why so many doubt climate change.....a study ...more FACTS for you to lie about
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
What are you doing in your personal life to cut your carbon emissions? What have you personal given up to save us from global warming?
Tell us
Tell us
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Nothing. I don't believe man kind is causing climate change, so there is nothing for me to do about it. I am consistent in my beliefs and actions.
Now you are the one who believes so strongly in it. What have you given up in your life? Have you given up nothing? Is your sole action toward saving Mother Erf bleating on a message board? Tell us Deshtard, what are you PERSONALLY doing to curb emissions? What have you given up? Have you thought about the electricity it takes to run your computer?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I am going to give you one more chance to tell us all what you are specifically doing to curb your own carbon emissions. I have told you I don't give a fiddlers fuck about the climate. But you claim to care so much yet you won't tell us what you are doing short of screeching on a message board.
I can only assume that you don't really believe it yourself if you aren't making any personal changes.
I understand if you are afraid to answer.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So what do you think of all the recent data manipulation desh? It is a FACT that the fear mongers have ALTERED the data to fit the narrative that they want to tell. Why do you continue to believe them?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
just bumped the thread for you. You are full of shit... as usual. It isn't hard to see that the data was altered. NASA admits they have 'adjusted' the data.
evince
Truthmatters
Sustainability » The Daily Climate
130
::
::
.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate | December 23, 2013
Dusk at U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.
Wikimedia Commons/Carol M. Highsmith
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
see also: Health: Faith and Toilets |
Mind: What Makes Our Brains Special? |
Tech: Anonymous's Cyber War with ISIS Could Compromise Terrorism Intelligence |
The Sciences: The Case of the Disappearing Quasars
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations
evince
Truthmatters
As the world prepares for the start of a global warming summit in Paris next week, a Yale University study released in March shows one-fifth of the US populace does not believe climate change is taking place.
A survey conducted by researchers at the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies showed only 63 percent of Americans say climate change is happening, while 18 percent said it was not.
Perhaps more revealing, another public opinion poll released in 2014 by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) showed a gap between what scientists believe about climate change compared to many Americans.
Recommended: Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? Take our quiz!
In the poll, only 50 percent of Americans believed human activity was causing global warming, significantly less than the 87 percent of scientists who did.
Test your knowledge| Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? Take our quiz!
Gallery| Rising seas
Photos of the Day| Photos of the day 11/23
Henry Pollack, a retired professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan and a winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, said rarely does the scientific community see a near-universal consensus like the one regarding the influence of humans on the Earth’s climate.
"It's a very strong scientific statement," Pollack said. "Seldom will you hear such agreement among scientists that we know the answer to something."
There is no single explanation for the fissure between what scientists believe and the general public; though some have said it is possible the issue is discussed too infrequently.
"One reason these numbers have been stable in recent years may be because most Americans are not hearing or talking about this issue,” one author wrote in the report. “Our survey finds, for example, that only 40 percent of the American public says they hear about global warming in the media at least once a month and only 19 percent hear about it at least once a week."
Others blamed the scientific community for insufficiently informing the public about evidence of climate change.
Pew Research conducted a similar poll in 2009, when the percentage of believers and doubters among the public and scientists was about equal to today's numbers.
Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS, said in the journal Science that scientists tend to inform the public about research on climate change via large forums rather than in smaller settings, where more specific questions could be answered.
"The way to do that is not to have big town hall meetings where everybody's lecturing but rather to meet in smaller groups and have sessions that go through this," he told Climate Wire. "I myself have frequently met with community clubs, religious groups, retirement communities and tried to have these kind of discussions as opposed to monologues."
Some researchers suggest industry-hired scientists and successful public relations campaigns by the coal and gas industry may be the reason many people don’t believe climate change is real, despite the fact a majority of scientist globally have backed the theory.
Pollack said this has been seen in the past, when corporations and the scientists they hired denied the effects of tobacco and toxic waste.
"There's been a deluge of misinformation that confuses the issue in the mind of the public,” he told Voice Newspapers.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So you are going to ignore the DATA and instead post a bunch of opinions and polls? What matters desh is that they are adjusting the DATA numerous times over the past five years... WHY?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
.From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
.
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming. The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C. But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
.
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming. Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”
Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling
The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:
.Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”
.
Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.
Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:
.Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”
.
Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.
All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/g....z4lCUZb1.dpuf
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
.From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
.
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming. The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C. But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
.
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming. Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”
Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling
The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:
.Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”
.
Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.
Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:
.Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”
.
Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.
All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/g....z4lCUZb1.dpuf
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes desh... he is a DATA COMPUTATION EXPERT
So you basically just accuse him of getting money from corporations because you feel like it? Any evidence to back that up?
Also... how much money do the 'scientists' get from the government and alternative energy corporations? Most studies are funded by outside sources. You pretend that only one side can be influenced by who funds them.