Political manipulation of climate change by governments

[gslack]

Pop quiz y'all. The world is not warming anymore because:

A > 2000-2009 was hotter than 1990 to 1999
B > 11 of the 12 hottest years in the past century have occurred since 2001
C > 1998 was very hot (an average 0.025 degrees hotter than 2010!)
D > 2008 was very cold (0.007 degrees colder than the 1981-2010 average; or 0.116 degrees colder than 2001, the 12th hottest)

(Edit: The year isn't done yet, but for the record 2013 so far is shaping up to be hotter than 2012, just as 2012 was hotter than 2011; with an average over eight months of 0.21525 degrees above the 1981-2010 average, if my maths is correct, that'd make 2013 the 6th warmest year on record in the unlikely event that number remained steady.)

###


How long have you lived in a democratic country, I wonder?

The way it generally works is, a government is elected on the basis of its policies and promises to deliver certain results. Often they renegue on those promises; but in theory, they should do what they can to pursue the goals for which the people elected them. Now I haven't looked into it much, but from a brief glance it seems that the Labour government of 2009 (when that video was aired) had made election promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
"The country has also missed the target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2010 that was set by Labour before coming to power in 1997."

That promise was broken, with emissions going from 593 million tonnes per year in 1990 to 496 million tonnes when Labour left government in 2010; a decrease of only 16.3%, and that in spite of considerable 'outsourcing' of emissions to foreign countries.

However it seems to me that your complaint here is simply against a government making a big show of doing what it was elected to do. Sure, you may not have voted for Labour yourself - but complaining about how democracy works neither reveals some grand conspiracy by governments, nor undermines the information provided by the scientific community.


Your evidence that the these videos were funded by the UK government and EU money, please.

Judging by the language the first one was put on Youtube by a teenager, and while humorous it is blatantly obvious that the "no pressure" irony is propaganda against the 10/10 campaign. There's a link to the site there ( Welcome to 10:10 | 10:10 ), but strangely enough I cannot find that video anywhere there.

The second one explicitly says that it was made for Plane Stupid, which "is a loose association of autonomous regional groups.[3] It is inspired by networks like Earth First! and the earlier peace camps and road protests. It is funded by donations.[4]"

So unless and until you show us the evidence that your claims of governmental funding for those two videos are true, it looks very much as though it is you who is running a fear and misinformation campaign here.

Despite having the most ice coverage in 35 years wasn't it? LOL, spare us your confounding overload tactics buddy..

 

[Kobie]

1. Who's Godwin?

2. They are not synonyms. That's the point.

1. Godwin's Law.

2. I realize they're not ACTUALLY synonyms. However, in Conservaland, when it comes to matters of academia or science, they tend to be morphed into one. When someone disagrees with the conservative narrative, they are decreed to have been "indoctrinated" by "liberal" college professors, high school teachers, or scientists. Seen that card played a million times.

 

[Kobie]

Despite having the most ice coverage in 35 years wasn't it? LOL, spare us your confounding overload tactics buddy..

The most ice coverage in 35 years is still LESS ice coverage than 35 years ago. The ice coverage increasing by 60% in the past year is fly crap when you consider that the ice coverage has decreased so much over the last few decades that a 60% increase is still way below where it should be.

 

[Mithrae]

Despite having the most ice coverage in 35 years wasn't it? LOL, spare us your confounding overload tactics buddy..

If Flogger wants to say something about ice coverage, he can say something about ice coverage and I'm sure it will be read as such.

Instead he said something about temperature, an ignorant claim which even data from an AGW-sceptical climatologist's site disproves. 1998 was remarkably hot, but the trend over decades is very obvious and (since this has been pointed out to him before) it is simply dishonest to assert otherwise - unless of course he has some new evidence I have not yet encountered.

I'll also await his evidence regarding the funding of the second two videos he posted.

 

[humbolt]

The most ice coverage in 35 years is still LESS ice coverage than 35 years ago. The ice coverage increasing by 60% in the past year is fly crap when you consider that the ice coverage has decreased so much over the last few decades that a 60% increase is still way below where it should be.

