecution. His testimony chronicles how CO2 first came under suspicion, how the case against CO2 and the human activities which produce it was built, and how the present Very Scientifick Consensus was finally formed. All very damning testimony. When the prosecution rests, things are looking very bad for the defendants.
 
But then counsel for the defendants gets up. But unlike the team of Ivy League educated attorneys for the prosecution with their expensive suits and who drive to the office everyday in Beemers, counsel for the defense is a humble small town lawyer working pro bono. He became interested in the case almost by chance, and, after investigating the facts and becoming convinced that a railroad job was going on, volunteered his humble services.
 
Then he began his devastating cross-examination.

The first thing he did was remind the jury what the prosecution said during direct, namely that the IPCC is the world’s preeminent authority on climate change. He repeated for the jury the many accolades showered on the IPCC and reminded them the organization was awarded a Nobel Peace Price.

Then he directed Dr. Pachauri the IPCC’s charter which commissions it

“… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”.

He then asked Pachauri whether or not the very charter of the IPCC made it biased toward the prosecution because the guilt of CO2 was presumed in its charter. Pachauri, of course, denied this, but the jury sat up in their seats and took notice… [gotta go to work, story to continue]
 
Counsel then asked Pachauri how much funding his agency would receive if didn’t find evidence of CO2’s guilt. Answer: a lot of stammering.

With the initial skirmish over, counsel for the defense inquired about his agency’s impartiality, indeed his personal impartiality. “Mr. Pachauri, should a man in your position be impartial?” The IPCC head honcho quickly agreed. “Then it would be unseemly if a person in your position were to demonstrate any partisanship?” [no response]. I mean, it wouldn’t show impartiality if you publicly allied yourself with an activist organization such as the Heartland Institute? [of course] And it wouldn’t show impartiality if you publicly allied yourself with an activist organization such as Greenpeace? [Er…then silence] But that is exactly what you did when you wrote the forward to a 2007 Greenpeace publication? [But I did that in my personal capacity!] Counsel shows Pachauri a copy of the relevant page which shows he made his remarks as chairman of the IPCC. [no response, but the jury gets the point]
 
Counsel then asks Mr. P: "Isn’t it true that you represented to the jury that only world-renowned experts write IPCC reports? [That is true] "Here is a list of IPCC lead authors and their qualifications at the time they served. Please read them for the jury. [Mr. P. starts reading] “Richard Klein served as a lead author when he was 23. At the time he had just completed his master degree and had worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Laurens Bower served as an IPCC lead author before earning his masters degree. Sari Kovats served as an IPCC lead author and contributing author, long before she completed her PHD… What does this prove? These are all brilliant and qualified people.”

Counsel continues: And isn’t it true that the IPCC refuses to utilize Dr. William Gray, a world renowned meteologist and hurricane expert?" [If he was an expert, we would have used him]

The cross-X continues: “Mr. P. isn’t it true that Nils Axel-Morner, an acknowledged expert on sea level rise who previously testified, reviewed the list of IPCC experts in his field and testified that he never heard of your experts?” [That’s preposterous] “And isn’t it true that Dr. Paul Reiter, a disease expert who resigned in disgust from the IPCC, also testified about the lack of qualifications of the IPCC’s authors?” [These men aren’t experts. They are outliers.] “Is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT an outlier?” [mumbled response] “Mr. P., I now hand you your own ‘principles and procedures’. Isn’t it true they do not mention research experience, bibliography, citation statistics… as criteria for defining scientific expertise for your reports?” [Mr. P. denies it but the document is then entered into the record]
 
im not sure what youre saying, but global warming is REAL. dont believe these corporate lies which cater to interests of big oil. anyone who denies global warming at this point is just ignoring facts. they are like the people who denied that tobbacco causes cancer. the lobbies for the oil companies bribe the politicians to not to anything about the pollution problem. its so obvious. we could be investing in alternative energies, but we dont because theres no PROFIT$$ in it. so instead of investing in altrenative energy we fight needless wars for oil, just so these capitalist robber barons can make a few extra bucks.
 
This is silly. And putting Global Warming on trial in a one user thread is dumb. What is your point with all this. Barely anyone but yourself has posted here! 🤷
 
The methodical destruction of Dr. P continues. “Isn’t it true that you testified that the IPCC only uses peer-reviewed material?” [of course] “And isn’t it true that there was a recent controversy about the IPCC’s claim about the melting Himalaya glaciers?” [yes, there was much to do about nothing on that subject] And isn’t it true that this IPCC claim ended up being based on an activist organizations report, not any peer-reviewed research?" [yes, unfortunately, even despite our best efforts and very rigorous procedures, incidents like this happen. “So you would disagree with an audit which shows 21 out of 44 chapters in your Assessment Report have so few peer-reviewed references that they scored an F?” [of course, that’s a lie] Counsel later gets the audit result introduced in evidence.
 
Hey SomePerson,

The climate science establishment, led by the IPCC, says human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. But can the IPCC be believed?
 
