68% of the largest firms have climate change as a central priority.

I find it rather odd that "global warming" has now become "climate change".

 

This is my main problem with "climate change" research. One of the main tools used for "climate change" research is computer models. A large part of my job duties is building computer models, so I know how these things are built. The main problem with them is that they can be easily skewed one way or another depending on the reference data used. Now from the East Anglia e-mail scandal, we know for a fact that at least some "climate change" researchers try to manipulate data to achieve an outcome they want to see however actual temperatures haven't followed what was predicted. There has been so much money given in grants for this research, I just can't help but wonder if some of these researchers are trying not to kill the golden goose.


If I had time and was able to use my companies computer programs for personal use I am quite sure I could build a computer model to predict future temperatures and I know I could make it show a future warming or cooling pattern based on the data I put into it. Maybe I can get a grant to "prove" global cooling.LOL

 

A SAMPLING OF CRU EMAILS AND DOCUMENTS1

Please read through these e-mails and tell me these clowns weren't manipulating data and avoiding the Freedom of Information(FOI) laws in Britain. If they had nothing to hide then why wouldn't they be happy to comply with the (FOI) laws.

 

Same reason why Comcast changed their name to Xfinity (well more or less).
You drop the controversial connotation, at least a little bit, and can argue that the two are different.

 

It's not odd at all. People are too stupid to understand the meaning of the term to a degree that any time there's a blizzard people scoff at the idea that the Earth is warming. So they've changed the term to climate change which is more easily understandable for stupid people.

 

I just found this.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

 

Three different inquiries read the emails in its entirety and in full context, not some snapshot cherry picked by Sen. Inhofe.

The deniers were requesting data years in the past where it'd take time to grab it from their notes. It's not an excuse against transparency, but when you get hundreds of different requests for data in 2002 or before in what seems like an attempt to delay your work, it can be understood as unrealistic and trollish. Maybe colleges should hire full time climate clerks because it's a common problem. You know, add on to "the bureacracy".

Even if Climategate proved true of every little dirty accusation by the researchers, it didn't spark a domino of Climategates across other universities. It's interesting how three different independent inquiries cleared the researchers of intentional wrongdoing or falsification doesn't dispel your hunches or gut feelings.

 

LOL

http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...igns-over-global-warming-paper-blames-forbes/

 

That is a prime example of why the title of this thread exist. "Climate change" is politically correct. The editor published the paper and was getting roasted so he stepped down and said he didn't believe it. Why would he publish it in the first place. All the companies that have a "climate change" central priority do it because it is politically correct. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if a least some of them have something to hide. Coming out on the side of "climate change", could easily be an attempt to gain political favor for government contracts and helps to avoid EPA scrutiny.

There is plenty of compelling evidence to the contrary yet the "climate change" agenda keeps chugging on. Anyone who comes out against it gets roasted. I believe there needs to be a lot more scrutiny of the research.

 

So an editor publishes something, then says what he publishes wasn't accurate and you decide to continue to believe what he published. It seems like you are unwilling to accept facts and evidence that go against your preconceived notion.

You have zero evidence to prove that anyone is using climate change to help them with the EPA or govt. in general.

If there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of climate change why do 97% of the scientists agree on it? Where is the evidence to the contrary?

 

Wow, a flat earther can still get replies. Should I post the straight science again? Maybe i can find some of my last posts on this topic.

But regardless of intent, "cml750" or whatever he was named before (perhaps Global_Jorge?) is essentially trolling at this point. Satellites show more thermal energy input to earth (solar) than thermal energy output (reflection, radiation.) That's a measurement. No email, no fancy models. Just input/output, you know... like your checkbook or a pail of water.

So, successful troll is successful. Interesting that he thinks so many firms are run by complete idiots, with respect to the OP. G'day.

 

First thing is that I have to spread rep to you again before repping this.

The second thing is that when someone is denying science, and trying to support people's inaccuracies even when those people have admitted it was inaccurate, then it's hard to not want to hit that softball when you see it hanging there above the plate, or least find out if they are for real. I probably have been guilty of replying to stuff that is so out of the realm of reality that I shouldn't have bothered.

 

Bob if you take the time to look, I have been around Clutchfans a month longer than you. I have never changed my name. Why are progressive/liberal people always so condescending?

Here is a little more real data, the earth has been on a cooling trend since 1998. That is why "global warming" was renamed "climate change". Global warming did not fit anymore.