And you know where it should be?

 

[Mithrae]

The most ice coverage in 35 years is still LESS ice coverage than 35 years ago. The ice coverage increasing by 60% in the past year is fly crap when you consider that the ice coverage has decreased so much over the last few decades that a 60% increase is still way below where it should be.

2013's Arctic ice summer minimum extent was the 6th lowest since satellite measurements began (beaten by 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012's lowest ever) and its winter maximum was the 4th lowest (beaten by 2005, 2006 and 2007; see also this handy graph tool I just discovered). Those are figures for extent, not for thickness or total volume of ice.

I've seen conflicting information about Antarctica - in some places there's more ice and in others there's less, though if I read it right the recent IPCC report suggests an overall loss - but whatever the case, many of the sources seem to puzzle precisely over those areas of ice growth even though seas and air are warming. Indeed some of the explanations (eg. more precipitation) depend on those warmer conditions.

But I didn't particularly want gslack's random unsubstantiated claims to be successful in diverting attention from Flogger's manifestly false claim that there's been no warming pattern in the last 15 years :lol:

 

[code1211]

1. Godwin's Law.

2. I realize they're not ACTUALLY synonyms. However, in Conservaland, when it comes to matters of academia or science, they tend to be morphed into one. When someone disagrees with the conservative narrative, they are decreed to have been "indoctrinated" by "liberal" college professors, high school teachers, or scientists. Seen that card played a million times.

Sorry to offend your biases.

When education is presented as a conclusion supported by cherry picked data to illicit a predetermined system of beliefs, that is indoctrination.

It doesn't matter who is doing the indoctrinating, the process and the intended outcome is the same.

Education, in an ideal world, presents facts as facts and other things as what they actually are and allows the student to grow in the ability to analyze those facts, ideas, notions and beliefs.

Most students today are graduated with the firm belief that Global Warming is occurring and that this is the result of the activities of man and that both the rate and the amount of the warming of today is unprecedented . Since this is an obvious departure from what is actually a fact and is a deliberate and concerted attempt to form opinions and beliefs, this is indoctrination.

Realizing that indoctrination has been conducted before by others lessens neither the action nor the deception involved. Failure to recognize indoctrination for what it is when you see it is a dangerous and lazy capitulation to those who are doing the indoctrinating.

What on Earth would make you think that indoctrination presented as education is any less deceitful and harmful in one era or country than it is in any other?

 

[code1211]

The most ice coverage in 35 years is still LESS ice coverage than 35 years ago. The ice coverage increasing by 60% in the past year is fly crap when you consider that the ice coverage has decreased so much over the last few decades that a 60% increase is still way below where it should be.

According to NASA, 2013 is running neck in neck to have as much or most ice at the North Pole than any of the last 6 years. It is also within one standard deviation of the 30 year average ended 2010. 2012, 2011 and 2008 had all dropped below that standard deviation in arctic Sea Ice Extent.

The Ice Mass in Antarctica is at the all time high since records have been kept.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[code1211]

2013's Arctic ice summer minimum extent was the 6th lowest since satellite measurements began (beaten by 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012's lowest ever) and its winter maximum was the 4th lowest (beaten by 2005, 2006 and 2007; see also this handy graph tool I just discovered). Those are figures for extent, not for thickness or total volume of ice.

I've seen conflicting information about Antarctica - in some places there's more ice and in others there's less, though if I read it right the recent IPCC report suggests an overall loss - but whatever the case, many of the sources seem to puzzle precisely over those areas of ice growth even though seas and air are warming. Indeed some of the explanations (eg. more precipitation) depend on those warmer conditions.

But I didn't particularly want gslack's random unsubstantiated claims to be successful in diverting attention from Flogger's manifestly false claim that there's been no warming pattern in the last 15 years :lol:

Using 15 years is the popular current time span to cite.

