Unfortunately I believe you have unnecessarily conflated a really good point. The term Liar requires culpability. In other words to be a liar one must deliberately decide to be so. So therefore not all men are liars. IMO However, certainly, all men are capable of lying...
Well, in determining the standards of culpability with respect to lying, is that not an attempt at 'hiding/covering' something by definition? i.e. guilt? Yes, as the action is committed. Lying can be a knee jerk reaction based upon a pre existing inner condition already prone to falsehood. It is that pre existing inner condition that we all share in and which manifests itself sans deliberation on innumerable occasions. IMO.
People lie, distort facts, or even some scientists will prostitute themselves in anti-AGW publications, when these things are likely to give rewards, with high probability. I.e. most lies stem from greed, but, not everyone will "sell their soul." Some have even been burned at the stake as they would not lie, but insisted in telling the truth that the TPTB did not want told. What do you think: If Snowden is returned to the US, would he say he made it all up to avoid jail?
Rules, not the Laws. Rules are typically Administrative. Laws are Civil or Criminal. Global Policy Foundation is alive and well (though I dont read their site): http://www.thegwpf.org/ Well I guess its a matter of interpretation. From the UK Charity Commission finding (skipping over the Independents assessment of the situation: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../ocr_the_global_warming_policy_foundation.pdf There is no mention of refiling/back taxes. So we see in the actual report there is no mention of lies or misrepresentation of the facts. Now to point out some flaws in the independent reporting on the situation. Truncated from Independent Article: So they were getting press. And we cannot have that, I mean if people form their own opinions... First thing outstanding is Lawson Clearly states its the Tax on Major Emittors. Then we see Bob Ward move the goalposts; substituting average household energy bill for tax on major carbon emitters. You dont think increased costs to business will not be passed down to consumers? From the DECC document: Table2: Estimated average impact of energy and climate change policies on business energy (gas & electricity) bills compared with bills in the absence of policies 6 (excludes measures government is considering to reduce impacts of EU ETS, CPF and CfDs on large energy intensive users) Medium sized business: Impact of policies(CRC) 2013 - £300,000(21%) 2020 - £330,000(22%) 2030 - £590,000(39%) Large sized Business: Impact of policies(CRC) 2013 - £0.1to1.8m (1 to 14%) 2020 - £0.5 to 5.0m (6 to 36%) 2030 - £1.0 to 8.1m (13 to 60%) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...326_-_Price_and_Bill_Impacts_Report_Final.pdf So we see he thinks the government estimate is approx 10% lower than published for major emitters. But Ward changes what is actually being said to Households.. Reading over the above document is really cute how they hide the added costs under catch-phrases like "policies to reduce the cost burden on the poor". Thats Tax money to reduce the cost burden on the poor. But its not going away: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...gy-costs-far-higher-than-ministers-admit.html Governments (all over the place) are well known for mis-representing/under reporting the actual cost to people when proposing a 'solution' to some perceived crisis. I believe my own government deflates estimates on cost for their green ideas. I look forward to various complaints filed against various UK edu charities requiring them to present a more balanced version regarding AGW and "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts." as Schneider once spoke of.
Yes in two version now. One is now openly a lobby group, but dontions to it are not tax deductible. It was split off from the original, that now claims it will conform to the rules for a charity. I did go to their site. They have created a multi-point reply to positions of the ICCP and/or Royal Society, mainly. Some are well done as mainly focus on the fact that there is a lot of uncertainity in factors influencing the climate, and what it was long ago; however, some just reflect their biased ignorance. For example, point 8 addresses the following now bold question by, in their std form, first telling the "accepted" position then GWPF's POV in A fuller picture: section: Is there a point at which adding more carbon dioxide will not cause further warming? Note all understand that the "warming" spoken of is where people live - I. e. the surface of the Earth. Royal Society: No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. The addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise. A fuller picture: Each additional increase of carbon dioxide levels is expected to produce less and less green house warming, so it takes far more emissions to produce the second degree of warming than the first. Thus unless carbon dioxide emissions rise exponentially in the long term, warming should slow down. In theory temperatures will always keep rising, but eventually at a rate indistinguishable from zero. As usual, the question is not about warming per se but about how, much warming there will be compared to natural variability. The available evidence is entirely consistent with the answer ‘not much.’ - - - - - - - - Parts I have made red are intentionally misleading; but is a true statement IFF the temperature they speak of is, or the warming in the final now red text, is NOT that of the earth's surface, but of the high altitude layer from which the green house gas radiation escapes to space. The GWPF people know that everyone will assume the temperature they speak of is that of the Earth's surface temperature, so by not telling they are speaking of the temperature at high altitude above the surface they are at best, dishonest, but I would say: intentionally lying. For example Venus was once in its lower temperature stable state and now is in its high temperature (at the surface) stable state; however, as the GWPF states, the top of the now thick IR absorbing atmosphere is at essentially the same temperature as the surface once was. - It must be for all planets, as always in the steady state they radiate back to space the same quantity of energy that they absorb from the sun. Now any lead on the surface of Venus is liquid as the surface is much hotter there than at the high atmosphere layer which radiates to space. I. e. first the red sentence is true of the ONLY of the high layers that radiate back to space, but not the surface, which 99.9% of the readers will assume is the temperature the WGPF speaks of (as they no doubt intended). I don't think Earth's surface could ever be hot enough to melt lead if Earth also had a thick IR absorbing atmosphere, but it surely would not have any liquid water, like oceans as surface temperate would be much hotter than 100C. - That is not what their "not much" conclusion implies. Here is a simple proof, you can skip, if you already understand how the GWPF is distorting (or intentionally lying): If you had a set of n imaginary spherical surfaces each centered on the Earth's center, then the energy flux thru each going to space is the same. The temperature at the n = M - 1 spherical surface, which is closer to Earth's surface than the n = M imaginary surface is, will be greater than the temperature at the n = M surface. It must be to make the temperature gradient driving the energy flux thru the sphere. I. e. when a planet has a thick IR absorbing atmosphere, the surface temperature is much hotter than the high up layer that can radiate to space.