I apologize if I do not buy into the gloom and doom. In the 70's they were saying that there was another ice age coming however that quickly turned to "global warming" when temperature started to rise. In the 80's, there were all kinds of doom and gloom predictions about how many people would become infected with Aids that never happened. What I am saying is that in we need a little more time before acting on these dire "global warming" predictions from computer models. The climate has been cooling. Instead we keep getting EPA mandates like adding ethanol to gasoline ,making biodiesel, and ever increasing air quality standards. Ethanol makes gasoline less efficient. It is from the two carbon paraffin (ethane), while gasoline is made from eight+ carbon naphtha and aromatics. There are less BTU's in a two carbon molecule than eight+ carbon molecules thus decreased gas mileage and less efficiency. The EPA is now starting to mandate biodiesel production. This creates all sorts of problems for refineries. You see, refineries make jet fuel(really grade A kerosine) along with diesel and gasoline. Biodiesel contains FAME(Fatty Acid Methyl Ester). If any FAME gets into jet fuel then it will foul a jet engine. To keep this from happening there will have to be more tanks and pipelines built to avoid cross contamination. This will cause higher prices just as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel mandates caused the price of diesel to be higher than gasoline. The ever increasing air quality standards create a huge hardship on businesses. As businesses realize they can move their business to another place in the world that doesn't have all the regulations then the USA loses. Also, if the goal is lower worldwide emissions then that goal is negated every time a business moves to a country with very little regulation they will not try so hard to lower emissions.

I believe the main goal of all the hysteria is to create cap and trade plans that will make the cost of energy skyrocket. President Obama said himself that his energy plan will make energy prices necessarily skyrocket. This will mean higher electricity prices, higher gas prices and higher prices for almost everything because it takes energy to make and transport goods. A cap and trade plan would devastate our weak economy.

I believe everyone should be responsible about the environment. We do need the EPA, however regulations that squeeze a company out of business or cause them to leave the country have gone too far. If man has done anything to increase temperature, I believe it has much more to do with the concrete jungles that litter than landscape because they do tend to trap heat.

 

.....I gotcher largest firm right here.

 

It seems like your main issue is that you don't understand science, and what it is. Predicting AIDS isn't science. It was precautionary and it was mostly about what could happen.

The fact that people went from talking about a coming ice age and changed only proves that science works, and isn't subject to trends more than results.

The science has been pointed out. Everything B-Bob pointed out is provable scientific fact. It's why almost every single scientist agrees with climate change and human kind's input into it.

 

Was responding in kind, actually. Sorry. I'll be the bigger poster next time.

I don't mind a bit that you don't buy into "gloom and doom," because I don't buy into doom and gloom either. Things are warming up, and we probably can't stop it. The world will be different, but it's not necessarily any form of doom. I also think increased water vapor could save us by increasing the earth's effective ability to reflect sunlight to space.

But your statement about cooling is scientifically completely false. If you want to cherry pick a tiny data set, that's akin to saying since you're shorter than your grandfather that all humans are shrinking over their entire 200,000 year history on Earth. It's an imaginary statement, based on an inability (or unwillingness) to analyze the appropriate data set. Rumsfeld once said that "if you can't answer a question, increase the scope of the problem." That's brilliant, and even scientific. What some climate deniers do is a political tactic: shrink the scope of the problem (or data) until you find the outcome that fits your beliefs. This is where science and politics always abrade one another.

Read my last post about satellite data. Does your bank account decrease if you put more money in than you take out? Does a pot of water empty itself if you put more water in than you pour out?

Here's another very real impact of the "cooling" misstatement.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016306604_apunclimatechange.html

"Island Nations Warn of Climate Disaster"

They are watching sea levels rise, and making plans to evacuate their entire islands. More hysteria? All so that Obama can enact cap and trade? That's delusional thinking.

I don't mind you thinking these things; I'll just (occasionally) confront people who share that thinking as an argument against science and data. Cheers.

 

Climate change legislation is a dead issue in the US. The people simply don't want it and Congress couldn't pass it with democratic super majorities in both chambers. The science behind it is total junk and has proven to be false, corrupt and scandal-ridden. The scientists promoting this political, not scientific, agenda have models that have been flat out wrong and proven terrible in both forecasting and hind-casting the Earth's climate. It's junk science that's being pushed by liberal scientists and politicians, yearning for more of the people's money to spend. The thought that 1/3 of 1% of the atmosphere is responsible for changing the temperature is just laughable on its face. And man's impact on that 1/3 of 1% is tiny. It's slime propaganda.

The EPA has been pushing an aggressive climate change agenda in the last 3 years to compensate for Congress' inability to act. That game is almost up too, as public outrage has started to make an impact on this unpopular behavior. All of this goes away very soon, and hopefully we can lower energy prices to grow, instead of hinder, the economy.

 

please shut up.