According to this site

Wood for Trees: Home

there has been a slight warming trend since 15 years ago. Over the last decade, no. Over the last year, yes. Over the last two years, no. Use the interactive page and you can chart the data from every data gathering organization of note on the planet.

The General warming trend that we currently enjoy seems to have started in about 1600. There is a 60 years cycle that can predict warming and stalling of temperature and seems to have done so again.

Those who doubt have ample reason to doubt. Those who implore the doubters to embrace the AGW dogma have considerable proving unfinished before them to complete.

I applaud your use of the NSIDC site. I feel that it's data is the gold standard in the area of the cryosphere. What I feel is, by way of qualification, of no value whatsoever.

 

[flogger]

The problem is that spending government funds to indoctrinate the uneducated is a bit unethical.

Imagine that. A government operating without ethical guidance.

Well, it worked pretty well for Hitler so, why not?

Thats the thing here. All these videos were initially cleared for broadcast on the UK BBC. One (thankfully) did not make the cut past the censor. Why this is so troubling is unlike the USA or Australia etc the BBC is a state funded advertisement free network for which we pay an licence fee. The only thing allowed to be broadcast on it asides from normal programming are government approved public information broadcasts. Back in 2009 the UK government was spending £6 million on this (about $10 million US) actively disinforming us with such broadcasts when the science simply couldnt sustain any of the claims being made. This obviously meant that having been indoctrinated in such a manner the extra taxes they wanted to levy upon us would be that much easier to impose so the return on their investment has to date been many times more than that with billions more to come from those of us still left with a job.

This tied in neatly with our governments unilateral and economically suicidal committment to sign up the the IPCCs crazy CO 2 reduction targets of 80% by 2050 (the only nation to do so) which is again a figure entirely unsustainable within published scientific literature to date (and believe me I've checked). Its not just the personal impact upon my wallet thats my concern here either business has warned the government it will simply move to other countries with less punitive tax levys on energy should they try to follow through on this. Even if I subscribed to the current CO 2 dogma (which of course I dont) What a nation producing 2% of the worlds emissions thinks it can achieve by doing this is beyond me frankly

Green tax hike hits businesses - Telegraph

UK carbon tax will leave British companies uncompetitive, warns Energy Select Committee chairman Tim Yeo - Telegraph

By starting this thread and illustrating the manipulations that have been taking place here I hope it will serve as a warning to posters from other countries. Be happy they can sit back and watch the self inflicted slow motion green train crash that currently is the UK . The aftermath is not going to be pretty should things continue as is but I hope it will serve as an example to others of what happens when green extremism is allowed to permeate government and society too far

 

[gslack]

The most ice coverage in 35 years is still LESS ice coverage than 35 years ago. The ice coverage increasing by 60% in the past year is fly crap when you consider that the ice coverage has decreased so much over the last few decades that a 60% increase is still way below where it should be.

So you are saying that this ice means nothing because you know it's actually less anyway.. Got it.. Warmer-think, love it! Kind of like warmer views on warming. If it's colder it's actually warmer, after who are you gonna believe? Al Gore and the IPCC who haven't been right on a single prediction, exaggerated findings, misrepresented data, and generally played chicken little all to get a carbon trade mart/tax, or your lying eyes... Got it..
LOL

 

[gslack]

If Flogger wants to say something about ice coverage, he can say something about ice coverage and I'm sure it will be read as such.

Instead he said something about temperature, an ignorant claim which even data from an AGW-sceptical climatologist's site disproves. 1998 was remarkably hot, but the trend over decades is very obvious and (since this has been pointed out to him before) it is simply dishonest to assert otherwise - unless of course he has some new evidence I have not yet encountered.

I'll also await his evidence regarding the funding of the second two videos he posted.

No I got a better idea. I will post what I want and you can post what you want, and flogger can post what he wants. Works better that way.. That okay with you chief? ROFL..