Nah... the warming continues based on which algorithm is applied to what version of the data a person favors: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1999/to:2014/trend And of course what start point is chosen: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:201/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:2001/to:2014/trend Most recent 14 years of data. .08 (eight hundreths of a degree) by the most extreme data set (GISS with fill-in for large expanses with no temp record) .02 (two hundreths of a degree by GISS without fill in) Decline for HadCrut. Global surface temps. Increasing CO2. Your red: In theory temperatures will always keep rising, but eventually at a rate indistinguishable from zero. As usual, the question is not about warming per se but about how, much warming there will be compared to natural variability. The available evidence is entirely consistent with the answer ‘not much.’
The available evidence indicates that the lower level atmospheric temperature rise we can expect, after averaging out the natural variability, given current trends only and without a methane feedback blowup etc, is between 2 and 6 degrees C over the next century or so. That's dramatic. Then there is the sea level rise, the wind speed effects, the rainfall patterns, the local evapotranspirative deficits, and so forth. That "eventually" will be the new climate equilibrium, or "stable" state, much warmer in most places and probably with greater fluctuation ranges of most variables (snow, rain, air temps, barometric pressure, wind speed, wave and storm surge heights, dew point, etc). If you want to call that "not much", there's no stopping you - but it's going to cause a lot of hardship for a lot of people, never mind the ecosystem effects etc.
Why no, not the official "skeptics". They probably know pretty much what they are doing, and if they don't they are self-deceived more than fooled by others. It's you they're playing. You aren't a skeptic, you're a sucker. The key observation there is that you can't. That's why you never have. You think other people have, because although you cannot evaluate what they say you like their attitude toward liberals. You mistake that faux-realistic attitude for competence and honesty. Hence your public display of gullibility in the presence of every new piece of chaff from the wingnut blogosphere related to AGW - such as the latest round of "scientists alarmed about global cooling in 1970s" bs, back for the third or fourth time in the past ten years, incoherent as ever. If you could "question the theory", you would able to question these sources of yours - and then you wouldn't post from them. That is no excuse for your tactic of posting lies from known liars on this forum. Some things posted by some people are sometimes honest. You are supposed to be making a good faith attempt to ensure your posts are among them, and you are not doing that.
Billy T , I found this news posting and thought of your concerns about CH4 Flares, "A team of scientists aboard NIWA’s deepwater research vessel Tangaroa returns to Wellington tomorrow [Friday 1 May 2015] with new knowledge about methane ‘leaking’ into the atmosphere." https://www.niwa.co.nz/news/niwa-studies-spectacular-seabed-gas-flares
A good scientist is skeptical and not just passively compliant. Passive compliance is more geared to company politics because this makes it easier to move up the company ladder. If one worked for a tobacco company, skepticism is not a career enhancer. One needs to keep that private, and show the brass you are with the program, 100%. Blind obedient to climate change caused by man, is not healthy for science. It is geared to all the money and power that is out there. The reason a good scientist is skeptical is because science is always in flux with new discovery. There is no branch of science that has ever reached steady state, with all the answers, so all the key player can retire with peace of mind. There is always new coming doe the pike. Mercenary science is different in that real time company line is always the best it can be. This is the boot you lick for the most impact. There is no need to look any further or have any concerns.
So all of those climate scientists that are writing about climate change are purposely lying? That is quite an indictment. I assume your proof of this is that Fox News says there is no climate change therefore the scientist must be lying?
Thanks. It is more* experimental evidence of what I have been saying (and explaining how with a math model): Even deep CH4 releases CAN reach the surface if large enough to make the water column above the release point buoyant. I.e. The ICCP and many others are WRONG. - The tiny bubbles will not necessarily dissolve before getting to the surface. * I already had experimental evidence in the video I linked to that had misleading "boiling ocean" in its title. Ocean only looked like it was boiling, but water of the video was cold bottom water with so many bubbles in it that the continuously acting (from even deeper bottom to surface) buoyant force accelerated the water column to such a speed that its inertial hurled it more than a meter above the surface before it fell back to the surface. From your link, here is the under water CH4 souce (Failed rock structure, with ~766 individual gas flares within the area studied.): Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I tend to believe that not only are you correct but that even you are underestimating the release of CH4 "reality" somewhat...
