|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another warmist myth busted!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml
| Quote: |
| Rising temperatures caused by climatic warming may cause poleward range shifts and/or expansions in species distribution. Tropical reef corals (hereafter corals) are some of the world's most important species, being not only primary producers, but also habitat-forming species, and thus fundamental ecosystem modification is expected according to changes in their distribution. Although most studies of climate change effects on corals have focused on temperature-induced coral bleaching in tropical areas, poleward range shifts and/or expansions may also occur in temperate areas. We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress. |
For years Australians have been told by its "scientific" bodies and its government that the Great Barrier Reef would be a thing of the past if we don't stop the heating of the planet.
Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change is a SCAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
Another warmist myth busted!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml
| Quote: |
| Rising temperatures caused by climatic warming may cause poleward range shifts and/or expansions in species distribution. Tropical reef corals (hereafter corals) are some of the world's most important species, being not only primary producers, but also habitat-forming species, and thus fundamental ecosystem modification is expected according to changes in their distribution. Although most studies of climate change effects on corals have focused on temperature-induced coral bleaching in tropical areas, poleward range shifts and/or expansions may also occur in temperate areas. We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress. |
For years Australians have been told by its "scientific" bodies and its government that the Great Barrier Reef would be a thing of the past if we don't stop the heating of the planet.
Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change is a SCAM |
The study doesn't negate any claims made about coral bleaching in tropical areas, so I fail to see how this shows AGW is a scam.
A little more skepticism and a little less denialism, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: Heartland Institute |
|
|
These recent relevations regarding the Heartland Institute should be huge news. Sadly, I won't hold be holding my breath. See the last quote as a hint to why.
Climate Skeptics Exposed
Follow the money.
| Quote: |
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," pleaded the Wizard of Oz as Toto revealed the true identity of the man with the big, booming voice to Dorothy and her friends. But it was too late: the illusion was shattered.
The Heartland Institute, an influential rightwing thinktank based in Chicago, which has long pushed misinformation about climate change, is currently having its own Wizard of Oz moment following the leaking of internal documents which reveal the true extent of its funding and efforts to cast doubt on climate science.
The Register � a website well known for promoting climate scepticism � is describing the leak as "at least as good as the 'Climategate' e-mails". This refers, of course, to the dumping online in 2009 of thousands of private emails exchanged between climate scientists over the previous decade.
It's a little too early to tell if it will cause as many ripples as that. However, the documents certainly contain some startling revelations and the unambiguous, clear intent of language used will certainly act to shine a much stronger spotlight on how climate sceptics, particularly in the US, operate and collude. We suspected much of this for years, of course, but we now have hard evidence.
|
Corporations whose 'interests are threatened by climate policies' are paying good money to help bring you climate misinformation. Who'd have thought it?
| Quote: |
The document entitled "2012 Climate Strategy" (pdf) is also already getting lots of attention. It shows that Heartland will "increase climate project fundraising" by "pursuing additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation" who "returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000". It adds: "Other contributions will be pursued for this [climate] work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies." The funding of climate sceptic thinktanks in the US by corporate vested interests such as the Koch brothers has almost become a clich�, but here we have cast-iron proof of its influence, intent and extent.
|
And if you want to brainwash your audience - try and get to them young:
| Quote: |
Perhaps more unsettling is the document's revelation that Heartland is actively developing a "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms":
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His 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. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
The co-ordinated effort to undermine the teaching of climate science in US classrooms has been noted before, but this still takes the breath away. Let's just repeat that sentence so it can be fully digested: "His 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."
So, we have an anonymous millionaire donor � whose agenda and/or vested interest we know not - funding an effort to discredit the teaching of climate science in schools? How can that ever be justified or considered democratic, let alone judged to be in the pupils' best interests?
|
Fighting the good fight against the evil IPCC:
| Quote: |
But the dropping of jaws doesn't end there. Next up, we learn that Heartland paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to write a series of reports "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". Not critique, challenge, or analyse the IPCC's reports, but "to undermine" them. The agenda and pre-ordained outcome is clear and there for all to see.
|
And the hypocrisy:
| Quote: |
Again, much to digest here, but for me one thing stands out beyond the talk of trying to "cultivate more neutral voices" and "coordination with outside networks". When you recollect all the hullabaloo expressed by climate sceptics about how climate scientists apparently try to close down debate etc, then this sentence says so much:
This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.
If you like your hypocrisy sandwiches served with a side order of double standards, then these leaked documents are certainly the place to dine out.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See how much the Heartland Institute funds your favourite disinformation artists:
Climate sceptics � who gets paid what?
| Quote: |
Anthony Watts
Who they are: A former TV weatherman from California who runs the "world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change", according to his climate sceptic blog, Watts Up With That?
How they influence: Watts has been interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck about climate change and spoken at climate sceptic conferences. His blog posts, and those of his contributers, are widely and rapidly linked to and discussed across the climate sceptic 'blogosphere'.
