Unmasking Climate Deception - Fossil Fuel Companies' Deceptions Revealed

a reply to: jrod

No need to reply to pl3b, when your comment is obviously aimed at me.

I don't think that this is all a hoax to levy more taxes and make Al Gore rich. When have I ever said that? I honestly don't care about how much I am being taxed as long as that $ is being used appropriately. If you took away from my comments that I think global warming is a hoax to make Al Gore rich, we simply aren't on the same wavelength.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

No it's okay. People like you have helped me to realize why mankind is always at war, and seemingly hell bent on destroying the most incredible things that we take for granted like the Earth.

Why fight that? The world is going to end due to AGW. This is a fact, there is no debate.

I might as well live it up while I have the chance!

a reply to: Danke
I was being a bit dramatic there, however I think my point got across.
Some just refuse to accept what the data is telling us, not much different than those who refuse to accept copper is a better conductor than gold.

a reply to: jrod

Well considering I am a 100% AGW believer now, that really doesn't apply. I also don't think gold is a better conductor than copper, so you are preaching to the climate change choir at this point my friend.

a reply to: Danke
The world is not going to end due to AGW.

We need to make ourselves sustainable on this fragile planet.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Antony Sutton eh, sounds interesting, i'll be sure to check it out.

I do disagree about capitalism not being the issue tho. I think the reason the worlds in such a mess is because privately owned enterprises are allowed to put profit before anything without any thought of the consequences.

But you are right that it's the globalist elites that have made it like this and they are the real problem here.

a reply to: jrod

Yeah, like people like you who keep wanting to believe the AGW scientists when they have been caught lying several times. Oh no wait...the people who were involved in the lying, data tampering, etc, investigated themselves, and to help them clear their name groups/agencies that want to FORCE a global government "to combat climate change" also gave them a green light... Got to wonder why...

a reply to: jamespond

Have you taken a look at socialist enterprises? You know like China, and China being the number one polluter in the world, alongside with India. Or what about Venezuela? Have you actually talked to engineers from Venezuela to ask them how environmentally conscious their oil companies are, and the procedures they use to get rid of chemical waste? They are not very environmentally friendly at all.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Why fight that? The world is going to end due to AGW. This is a fact, there is no debate.

I might as well live it up while I have the chance!

(A) The world will not end due to AGW. The earth has survived much, much worse than humans. The climate and atmosphere will change making the earth more and more hostile to the human species. It is sad to witness the apex of our own species...doubly sad in that we are intelligent enough to recognize it...and triply sad that we had choices to reverse the short term suffering and still have choices to reverse the long-term outcome and yet we haven't evolved enough to make good choices about outcomes 100-200 years from.

(B) On the "live it up" philosophy. I had an acquaintance that very much had that attitude. We are all going to die some day, so why not live it up. He smoked and drank and refused to moderate. He was a happy man in his 40's and early 50's. What he didn't anticipate was the slow suffering that preceded his early death via liver failure. First he had a lung collapse, then his knees failed him...then he suffered several years of liver failure. For the last few years of his life he suffered miserably with tubes, pain, immobility and died by his own body slowly poisoning him over the last year. Bloated and vomiting, struggling to breath for well over a year and mercifully dead at 60.

Point being...even if death is the end game for all of us, high quality living is in our best interest...that goes for each of us and our species as a whole.

It is possible that the earth only tolerates a certain upper limit on population of a species. We have doubled the planets population in the past 40 years. We need to stop investing in wars and start investing in bleeding edge space propulsion systems and space exploration...as well as take any all steps possible to extend our species window of existence on this planet to buy us as much time to find and colonize new real estate in space.

Nature doesn't waste space...it wouldn't create millions/billions/trillions of other planets for no reason. We were given the challenge to launch like a spore and spread life throughout relatively nearby worlds...and we can do it with thought and investment.

Last year we spent more on Military spending than we have spent on NASA for the past 50 years..

What could we do if we reversed that equation?

