Global Warming HOAX Unravels

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Metallicus

Hoax would mean that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all together trying to fool us... that's impossible. And Mike Adams is a charlatan, as shown by another member.
-- snip --

Not necessarily... Have you never considered that the "Smart People" care more about appearing "Smart" to other "Smart People" than they do about being "Right"?

Let me point you to:
“Luxury journals”, Incentives and Fallacy of Being “Right”
Posted by Cailey Bromer on January 23, 2014

What is good science?

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe1.” A discipline based on hypothesis-driven empiricism should be concerned with methods, accuracy and reproducibility. In today’s world, particularly in biological sciences, we are in danger of losing sight of these fundamental principles. At all levels of post-graduate education (graduate school, post-doctoral fellowships and faculty hiring) scientists are judged largely by their publication record in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Technical skills, reproducibility of results, negative results, overall contributions to the field, collaborative efforts and resource and people management skills are all seemingly secondary to publication record. As graduate students we are trained to build a paper with a story, often with a hypothesis devised to fit after the fact. Experiments that fail are often abandoned for greener pastures (i.e. a short time to publication). We chase novelty, excitement and great discoveries, rejecting mundane or “safe” projects that might most benefit the field, but fail to promote our individual careers. Most of all, we chase success in the estimation of our peers, through publication in competitive peer-reviewed journals. We resort, at times, to using journal impact factor as an indicator of good science.

It would be well worth your time to read the full article.

Much is made of peer reviewed studies, but, to the layman, it's not immediately apparent that sizable amounts of money must change hands in order for the bragging rights of having your assertions get that pretty little gold star that says you've been "peer reviewed".

Your OP didn't really enlighten me on what the motives are to hoax the global warming.


Why must everything that happens in this world be about enslaving us? You and I will be long dead and gone before that happens. We aren't getting put into cages anytime soon.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am a 'raging conspiracy nutbag' too, so I really like Mike Adams. I would venture you will find a few of us 'nutbags' on ATS.

I'm not familiar with Mike Adams, but if being a nutbag means having the wherewithal to do my own thinking and refuse to be spoon-fed someone else's, then I stand guilty as accused.

Who ever said that being a nutbag and being wrong were automatically synonymous??

Case in point:

True Believer is an engrossing thriller set in New York's Chinatown. After 10 years defending every petty drug dealer in New York City, the last thing lawyer Eddie Dodd (James Woods) expected was to be fighting a murder case. Until now... Pressured by his idealistic and enthusiastic apprentice Roger Baron (Robert Downey Jr), Dodd finds himself defending a young Korean doing hard time for a crime he didn't commit.



The vid is from 1990, so I'll give you the spoiler. Just like a well done piece of street magic, by the end of the movie you've forgotten who the only witness they talked to that was right had been.

This guy:

a reply to: Metallicus

All this "climate change" is in reality an admission by the scientific community, that they have no clue.

First, the Atlantic ... it was warmer in Greenland a thousand years ago, than even today ... lasted for about 200 years. This was the reason for the viking era ... Sweden, 5 thousand years ago ... was covered with a tropical forest. Amazing, ain't it ... we can go further back, and say ... this planet once had dynosaurs. For that, the planet had to be "way" hotter than today. Even our research shows, that prior to modern times ... over two thousand years ago, it was way hotter than today ...

The point of it all is, there is a warming period ... nobody knows why. So, they blame the cows for farting too much. That's just making a joke, thinking that methane and co2 is what effect the climate. As research has shown, that co2 increase comes AFTER climate change ... it's not a precursor to it.

originally posted by: violet
Your OP didn't really enlighten me on what the motives are to hoax the global warming.


Why must everything that happens in this world be about enslaving us? You and I will be long dead and gone before that happens. We aren't getting put into cages anytime soon.

#1. Hold on to your wallet.

#2. Get ready to be really, really tired of the word "sustainable".

#3. How 'bout we don't temp Fate, huh? Statements like that come dangerously close to the woman that says, "MY husband tells ME Everything!" It isn't paranoid to acknowledge that there are some things that, by the time you know, it's too late to really matter...

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gemwolf

Beijing is THE extreme you can use. If the whole world did that it would be an issue, I wouldn't argue that.

The funny thing is Beijing is the extreme, but that used to be L.A., when I was a kid, L.A.'s smog was as bad as Beijings, they used to warn old people not to go outside. The great lakes were like the Chinese waterways, and don't go fishing or swimming in them, because it was banned.

What did we do in the West to fix our polluting problem? We shipped it offshore to China. Unfortunately we are on the same planet. The planet never changed, even if the hemisphere for dumping pollution did.

The Oil companies did their own research into global warming long before anyone else did. They were very close to the tobacco companies in this respect, they saw the writing on the wall and buried it.

We only recently admitted smoking causes cancer. And it appears it will take awhile still before Oil funds will relent and people will finally admit that dumping 37 Billion Metric Tonnes of Co2 every year into the environment, is bad.

Keep in mind, the Oil & Gas industry is responsible for around ~33 billion Tonnes of that.