Since I can post what I want, I will tell you that your A, B, C, and D, post was pointless. You compared warmest to coldest, and cherry-picked and made all kinds of bold claims, all to confound the thing.. What exactly did your half and half, sourced and un-sourced nonsense show or establish other than your need to confound what you cannot disprove? Nothing.. It's called context, and you lost all of it when you did that..

 

[gslack]

1. Godwin's Law.

2. I realize they're not ACTUALLY synonyms. However, in Conservaland, when it comes to matters of academia or science, they tend to be morphed into one. When someone disagrees with the conservative narrative, they are decreed to have been "indoctrinated" by "liberal" college professors, high school teachers, or scientists. Seen that card played a million times.

ROFL, it's not a real law dude.. It was meant rhetorically.. Your own links states as much..

From your link..

Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]
Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.[11]

You just showed, in one post, why the warmer camp continually loses trust.. You guys have a bad habit of half-reading, or half-understanding something, and then stating what little understanding you have on it as if it were undeniable fact..

And as if it weren't bad enough you thought it was a real law, you had to go and try to play the "liberals are more educated" BS card.. Really buddy? LOL, you just tried to use an intended joke as if it were a real natura, academic, or scientific law.. I suppose we can thank the internet for your education..LOL

 

[flogger]

This is rather weird . I initiated this thread about government manipulation of climate change dogma yet it has metamorphosed into something to do with ice pole coverage ... go figure

 

[code1211]

This is rather weird . I initiated this thread about government manipulation of climate change dogma yet it has metamorphosed into something to do with ice pole coverage ... go figure

A thread is like a child. You can have dreams for it, but it grows as it grows. I've started a couple that took ugly turns out of the gate and got worse from there.

 

[gslack]

This is rather weird . I initiated this thread about government manipulation of climate change dogma yet it has metamorphosed into something to do with ice pole coverage ... go figure

It's Mithrae's usual tactic.. Remember the last thread? He somehow came up with things nobody, and especially not the OP, said or implied either directly, or indirectly. Didn't stop him from making the claim anyway. ANd after 4 or 5 posts he convinced himself the OP did say it.. Even posting the link again and showing him didn't matter. He kept on rambling anyway..

LOL, soon he will claim the OP said the world is flat and held up from hades on the backs of 2 giant elephants..

 

[flogger]

It's Mithrae's usual tactic.. Remember the last thread? He somehow came up with things nobody, and especially not the OP, said or implied either directly, or indirectly. Didn't stop him from making the claim anyway. ANd after 4 or 5 posts he convinced himself the OP did say it.. Even posting the link again and showing him didn't matter. He kept on rambling anyway..

LOL, soon he will claim the OP said the world is flat and held up from hades on the backs of 2 giant elephants..

The point I was trying to make with this thread was about political manipulation. The point he would prefer we inferr was political bias and that was certainly not my intention. The current political coalition government we have in the UK is of the right yet to date they are the most vehemently warmist government we have yet seen. The omens for our future prosperity here are far from good should it continue along the road it has currently programed us for

 

[Mithrae]

This is rather weird . I initiated this thread about government manipulation of climate change dogma yet it has metamorphosed into something to do with ice pole coverage ... go figure

It's Mithrae's usual tactic.. Remember the last thread? He somehow came up with things nobody, and especially not the OP, said or implied either directly, or indirectly. Didn't stop him from making the claim anyway. ANd after 4 or 5 posts he convinced himself the OP did say it.. Even posting the link again and showing him didn't matter. He kept on rambling anyway..

LOL, soon he will claim the OP said the world is flat and held up from hades on the backs of 2 giant elephants..

You're an idiot. You were the one decided to bring in ice pole coverage out of the blue, when Flogger (and consequently I) was talking about temperatures over the past 15 years.

##

Flogger, before casting aspersions on your current government, perhaps you would like to address the issues raised in your OP first? You have not yet explained how or why you infer anything inappropriate or negative from the former elected government doing something to meet its election promises (first video).

You also have not provided any evidence that those second two videos were funded in the manner in which you claimed. Are we to infer that your claims were false?