Hey Mitex,

Thanks for posting and saving me from such silliness.
 
the question is: Are we skeptics justified in believing that the IPCC lacks any credibility?
 
Kilbourne said:
the question is: Are we skeptics justified in believing that the IPCC lacks any credibility?
Click to expand...
there is a correlation between increased CO2 and a general rise in temperature in the past century. i think from that we can infer that we have an impact on our environment. look at all this deforestation, pollution, animals dying out. you really think that we arent at least partially to blame? this winter had been the warmest winter i have ever been through, do you really think 70 degree weather in february is normal?
 
So far I have yet to hear anything here that actually disproves or even really casts solid doubton the theory of manmade global warming. Also the IPCC is not the leader or whatever of all climate scientists. And it is important to remember that there is a lot of research outside the IPCC that supports the theory not to mention the last IPCC ways several years ago. I think the cutoff for research would have been about 2006 at the latest probably earlier. This doesn;t mean the IPCC is useless but it is important to remember newer more up to date research has been done that continues to support the theory. Anyway I will post more but going to be late for work now.
 
someperson555 said:
there is a correlation between increased CO2 and a general rise in temperature in the past century. i think from that we can infer that we have an impact on our environment. look at all this deforestation, pollution, animals dying out. you really think that we arent at least partially to blame? this winter had been the warmest winter i have ever been through, do you really think 70 degree weather in february is normal?
Click to expand...
Hi SP555,

I don’t doubt that we have an impact on our environment or even that a doubling of C02 should cause some increase in temps. But the issue here is why we should believe the IPCC and its minions when they say human CO2 emissions are and will cause dangerous GW, given all the blows to their credibility being raised on cross-X?
 
Calliso said:
So far I have yet to hear anything here that actually disproves or even really casts solid doubton the theory of manmade global warming. Also the IPCC is not the leader or whatever of all climate scientists. And it is important to remember that there is a lot of research outside the IPCC that supports the theory not to mention the last IPCC ways several years ago. I think the cutoff for research would have been about 2006 at the latest probably earlier. This doesn;t mean the IPCC is useless but it is important to remember newer more up to date research has been done that continues to support the theory. Anyway I will post more but going to be late for work now.
Click to expand...
Hi Calliso,

The IPCC is routinely described with such words as gold standard, authoritative and preeminent.While it doesn’t claim to do its own research, it does claim that it assembles and summarizes the best climate research to date. It claims and is reputed to the ultimate world-wide authority on the state of climate research. What more, most of the major players in the climate science establishment are directly involved or tied to it in some way. It is where they all come together.
 
The cross-x of Dr. P continues. "Dr. P, isn’t it true that you testified that the IPCC is most rigorous in its procedures to guarantee the integrity of its scientific conclusions? [Yes, we follow all the standard procedures of science.] "Well, then let’s consider the case of Dr. Michael Mann. His famous Hockey Stick graph was given prominence in the Third Assessment Report, wasn’t it? [yes…wincing because Dr. P knows what is coming] "And isn’t it also true that Dr. Mann was the lead author of the chapter that included the HS graph? [yes…grudgingly] "So Dr. Mann passed on his own work? [Yes, but it had already been peer-reviewed] "We will get to the subject of its peer-review, but for now let’s look at the question of conflict of interest. Isn’t it a conflict of interest for a lead author to approve his own work? [maybe in technical sense, but let’s remember that a lot more people ultimately commented on the chapter before it was printed. If there had been something wrong with the study, it would have been caught in this review process.] “But isn’t it true there was something terribly wrong with Dr. Mann’s paper and the IPCC process didn’t catch it, correct?” [Well, it is true there were some minor flaws, but in any event other independent studies have yielded the same result.] “So it was a good scientific paper because it got the right answer, even though its methods were flawed?” [uncomfortable silence] “And regarding these so-called minor flaws, isn’t true that two congressional panels of scientists, even one friendly to Dr. Mann, concluded that his methods were fatally flawed?” * Counsel then introduces into evidence transcripts of congressional testimony from Dr. Wegman, an expert in statistics, and members of a team assembled by the National Academy of Science who also testified.*
 
"and isn’t it true that there were problems with Dr. Mann’s data as well? * And obviously, Dr. Mann wouldn’t have gotten his paper published in Nature without some peer review?[of course] So here we have an example of gross failure of the peer review process? [no one says peer review is infallible] But Dr P, here we have a paper with faulty data and fatally flawed methods making its way through peer review and getting published in major journal. Doesn’t that shake your confidence even a little bit in quality of peer review generally? [not at all]

Dr. P, Dr. Mann served as one of your lead authors. Is Dr. Mann a good scientist? [of course] Isn’t it true some of the hallmarks of any good scientific research are its transparency? [yes, of course] But the Hockey Stick affair expose the very opposite of Dr. Mann’s research? * Counsel then introduces a transcript of testimony exposing how Mann impeded Steve McIntyre’s efforts to reproduce his results. the exact data that he used in his study was not readily available upon request. Mann refused to disclose his exact methods and computer code, making the silly argument that his methods were proprietary.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top