Who do you think is lying? If you really need to see how this story ends, go find someone with lung cancer, who's doctor recommended they should smoke in the 50's or 60's, if they aren't already dead.

Well said

The bottom line, regardless of what side of the argument you are on is, we must be good stewards of the planet. As long as we allow sociopaths to run everything, things will be as they are now F.U.B.A.R.

a reply to: Metallicus

This is a link to Climate Audits latest post .Steve McIntyre has quite a few pieces that look very close to some of these "scientific" paper His latest is on Antarctic ice .

Like many others, I was interested in the recent controversy arising from findings of Zwally et al 2015 that there had been ice mass gain gain of ~112±61 Gt/year over 1992-2001 and ~82±25 Gt/year over 2003-2008. Zwally’s findings obviously contradict a widely held contrary belief, expressed, for example, in IPCC AR5’s assertion there was “high confidence” that the Antarctic Ice Sheet had been losing mass for the prior two decades and that the rate of loss had “likely increased” to ~147±75 GT/year over 2002-2011 or in NASA’s widely cited statement that “the continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002”.
I had no prior interest in the literature, but was intrigued by the dramatic contrast between Zwally and IPCC on such a widely covered topic. This quickly led into a voluminous technical literature, which is the subject of today’s post. The issues were not only about interpretation of satellite data, but quickly led into thorny interpretations of the history of the entire Holocene.
Warning: the following post is very lengthy, but I think that the details are worth paying attention to.

climateaudit.org...

His conclusions .

Conclusions
While it is obviously up to specialists to try to ultimately figure out whether Antarctic ice mass was increasing in the periods 1992-2001 and 2003-2008 (per Zwally) or whether it was decreasing (as IPCC and others had previously asserted), there does not appear to be any objective basis by which, for example, Gavin Schmidt could reasonably “pin more weight” to highly negative estimates from GRACE gravity data than to Zwally’s positive estimates from laser altimetry.
The size of the GIA adjustment for GRACE gravity estimates is the same order of magnitude as the estimate of ice mass loss and, in many cases, is larger. These GIA adjustments have been dramatically reduced by specialists over the past decade and have concurrently reduced estimates of ice mass loss.
Many popular (warmist) discussions of Antarctic ice mass loss continue to use obsolete (overly high) estimates of ice mass loss e.g. NASA’s estimate of “134 billion tons” per year. Such estimates rely on GRACE estimates using obsolete GIA adjustments.
The estimates of mass loss in IPCC AR5 were highly questionable. They were much higher (nearly double) than contemporary specialist (IMBIE) estimates. They appear to have been based on studies using GIA adjustments, already known to be obsolete. It was separately highly questionable to attribute “high confidence” (and relatively narrow confidence intervals) to these very high estimates of mass loss.
Most of the Antarctic continent (especially East Antarctica) appears to be experiencing ice mass gain, with ice mass loss being localized to less than 5% of the continent: parts of the Antarctic Peninsula and est Antarctica (especially Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers). This peculiar localization requires its own explanation. Recent specialist literature has concluded that West Antarctica was up to 3 km higher in the LGM, while the height of East Antarctica has changed little and might even have increased slightly through the Holocene. West Antarctica has experienced dramatic ice mass loss through the Holocene, attenuating to the present.
AR4 had pointed out the possibility that localized ice mass loss in Antarctica was continued Holocene ice mass loss. This possibility vanished in AR5 without discussion. In an inline comment to Bamber’s realclimate article, Eric Steig said that his opinion, and that of “50% of experts”, was that the connection of Antarctic glacier retreat to “anthropogenic global warming” was “weak” and that the localization of the glacier retreat to West Antarctica was “well understood” and something that he had written about “extensively”:
I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this. So you’ll get no argument from me there. Second, the localization in West Antarctica is well understood, and I’ve written about it extensively.
Elsewhere, Steig has attributed the West Antarctic glacier retreat to erosion of the grounding line of the glaciers by relatively warm Circumpolar Water, rather than to very slight warming of air temperatures above West Antarctica. Given the continuous retreat of West Antarctic grounding lines over the Holocene, it seems implausible to attribute present grounding line erosion to a different cause than past grounding line erosion that has taken place over the Holocene. Steig’s position on this point seems entirely reasonable.
However, it still seems like one of those too typical situations where the less alarming explanation is presented in specialist literature, but left unmentioned or unconfronted when retreat of West Antarctic glaciers is presented as a cause of alarm.

originally posted by: okrian
raging conspiracy nutbag .

Did you forget what sight you're on?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Metallicus

Hoax would mean that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all together trying to fool us... that's impossible. And Mike Adams is a charlatan, as shown by another member.

Whether it is natural or man made global warming is happening:

From Noaa

Yay another 1850 graph. You know, that might sway a lot of people if the earth were only three thousand years old...

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Metallicus

Hoax would mean that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all together trying to fool us... that's impossible. And Mike Adams is a charlatan, as shown by another member.

Whether it is natural or man made global warming is happening:

From Noaa

Yay another 1850 graph. You know, that might sway a lot of people if the earth were only three thousand years old...