The space agency's "warp ship" was cleverly crafted by NASA engineer and physicist Harold White...

Rademaker based his creation off the concept known as Alcubierre warp drive, an idea first put forth by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, which suggests that faster-than-light travel might be achieved by manipulating spacetime both in front of and behind a spacecraft.

www.natureworldnews.com...

I hope we get our priorities straight before it is too late.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Going off your posts, I would consider you a pathological liar.

Do you have any evidence to back these claims?

Anyone who thinks 98% of the world's climate scientists are in cahoots in some grand conspiracy climate change agenda, while ignoring the fact that almost all who disagree with the consensus are bankrolled by big oil is delusional at best.

a reply to: jrod

That's all you can do insult because you can't understand what in the world you are talking about. In this post I have given some of the evidence that backs my argument. If you can't discuss the topic at hand, then you shouldn't post at all. All you keep doing is throwing insults and making a one or two liner which really contributes nothing at all. It only shows your immaturity level and that of plebs.

You two don't seem able to understand what you are reading.

In regards to how much would temperatures drop during the very possible mini-ice age, or the new LIA, the temperatures will drop a lot more than 0.1C.

First of all water vapor is the major contributor to warming from greenhouse gases on the Troposphere.

Despite claims from wikipedia, and sites like "realclimate" and "skepticalscience" water vapor accounts for about 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect.

In fact, even AGW scientists who at least have the gall to partially tell the truth will tell you that it is thought that water vapor accounts for 97% of the greenhouse effect.

“I want to comment that the way-dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not mentioned, namely water vapor,” writes Ken Saunders of Pacific Palisades. “Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet. See, e.g., John Houghton's ‘The Physics of Atmospheres, 3rd edition,’ Cambridge University Press, 2002.”

This is true, water vapor is the major player in the greenhouse effect and is often omitted from reports and reporting about global warming -– mostly because it is more of a symptom than a cause in global climate change, and cannot be easily mitigated.
...

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

But then he goes back to claiming that water vapor is an effect, of the increase of CO2... But if that was true, then why was the Earth warming during the 1600s, even when the Earth was still undergoing the LIA and before the height of the industrial revolution and before CO2 levels increased so much?

Here is a graph of the global borehole temperatures


www.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

It shows the Earth began warming in the 1600s.

Now, let's go back, again I guess, to the topic of the new possible mini-ice age.

First of all, it isn't just sunspots activity that will decrease by 60%, it's the overall activity of the sun that will decrease by 60%.

Second, even if we were to "assume" that CO2 is the effect causing water levels to increase, which is not true, you still got the fact that CO2 alone does not account for the majority of the greenhouse effect.

Let's say we were to ignore the fact that our oceans and landmasses also store heat which affects the overall temperatures of Earth. If we were to use simply the result from the two competing effects from the "pure radiative equilibrium" which is about 60C and the convective cooling effect of Earth's weather, we get about 33C surface temperature.

Of that 33C, actually it is from the 60C pure radiative equilibrium, water vapor accounts for "about 97%" of that warming, and CO2 accounts for about 5%.

What do you think happens if the sun's OVERALL activity lowers by 60%? Mankind can continue to increase anthropogenic CO2 levels, but CO2 will continue to account for only 5% of the greenhouse effect. Again, if we were to assume that CO2 is the force behind AGW, that still means CO2 will not be able to keep the temperature of 33C, because it is water vapor that accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.

If the overall activity of the sun lowers by 60% this also means that less ultraviolet light reaches the Earth, which in turn will cause less formation of Ozone in the Stratosphere. This in turn will affect the planetary waves that affect the jet strem and in turn will cause the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) to change into a negative phase. This negative effect will make both the permanent low pressure system near Greenland and the high pressure to the south weak, which in turn will cause more severe and longer lasting winters in Europe, and in time it will affect most of the planet.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Riiight, again with the 95-97% in agreement claim when it was shown that the original source stated "something like" 97% of 30%...