Quote: "Heh, I've yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc � Anthony." (May, 2011)
Funding details: Leaked documents revealed Watts was paid $44,000 by Heartland Institute in January � with a further $44,000 promised later this year � to set up a website "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site."
Heartland Institute funding:
$44,000 one-off payment
Fred Singer
Who they are: Emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia who has been linked to, paid by, and consulted for a range of corporations and free-market thinktanks in the US.
How they influence: Has long been one of the world's most prominent � and few � climate sceptic scientists. In 1990, set up the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit educational foundation aiming to "advance environment and health policies through sound science"
Quote: "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."
Funding details: Last year, he admitted that he had received from Exxon Mobil "an unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago." The Heartland leak shows that he currently receives "$5,000 per month, plus expenses" from the institute.
Heartland Institute funding:
$5,000 per month
Craig Idso
Who they are: Founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change based in Arizona.
How they influence: He produces a weekly newsletter called CO2Science which is disseminated among climate sceptics. Has collaborated with most climate sceptic scientists in US to write various reports and papers criticising climate science and policies.
Quote: "A doubling in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to a 25%-55% increase in crop yield. As carbon dioxide
concentrations continue to grow, were going to help feed the population of the planet."
Funding details: The Heartland leak reveals the institute is currently paying Idso "$11,600 per month". His also collects a salary of more than $100,000 from his centre, which, until 2006, received funding from Exxon Mobil.
Heartland Institute funding:
$11,600 per month
Bob Carter
Who they are: An environmental scientist who is an adjunct (unpaid) research fellow at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.
How they influence: Carter advises a range of climate sceptic thinktanks including Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and Australia's Institute for Public Affairs. In 2010, he authored a book
called "Climate: the Counter Consensus."
Quote: "There's no evidence at all that any of these changes had anything to do with human activity or influence. These are natural
climatic changes." (2010)
Funding details: The Heartland leak reveals Carter is receiving "$1,667 per month" from the institute. When asked about the funding, he said: ""Heartland is one of a number of think-tanks and institutions that I work with. Sometimes I'm paid an honorarium, sometimes expenses and sometimes I do it pro-bono...My scientific authority has nothing to do with who is paying me."
Heartland Institute funding:
$1,667 per month
Anonymous Donor
Who they are: A mystery millionaire simply referred to as "he" in the leaked documents who gave $8,602,267 between 2007 and 2011 to Heartland to be spent on its "climate change projects". A further �1m is promised this year. The only possible clue to his identity is that he also funded
two of Heartland's non-climate projects in the Illinois/Wisconsin area.
How they influence: The leaked documents reveal that in previous years "he" has been the source of half of Heartland's donations.
Quote: Not known
Heartland Institute funding:
N/A
Joseph Bast
Who they are: President and CEO of the Heartland Institute and author of some of the leaked documents.
How they influence: The Heartland Institute is one of the US's most influential "libertarian" thinktanks, which has long campaigned to reduce government regulations. In the 1990s, it worked with tobacco firms to
question the health links associated with smoking. More recently, it has opposed "Obamacare" health reforms, as well as a range of proposed
climate polices.
Quote: "There is no scientific consensus on the causes, extent, or likely future direction of climate change." (2011)
Funding details: Heartland has, in the past, received funding from Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris. The leak documents show it received $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2011. Documents filed with the US tax authorities in order to claim exemption from tax show the institute received an income of nearly $7m in 2010, with Bast receiving a salary of $145,135.
Heartland Institute funding:
N/A |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, a professional denier can't rely on Heartland funding alone. Bob Carter, for example, has revenue coming in from all over the place, including that bloody awful book he wrote: Sticking Your Head in the Sand, or otherwise titled: Climate: the Counter Consensus.
Bob Carter responds to Heartland leak
| Quote: |
�Heartland is one of a number of think-tanks and institutions that I work with. Sometimes I�m paid an honorarium, sometimes expenses and sometimes I do it pro-bono.�
Professor Carter is certainly correct here. He is indeed an advisor on a number of �think-tanks� and groups. In addition to Heartland, Professor Carter is an advisor to the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK). He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
All of these groups promote the same contrarian views on human-caused climate change that are not backed by any national science academy of note anywhere on the planet. Few, if any, reveal their funders. |
Apparantly climate denial can be a nice little earner.
| Quote: |
He said he �emphatically denies� any suggestion that his opinion on climate change was swayed by funders, but then stated this would not matter in any case.
�Professional scientists cannot have their opinion bought,� he said, adding it was not important who funded research, but whether or not it was correct.
This is an odd assertion for Professor Carter to make, given that he has regularly over the years attempted to suggest that mainstream climate scientists are motivated by research dollars.
As far back as 2006, in the UK�s The Daily Telegraph, Professor Carter wrote: �scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.� Opinion?