Which is less than 0.000,0001 of what Big Oil, natural gas, and coal interests stands to lose if for example world were to switch to sugar cane alcohol car fuel, etc. Why they have paid millions to some scientists who become their rich prostitutes with anti-AGW articles published.
Interesting. The lack of O2 down there is reasonable, but doesn't that mean, any bacterial conversion of the accumulating organic matter will produce CH4 instead of CO2?
Article linked below: Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule... Below are listed the article’s authors and the dollar amounts of EPA grants with which they are associated as principal investigators”: Charles T. Driscoll: $3,654,608 Jonathan J. Buonocore: $9,588 Jonathan I. Levy: $9,514,391 Kathleen F. Lambert: 0 Dallas Burtraw: $1,991,346 Stephen B. Reid: 0 Habibollah Fakhaei: 0 Joel Schwartz: $31,176,575 Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA possibly be considered as a “competing financial interest” in an article they wrote in support of EPA’s flagship regulatory effort? Right… the $45 million these researchers have been paid by EPA over the years — plus the prospect of more money — had no influence over them. Let’s not overlook that Driscoll admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of this study was predetermined.... Willie Soon was repeatedly raked over the coals by the media for his alleged failure to disclose industry funding of his work*. Democrats in Congress (Rep. Raul Grijalva, and Sens. Boxer/Markey/Whitehouse) launched attacks on universities and businesses for funding climate skeptics. *that was past work (which was disclosed) and not for the current article on climate models running too hot which was not funded by industry. Soon defended himself by saying: … In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues. “If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists… http://junkscience.com/2015/05/05/m...d-researchers-shilling-for-epas-biggest-rule/ Junk Science provides direct links to the EPA grant info on the above and more links to relevant EPA actions. Judith Curry writes about the funding bias issue: http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/#more-18616 When I worked for the state, one governor decided to investigate agency spending and duplicative work in an effort to reduce spending. It was a difficult position for me; watching the depts banding together to hire someone to review our jobs and justify the need (that was the mandate for the study) vs knowing full well there was a lot of waste (especially with the top positions). And it is related. EPA has motive to hire researchers who will produce the desired outcome which increases/solidifies their existence. And it is no different than the IPCC mandate: Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...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, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies." http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml As a side note, Curry has been asked follow-up questions regarding her recent testimony: http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/05/follow-up-questions-re-my-recent-house-testimony/#more-18620
In the first place, you have the entire argument exactly backwards: on this site no one is arguing that Soon's arguments are bad using his funding as evidence against them, as if questionable funding was why we were rejecting scientific reason; we already could see he was publishing error and apparently calculated nonsense, long before we knew what his funding was - we are arguing that his funding is a likely explanation of his behavior , that his obviously bad arguments from misrepresentations of research he did not perform are explained by his being paid to make them. We can see he's full of shit, and the money just explains why he does what he does. That is: no amount of corruption on the part of anyone else will vindicate the likes of Willie Soon. Meanwhile, no such argument applies to the main body of climate researchers. Their stuff is visibly sound analysis of data, overwhelming amounts of sound analysis of data, often from research they themselves performed, otherwise from data of others honestly presented and analyzed. So their funding sources would not be useful in explaining the deception or consistently poor logic or consistent misrepresentations in their publications, because there isn't any visible. But in the politically framed fantasy world of the American "conservative", EPA funding is itself evidence of bias and deception in the findings of funded researchers. That is because in their world the government is a special interest of its own in conflict with everyone and everything else, and scientific findings and research are fundamentally social and political entities that can be produced to fit a predetermined political agenda. The EPA in the US does not become "solid" or "increased" by making enemies of the largest campaign funders and most powerful international concerns on the planet. The opposite, if anything. Judith Curry is an expounder of that fantasy or wingnut view, and yet again a slanderer of honest researchers. And the reason you posted that embarrassing misunderstanding of the entire argument, and that silly but nevertheless ugly slandering of actual researchers and non-politicians, is that you are getting your insight and analysis from the likes of Judith Curry, and you are incapable of "questioning the theory" she presents. You just repost it, like this: Did you read the questions, and the answers? Then why did you repost them on a scientific forum, where people know better? You're a sucker, a tool, being humiliated in public by people who don't give a damn about you.
This is just Too Funny to pass up on! Truncated of course: Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty and is also affecting how they themselves speak – and perhaps even think – about their own research, a new study from the University of Bristol, UK argues.... ...The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).... Now it gets fun! And from the comments area: Gods forbid! We can’t have scientists of all people re-examining their own theory, data and models! Next thing you know they’ll be doing actual science! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/...r-from-stephan-lewandowsky-and-naomi-oreskes/
Too late! Both have already happened. (Of course, whenever a climate scientist re-examines his data, deniers claim "climate scientists are FUDGING THE DATA!") And yet despite all the denier rhetoric, CO2 keeps increasing and the Earth keeps warming. If only the rhetoric could change reality . . . .