 

[gslack]

The point I was trying to make with this thread was about political manipulation. The point he would prefer we inferr was political bias and that was certainly not my intention. The current political coalition government we have in the UK is of the right yet to date they are the most vehemently warmist government we have yet seen. The omens for our future prosperity here are far from good should it continue along the road it has currently programed us for

I feel for ya. We just barely avoided having Al Gore a little more than a decade ago.. Dodged a bullet that time... I'm a huge Top Gear (UK version) and Clarkson fan..

 

[gslack]

You're an idiot. You were the one decided to bring in ice pole coverage out of the blue, when Flogger (and consequently I) was talking about temperatures over the past 15 years.

##

Flogger, before casting aspersions on your current government, perhaps you would like to address the issues raised in your OP first? You have not yet explained how or why you infer anything inappropriate or negative from the former elected government doing something to meet its election promises (first video).

You also have not provided any evidence that those second two videos were funded in the manner in which you claimed. Are we to infer that your claims were false?

ROFL, nice try but that was in response to this crap you posted...

"A > 2000-2009 was hotter than 1990 to 1999
B > 11 of the 12 hottest years in the past century have occurred since 2001
C > 1998 was very hot (an average 0.025 degrees hotter than 2010!)
D > 2008 was very cold (0.007 degrees colder than the 1981-2010 average; or 0.116 degrees colder than 2001, the 12th hottest)"

Recognize it? You better it was your post which I was responding to.. Now notice that YOU were talking about warming and NOT about the OP.. Yeah I did too.. FLOGGER was talking about political manipulation, you decided to take it away from that as you usually do..

And name calling? After your display lately, you are hardly one to call anybody names dude...

 

[Mithrae]

ROFL, nice try but that was in response to this crap you posted...

Notice that I was responding to what Flogger had earlier said -

... no warming for the last 15 years ...

- and I, like Flogger, was referring to temperatures; though unlike Flogger I provided a source, and my information was accurate. However Flogger did not complain about discussion of temperatures (which he had introduced), he complained about discussion of "ice pole coverage," which you had started. None of that bothers me of course, just your juvenile "Mithrae did it" response with further utterly irrelevant false accusations. And despite his complaint Flogger has chosen not to engage in actual discussion about his OP, so it apparently didn't bother him too much either.

Now notice that YOU were talking about warming and NOT about the OP.. Yeah I did too.. FLOGGER was talking about political manipulation, you decided to take it away from that as you usually do..

I responded to his OP in some detail. You responded to me with a comment about ice coverage, whilst dismissing actual discussion of the OP as "confounding overload tactics." If you get confounded so easily, here are the key snippets of my original post - try not to divert the topic again

However it seems to me that your [Flogger's] complaint here is simply against a government making a big show of doing what it was elected to do. Sure, you may not have voted for Labour yourself - but complaining about how democracy works neither reveals some grand conspiracy by governments, nor undermines the information provided by the scientific community. . . .


So unless and until you show us the evidence that your claims of governmental funding for those two videos are true, it looks very much as though it is you who is running a fear and misinformation campaign here.

 

[flogger]

You also have not provided any evidence that those second two videos were funded in the manner in which you claimed. Are we to infer that your claims were false?

These videos were all part of our governments well funded green propaganda campaign for broadcast on the state funded BBC not a private commercial broadcaster . As such they represent political disinformation. Thankfully only two made it past the censor

The Climate Challenge Fund: Government wastes £8.6m on green propaganda | Burning Our Money | The TaxPayers' Alliance

How did you imagine they were funded and then allowed to be specifically broadcast on the BBC ?

Perhaps you should be focusing on why they were made in the way they were and planned for broadcast at all which was the point of the OP ? Unless of course you approve of such methods

 

[flogger]

I feel for ya. We just barely avoided having Al Gore a little more than a decade ago.. Dodged a bullet that time... I'm a huge Top Gear (UK version) and Clarkson fan..