Oddly, on Professor Carter�s webpage he chooses to state that he receives no research funding from �special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments�.
Yet, if this funding doesn�t matter, then why make this statement? If he takes no interest in who funds his projects, then how would he know if he is receiving funding from �special interest groups� like those he describes.
I pointed out to Professor Carter that it was standard practice for scientists to disclose the funders of research when they publish in peer-reviewed journals. This, said Professor Carter, was �a very quaint and old fashioned practice�.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Heartland Institute |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Corporations whose 'interests are threatened by climate policies' are paying good money to help bring you climate misinformation. Who'd have thought it? |
Oh come on... These hit pieces about the Koch Brothers come out now and then, about them doling a couple hundred grand here and there to so-called "deniers". In the meantime you have huge globalist NGOS's funded by governments, all the mega-banks, and all the oil supermajors (with, until recently, Exxon-Mobil being the exception) showering money on AGW propaganda. This is because the oil companies and banks obviously benefit way more than anyone from pushing the global warming myth, since it allows them to curb production while imposing artificial scarcity onto the markets (allowing them to control/raise prices).
You say follow the money: I say the Koch Brothers (whom I'm no fan of, incidentally) are absolute peanuts compared to the limitless money (much of it from taxpayers) and resources the AGW scam artists have to draw from. It's people like Al Gore (whose family fortune comes from Occidental Petroleum) and Kenneth Lay who are responsible for drafting Cap and Trade legislation (potentially worth trillions to all the corporate insiders). It's an absolute JOKE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Climate Change has been completely invented by the big oil companies, with the collusion of mainstream scientists and the world's best universities, just to make more profit for big oil?
That's brilliant! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Apparantly climate denial can be a nice little earner.
: |
Although not on the scale that climate change can be.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being allocated and spent. And that's just for one year.
Nice try but climate change proponents have government on their side and thus will always be able to outspend the other side by an order of magnitudes As they are shown to do in the link above. Here are just two examples.
| Quote: |
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA requests $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (an increase of 1 percent). Of this, $43.5 million is new funding for regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. EPA requests $22 million for its Global Change Research Program, which assesses the impacts of global change on air and water quality, ecosystems, human health, and socioeconomic systems in the United States with a primary goal of promoting adaptation efforts.
I don't even understand what this means. How does giving the EPA $169 million reduce emissions? Also, does it really cost $43.5 million a year (more) to regulate greenhouse gases? Lastly, the USDA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
USDA requests $159 million for climate change research, an increase of 42.0 percent, and $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41.0 percent. USDA�s climate change efforts (and those of the U.S. Forest Service which is part of USDA) center on helping farmers and land owners adapt to climate change impacts (e.g., enhanced fire stress, insect outbreaks, droughts, floods, and heat stress) and promoting carbon storage in soils and forests.
A 42% increase in climate change research? $159 million spent in a single year, by the USDA? Crop yields are up! CO2 helps crops! Imagine spending $159 million in 2011 to research things that actually help people. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| So Climate Change has been completely invented by the big oil companies, with the collusion of mainstream scientists and the world's best universities, just to make more profit for big oil? |
Actually, yes, that's pretty much it. Are you surprised? 
Go look up who actually funds this stuff. You'll find names like Chevron, BP, General Electric, and all the globalist NGOs funded by the major banks (incl. groups lobbying for carbon taxes) everywhere you look.
Yeah, it's a pretty nice scam if they can get away with it... Because it's not as if Al Gore already has enough opulent ocean-front palaces to retire to... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Nice try but climate change proponents have government on their side and thus will always be able to outspend the other side by an order of magnitudes |
Yes, it's a practically limitless trough of money for the politically well connected, and all their corporate cronies/insiders to feed from. Al "Occidental Petroleum" Gore was one of the largest shareholders of the Chicago Climate Exchange before it (thankfully) went bust. This big fat con artist (who told us in his propaganda movie that "the debate is over" and oceans would rise 20 feet, just before purchasing a $9 million ocean-front mansion) would have stood to make billions from carbon trading.
Instead his 2.98% shareholding in CCX (held by his company Generation Investment Management LLC) "merely" earned him a cool $18 million after the CCX was cashed out to the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) for $600 million. Still, it looks like the AGW scam is a nice little earner!
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/22/chicago-climate-club-carbon-barack-obama-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Oil at it again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#comments
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
| Quote: |
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the �plateau� or �pause� in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
........
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America�s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were �deeply flawed�.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of �natural variability� � factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
Big Oil at it again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#comments
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
| Quote: |
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the �plateau� or �pause� in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
........
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America�s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were �deeply flawed�.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of �natural variability� � factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two. |
|
| Quote: |
The British newspaper/tabloid The Dail Mail and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example. They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here). This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.
"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia�s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here." |
http://skepticalscience.net/
While I personally do not believe in AGW myself...posting debunked claims only hurts our side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