And what the "pro-AGW proponents are doing is not researching Climate Change"... They are just trying to find new ways to prove the AGW claims which started with a lie from Michael Mann in which he pretty much made the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Period and part of the Roman Warming period disappear. Meanwhile research from all over the world showed that the Medieval and the Roman period were warmer than today, and the LIA was cooler by 1C -2C...

You planning on sourcing any of these claims?

Let's not forget the attemps by the AGW crowd, including people like you who keep claiming these climate change periods were not global when they ocurred not only in the northern hemisphere, but also occurred in Africa, China, and South America. Apart from occurring in North America, Europe, etc. But to the AGW crowd "they weren't global events..."

I've yet to seen anyone make these claims. Don't put words in my or anyone else's mouth. That is called a strawman argument.

Not to mention that if "they"/the AGW scientists were right, why the need to tamper with temperature data?... BTW, sorry to say that your AGW main scientists were caught doing more than just Climategate...

The raw temperature data deleted/lost by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia...

Prove it then.

...
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

Oh good a blog, because we all know THOSE are such credible sources of information...

Who knew, the same people caught in the climategate scandal...

Roger Pielke Jr. is a climate scientist btw, just like Roy Spencer.

ACTUALLY Roger Pielke Jr. is a political scientist.

Let's not forget the claims that the Himalayas were going to melt by what was it? 2030?... And then it was found out that it was a lie, despite the fact that the whole AGW crowd believed this lie, among others, and several AGW scientist proponents went along with the lie...

Source?

Riiight, you mean the "independent research" conducted by the very same people who did the tampering and those who "want to impose a Global Government to combat climate change"?...

The IPCC didn't do the investigation. Try again.

www.drroyspencer.com...

Great ANOTHER blog... Have you ever heard of a scientific research journal?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really?... are we going over this again for the thousandth time?...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

www.theage.com.au...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
.....

www.theage.com.au...

And there is more to the story.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

www.theage.com.au...

BTW, as to your claim that Roger Pielke Jr is not a climate scientist because of his major in political science you can kiss goodbye to the 97%-98% of scientists agree claim, as the majority of them don't have an actual degree in atmospheric sciences.

BTW...

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001. He is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Roger's research focuses on science, innovation and politics. In 2011 began to write and research on the governance of sports organizations, including FIFA and the NCAA. Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America. Roger also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press (2007) and The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell you About Global Warming (2010, Basic Books). His most recent book is Righful Place of Science Series, Disasters and Climate Change (2014, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes). He is currently working on a book on sport in society.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

Since i know "certain" people will try to claim I left something out on his biography had to excerpt all in that page. But do notice the fact that his research deals with science and in specific also with climate change.

BTW, should we show what actual sciences some of the "experts" from the IPCC deal in?... Such as helmet safety?...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ElectricUniverseRiiight, you mean the "independent research" conducted by the very same people who did the tampering and those who "want to impose a Global Government to combat climate change"?...

The IPCC didn't do the investigation. Try again.

LOL, the IPCC didn't do the actual tampering that i was mentioning in that instance... It was among others the CRU... So, you are the one who should "try again"...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great ANOTHER blog... Have you ever heard of a scientific research journal?

Yeah, a blog by a SCIENTIST who has done research in climate change...

His request for the raw data from the CRU is not going to be published at a scientific research journal...

But it should be you proving that Pielke Jr. lied...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
Of that 33C, actually it is from the 60C pure radiative equilibrium, water vapor accounts for "about 97%" of that warming, and CO2 accounts for about 5%.

What do you think happens if the sun's OVERALL activity lowers by 60%? Mankind can continue to increase anthropogenic CO2 levels, but CO2 will continue to account for only 5% of the greenhouse effect. Again, if we were to assume that CO2 is the force behind AGW, that still means CO2 will not be able to keep the temperature of 33C, because it is water vapor that accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.