Its calmed down a bit on the TV lately. I think Climategate did a lot of damage as the public found out about it not from the alleged public information news service of the BBC but from the internet ! I think the penny started to drop after that that something was not right here and public skepticism (or should that be cynicism) has increased greatly. It hasnt stopped the huge green tax hikes though and I've still seen my energy bills increase massively off the back of this BS in order to pay for my 'free' renewables

 

[Mithrae]

These videos were all part of our governments well funded green propaganda campaign for broadcast on the state funded BBC not a private commercial broadcaster . As such they represent political disinformation. Thankfully only two made it past the censor

The Climate Challenge Fund: Government wastes £8.6m on green propaganda | Burning Our Money | The TaxPayers' Alliance

How did you imagine they were funded and then allowed to be specifically broadcast on the BBC ?

Perhaps you should be focusing on why they were made in the way they were and planned for broadcast at all which was the point of the OP ? Unless of course you approve of such methods

I haven't seen any information suggesting that the second video was "allowed to be specifically broadcast on the BBC" at all, and nor could I find it on the 10/10 website, as I've commented. As I also said in my original post Plane Stupid (by whom the third video was commissioned, according to its YouTube page) is funded by donations according to their website. I'm no expert, but if it's anything like Australia's ABC, I imagine there are no laws against private groups advertising on the BBC. And in any case, you originally said the third one was "financed by EU money" - now suddenly you're claiming that it too was specifically British?

Looking through the document you provided as 'evidence,' I can't find any information about those two videos at all (nor the first one for that matter, which I'd thought was from 2009, not 2006-08). In addition to glancing over the whole thing I searched for 'polar' and 'plane' and 'pressure' and '10.' I got a lot of hits for '10,' but nothing useful, and all the 'plane' hits were in planet. Ironically one project fit in with two of the searches:
"The aim of the Manchester Is My Planet (MMIP) campaign . . . . will support the MIMP pledge campaign to encourage people to pledge to reduce their emissions by 20% by 2010."

Damn, if they'd been only half as ambitious it might have had some very vague resemblance to one of your videos!

Could you point me to the specific page number on which the funding for your second two videos is disclosed, so we can put to rest any concerns that you yourself are persisting in spreading misinformation for political purposes?

 

[flogger]

I haven't seen any information suggesting that the second video was "allowed to be specifically broadcast on the BBC" at all, and nor could I find it on the 10/10 website, as I've commented. As I also said in my original post Plane Stupid (by whom the third video was commissioned, according to its YouTube page) is funded by donations according to their website. I'm no expert, but if it's anything like Australia's ABC, I imagine there are no laws against private groups advertising on the BBC. And in any case, you originally said the third one was "financed by EU money" - now suddenly you're claiming that it too was specifically British?

Looking through the document you provided as 'evidence,' I can't find any information about those two videos at all (nor the first one for that matter, which I'd thought was from 2009, not 2006-08). In addition to glancing over the whole thing I searched for 'polar' and 'plane' and 'pressure' and '10.' I got a lot of hits for '10,' but nothing useful, and all the 'plane' hits were in planet. Ironically one project fit in with two of the searches:
"The aim of the Manchester Is My Planet (MMIP) campaign . . . . will support the MIMP pledge campaign to encourage people to pledge to reduce their emissions by 20% by 2010."

Damn, if they'd been only half as ambitious it might have had some very vague resemblance to one of your videos!

Could you point me to the specific page number on which the funding for your second two videos is disclosed, so we can put to rest any concerns that you yourself are persisting in spreading misinformation for political purposes?

You are choosing to miss the wood for the trees here. The BBC is not a commercial service yet two of these propaganda pieces were actually broadcast on it. The BBC is funded by government through the licence fee and only the government uses it for purposes other than the broadcasting of programmes so clearly they wanted these propaganda shorts shown. There is no commercial advertising allowed on the BBC and so these could not have been shown without political acquiesence .Put more plainly. The government would have had to ask the BBC to show these, its not something that the BBC would have suddenly decided to do all on its own . Do you get it ?