Are Governments lying about Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Are various governments around the globe lying about anthropogenic global warming?

The reason I ask this on this website is because typically (and with good reason) it appears that the membership here is skeptical (to say the least) about what governments say.

I know not everyone agrees with the following but I'm throwing it out there because it seems that many people do agree:

- "They" lie about crime statistics

- "They" lie about unemployment numbers (through manipulation of who is "unemployed" vs who is "underemployed" vs "who has given up looking")

- "They" lie about the number of illegal immigrants (in the U.S.) and refugees (in Europe)

- "They" lie about how much money fill-in-the-blank projects or initiatives will cost and the cost-vs-benefit

- "They" lie about true involvements in other nations' elections, policies, economies, etc.

- "They" lie about the hazards of marijuana

- "They" lie about food safety protections

- "They" lie about everything including but not limited to Bush Sr's "Read my lips. No, new, taxes" to Obama's "If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep your doctor/plan."

- "They" lie about everything.....

..... EXCEPT.... It seems for some people, when it comes to man-made climate change (and/or global warming)... suddenly and inexplicably... the Government is telling the truth.

Can someone please explain to me how/why that is the case? Why is it that (seemingly) on that ONE issue... the various governments around the world just happen to be telling the truth and so many people BLINDLY accept it with not a hint of skepticism? Especially since that is the one umbrella that so many policies/taxes/fees/penalties fall under?

a reply to: eluryh22

I'd say its a very high likelihood. I'm a science guy, but the who AGW thing has always set off my BS detector. Take in to account all the data fudging scandals and the constant stream of lies our governments are caught up in and I think it's a safe bet the entire thing is a ploy.

Hey, I used to be on the AGW train, until I was sufficiently satisfied they were lying about the data. No more. My eyes are open.

It takes an inordinate amount of effort and time to chase these things down, and each time I ran down a dataset and reviewed methodology, it was clear to me there was unexpected monkey business.

I no longer discuss this topic with anyone. Like pissing in the wind.

ETA: Just to be clear, I believe in climate change, just not the AWG version.

originally posted by: loam
Hey, I used to be on the AGW train, until I was sufficiently satisfied they were lying about the data. No more. My eyes are open.

It takes an inordinate amount of effort and time to chase these things down, and each time I ran down a dataset and reviewed methodology, it was clear to me there was unexpected monkey business.

I no longer discuss this topic with anyone. Like pissing in the wind.

When I learned that the very same industries destroying the environment were the ones funding the AGW community, I realized it was a complete sham.

It shows how well orchestrated their agenda truly is, pure evil hiding behind benevolence!

Let's just say they are taking advantage of it. After being a whole-hearted Global Warming Skeptic I have come to believe that the Earth IS warming and that we have a part in it. HOWEVER, there is a whole lot of deception going on by scientists and politicians alike. I can understand why politicians grab on to this subject and use it to promote the NWO, more control over people, and try to scare the masses with it. But it is also obvious that science has been co-opted here. The only way I can understand that is: government funding of science. It's a bad idea. Here's an example of deception:



Look. These guys cheated. There's no way around this conclusion. That "green line" isn't just 'another line on the graph.' It's a very special line because it represents tree-ring data. Why is that so special? Because there were no thermometers thousands of years ago scientists use "proxies" to stand in for digital thermometers. Tree rings are proxies because their thickness tracks climate--maybe. They way you check this is to take tree ring data during a time when there were thermometers and recordings and correlate the tree ring data to prove they're measuring temperature because they COULD be measuring wetness, when they would get thicker because of the presence of water rather than heat.

Now, here's the problem. that tree ring data from modern times, that green line, measured a DECREASE in temperature when our digital thermometers registered an INCREASE in temperature. The tree ring data for modern times is obviously wrong. They don't correlate. So IF they're wrong today, how can you use them as a proxy for the past? So these guys doing the research figured this out, and rather than be forced to explain all this, instead "hid the decline." We know this is what they did because they said so and were caught planning the whole thing in the infamous Climategate emails. They are on record as having done it.

This is just one time they were caught red-handed--just like WikiLeaks and the Clintons. So my admonishment to people s to PLEASE-EDUCATE-YOURSELF. Read T he Hockey Stick Illusion; climategate and the corruption of science and take a look how the data has been manipulated. THEN ask yourself why.

a reply to: schuyler

Money.

Such a valid point friend , I hope this thread opens up discussion , i'm stuck in a constant loop of "Doom" , researching old PDF's of astronomical society journals and published articles , about these perturbations ,may be coming from some vagabond long lost Binary star , looking for a sofa to crash on for awhile .