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Metallicus

Hoax would mean that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all together trying to fool us... that's impossible. And Mike Adams is a charlatan, as shown by another member.

Whether it is natural or man made global warming is happening:

From Noaa

Yay another 1850 graph. You know, that might sway a lot of people if the earth were only three thousand years old...

a reply to: CornShucker

Thank you for that but I am doing a nursing research right now so I know how peer reviewed articles work. There's lot of truth in that article but I disagree with your statement because scientists would make so much more money by proving others were wrong, by proving with clear evidence they had the right idea/theory. Plus there are too many people involved to be a hoax, we are talking hundreds of thousands of people in too many countries. Sorry, but I think it's impossible.

There is too much evidence that proves global warming is real, from many different sources, even from oil companies.



a reply to: Wardaddy454

Were you so impressed with my graph you replied to me three times?


Yes, 1850 to 2006. I have other graphs, what would you like to see?

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
The bottom line, regardless of what side of the argument you are on is, we must be good stewards of the planet. As long as we allow sociopaths to run everything, things will be as they are now F.U.B.A.R.

That's an argument we all can agree on.

I quite often wonder about the global cooling/warming/changing, saga, what with a Canadian coastguard stating that the ice in the Hudson bay is the worst he's seen it in twenty years, so the Hudson bay does not feel the warming then?
Plus all the reports of snow being the worst yet last winter? and some of that snow still not melted at Buffalo, NY in June? Also snow not melted in Scotland, UK, in July? and I don't mean the tops of mountains.
This information via news blogs into my email inbox. Plus, this fine blog.

WE have to start taking better care of this planet. We are poisoning the environment at an increasing rate. We are contributing to climate change. Every action creates another reaction and we are altering our ecosystem. We need to stop doing this.

They make us think our light bulbs in our homes are doing this, it is not our light bulbs. It is all the lighting of city streets and power used by businesses that build products that are designed to fail after the warrantee expires. The increase in ability to make electricity caused a great increase in electric consumption and a multitude of new electric tools. You do not need an electric beater to stir cookie dough or whip potatoes. We are getting sicker and sicker in America because we do not even use a potato masher. We have remote controls and do not even get up to change the channel on the TV. We raise the temperature on the thermostat by using a smartphone instead of getting up to do it. People go to the gym instead of starting a garden and growing their own food.

What the governments are proposing to combat global warming is a farce, they want to stimulate the economy and increase taxation instead of fixing the problem. But the fact that we are negatively altering our Ecosystem is not a farce, we need to stop destroying the ability of our world to repair itself.

a reply to: Agartha

Agartha

Take a good long look at the graphs you have posted.

The graph starts in the 1800s in an obvious cooling period. Is it just possible that prior to the 1800s there was a warm period and the earth is just having its usual ups and downs?

Tired of Controls Freask

originally posted by: SevenThunders
In this debate have we forgotten what was arguably the most heinous scientific fraud in the last century?
I'm talking about the deliberate attempt to silence global warming critics, suppress contrary academic research and the fudging of data to support global warming claims.

They are still at it...new buzzword for the delectation of unknowing plebs...."The science is incontrovertible"

That of course means it is no longer up for discussion. That's one reason...the reason, why Gavin Schmidt, now the head of GISS, and involved in climategate,(God help us) refused to do an interview one on one with a climate scientist who has an opposing view. It was farcical, when it was time for the opposing scientist to speak, Schmidt left his seat until the other scientist finished his piece..whacko!

It also seems that NASA is at odds with their stable mates GISS about the role of Co2.
Have a listen to this short NASA video about Co2...Co2 the cooler! Co2 the saviour!

a reply to: rickymouse

[applauding]

Now THAT I agree with!

If everyone could learn to think like that we actually could make a difference. I'm all for reducing pollution and being respectful of resources.

The last IT job I had was with the star protege of my former professor/boss. He was also at the genius/near-genius level I.Q.-wise, but some of his thinking really shocked me. Any electronic device like a radio, stereo, TV, etc. that he bought got plugged in and left on 24/7/365 until it had passed the warranty date. His logic was to see if it failed in time for a replacement! Scr*w that! Just think of how long some of those devices would have lasted with some respect, not even considering the wasted electricity.

I'm needing a knee and hip replacement on the left and have advanced degenerative disk disease in my lumber and neck yet I'm always picking up others people's trash or putting something back on the shelf in stores. Must be a generational thing...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Agartha

Take a good long look at the graphs you have posted.

The graph starts in the 1800s in an obvious cooling period. Is it just possible that prior to the 1800s there was a warm period and the earth is just having its usual ups and downs?

Tired of Controls Freask

Of course it has happened before, the Earth has always had warmer and cooler periods but this time it is happening a lot faster, due to our input. It took Earth 5000 years to warm up 4 to 7 degrees after each ice age; this time global temperature has gone up 0.7 degrees in just a century (www.ncdc.noaa.gov...).

Also, global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1000 years (www.ncdc.noaa.gov...). Here is another graph showing that:



We are accelerating a natural process in a very unnatural way, and our children and grandchildren will pay for it.
This is what I believe based on evidence.