If the overall activity of the sun lowers by 60% this also means that less ultraviolet light reaches the Earth, which in turn will cause less formation of Ozone in the Stratosphere. This in turn will affect the planetary waves that affect the jet stream and in turn will cause the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) to change into a negative phase. This negative effect will make both the permanent low pressure system near Greenland and the high pressure to the south weak, which in turn will cause more severe and longer lasting winters in Europe, and in time it will affect most of the planet.

BTW, let me go back to this and add a bit more to see if certain members can understand what is at stake if this new model is correct which so far seems to be.

A lot of people, and members seem to think that the increase in temperatures of about 1.3C in the last century is all being caused by anthropogenic CO2, and this is not true. in fact not even natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 together caused most of that increase in temperatures.

(added note) Of the about 1.3C increase in temperatures in the last century 1.261C was from water vapor (97% of 1.3C) and 0.039C from CO2.

Since water vapor accounts for 97% of the greenhouse effect. That's 97% of 33C = 32.1C from water vapor and about 0.8C from CO2 of the total greenhouse effect

If the sun's overall activity lowers by 60% it would mean less warming which will cause the atmosphere to hold less water vapor which in turn will cool the atmosphere lowering water vapor levels more, causing the atmosphere to cool some more etc causing a negative feedback effect.

Then we also have to take into account what will happen to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) because there will be less formation of Ozone due to less ultraviolet light reaching the Earth and will also cause more cooling.

If this happens the cooling will be more than just 1C-2C decrease in temperatures.

One of the first targets to be neutralised in wartime are the enemy's energy supplies. This should be used as a measure to contextualise the importance this particular aspect of societal infrastructure is and, as an extension of that, what lengths those who control and profit from the pertaining industries will go to to ensure their predominance.

There will be no "free" energy; irrespective of whether it is dirty, renewable or generated from a hamster on a running wheel. /reality check

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Climate change? If it comes from the mouth of a liberal or our government...it is a lie.

Another post of brilliance from the science denialism camp.

When you are repeated lied to by the people we employ to manage our government, and then they tell you they need more money to solve a "problem" that many don't agree exists...I won't believe them. They will be a liar to me until they are proven otherwise. Want to be sarcastic in using "brilliant" to describe me? It doesn't phase me one bit. Throw your poo in any direction you wish, but there is a story about the Boy Who Cried Wolf. And the majority of Americans don't trust our government nor our leaders...because they have proven themselves untrustworthy and therefore, worthless in their positions.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

What you posted is not relevant to this thread.

Are you trying to suggest that 98ish% of scientists from all over the world are in it together to come up with this 'climate change agenda'?

Anyone is capable of going outside and seeing first hand the amount of change man has made to the environment. To claim we are NOT causing changes to the climate is ignorant, especially given the amount of data we now have.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: jrod

That's all you can do insult because you can't understand what in the world you are talking about. In this post I have given some of the evidence that backs my argument. If you can't discuss the topic at hand, then you shouldn't post at all. All you keep doing is throwing insults and making a one or two liner which really contributes nothing at all. It only shows your immaturity level and that of plebs.

I rarely throw insults and try not to. However I've read hundreds of your posts and stand by what I wrote. It is not an insult if its true. Also I noted how you start that paragraph accusing me of insulting you, then go on with your backhanded insult, very cute.

It seems you keep on comparing water vapor to CO2. That falls under the apples to oranges fallacy. CO2 does not form into clouds like H20 does....

From the information I have gathered, it appears the added CO2 that is a direct result of human activity(burning fossil fuels) works to trap heat in our atmosphere. Also of concern is increasing CH4 which apparently causes a similar effect.

Going off on tangents about other elements of the atmosphere, weather, space weather, and ultimately climate does not change the reality of our increasing CO2 and CH4 levels and the concern of the increased heat that will accumulate in the atmosphere(troposphere) as a result.

I really like this thread, one of the conspiracies regarding big oil that are bought to light and shills exposed.

I guess this makes the shills in other topics nervous.