Climate change seems to be a convenient cover to usher in global taxation and government. I am naturally skeptical of any solution that involves increased taxation.

The lack of transparency in regards to datasets is also very troubling.

No way. Say it aint so
The UN lying to us
Gore lying to us
Obama Lying to us
Clinton lying to us

Ah , the UN. You know the group that has never did anything lawful and on the level since their inception . . Put a railroad engineer from India as head of the IPCC . Yeah , that one made sense. Then their hand picked leader had to resign due to corruption and sexual harassment charges

The definition of people you can trust ? You call it.

I've always said the scientific global warming & the political global warming issues are two separate matters. There is a reason we seldom hear of a scientific solution the problem. And there is a reason that besides all the squawking from heads of state all over the world, nothing ever really gets done besides the grabbing of money & power.

We're in a lose/lose situation here.

a reply to: eluryh22

Are various governments around the globe lying about anthropogenic global warming?

Maybe not totally lying... I've had a thought, but it's not quite a theory, similar to the trick Christopher Columbus played on the Arawak Indians when their hospitality wore out. But Columbus learned --

...that on the evening of Thursday, Feb. 29, 1504, a total lunar eclipse would occur, beginning around the time of moonrise.

Armed with this knowledge, three days before the eclipse, Columbus requested a meeting with the Arawak chief and informed him that his Christian god was very angry with his people for no longer supplying him and his men with food. Therefore, he was about to provide a clear sign of his displeasure: Three nights hence, he would all but obliterate the rising full moon, making it appear "inflamed with wrath," which would signify the evils that would soon be inflicted upon all of them.

(Source)

Before the global warming predictions, there were predictions of a coming cooling. I've read that the earth does in fact warm to one extent or another prior to an ice age. Perhaps knowing this, someones -- for their own nefarious purposes -- decided to hype the initial warming (conveniently leaving out the subsequent cooling) in order to push their carbon tax, etc., thinking they could get it pushed through quickly and easily, long before the cooling began. And once the cooling did begin, they would pat themselves on the back for "saving" the world.

Just a thought.

Governments, like Big Business, do not want to alarm people as that would lead to lower sales (and thus, less spending, taxes, and borrowing), which is why they downplay the effects of AGW. However, in reports they issue to their own personnel or clients (as seen in reports from military forces, insurers, and banks), they give another view.

a reply to: eluryh22

This is some terrible reasoning to come to any conclusion, let alone AGW theory. A bunch of false equivalencies followed by saying that all those unproven statements prove your conclusion. Talk about lazy reasoning.
"Guys. Here's a bunch of unsupported opinions I believe. Since I believe they are true, therefore AGW is false."

PS: Scientists are pushing AGW theory. Governments are just listening to the science and legislating based on that. Even Exxon mobile has found internally that AGW is real.

a reply to: eluryh22

Government lies when it tells us something we don't like.

Government tells the truth when it tells us what we want to hear.


*We are so screwed as a country*


My answer though is yes, government is lying about global warming because they want to use it to justify taking more control, denying more freedoms and taxing us more.

I figured this would be obvious by now.

a reply to: eluryh22

No, because I can't see what the payoff would be. Far more profitable to cover it up/debunk it.

Plus the fact that every scientific organisation on the planet supports the theory.

Except the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything about AGW. My overall point is what I stated. I find it odd that so many people that are otherwise skeptical (and rightfully so in my mind) just lap up whatever "they" say about AGW.

Also, the government doles out grants like candy to study the climate, so long as the "results" are the ones they want.

a reply to: monkeyluv

Governments downplay climate change? Many/most of them say it is the single biggest threat to our existence.

a reply to: eluryh22

Who are you to say what I "lap up" and don't "lap up"? Are you aware that I started my tenure here at ATS as a AGW skeptic? I wasn't a flat out denier but I didn't accept the theory as true. Don't believe me? Just look up my oldest post history on the subject. It was after looking at the evidence and making logical conclusions based on that evidence that I came to believe. This # is real and if you stop listening to the politicians and go look at what the scientists are saying you'll see it is true as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, Krazysh0t, I never said anything about you. If you self-identify as one of the "many people" that I was talking about, that's on you.

I almost never agree with your assertions, but simultaneously I almost always find your posts to be well prepared and presented.

a reply to: eluryh22

Fair enough. I'm not saying I self-identify but a common tactic in these forums to avoid directly insulting a specific person and dance around the T&C's is to insult the group the person belongs to. So just covering my bases.