The worst attempt to justify Global Warming... Ever

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Justoneman

 

2 points. Firstly, the fact that climate has changed in the past for natural reasons does not preclude the possibility that human activity can also change the climate. We certainly do so on a local and regional level, why be so sure that there is no global impact? And remember, we're not just talking carbon emissions, whatever Gore and his cronies might think!

Secondly, climate models and weather models are completely different things. One says whether it may rain more or less than usual across the country as a whole next summer, the other says whether it may rain in your town tomorrow afternoon. You should not compare them. The fact we cannot say for sure whether it'll rain in Manchester next Sunday afternoon does not mean we cannot say that in 50 years time there will, more often than not, be less rainfall during the course of the summer.

As to your first observation, true. However, when NASA has to take back comments like "the ice sheet is shrinking in the Antartic" long AFTER the news media has a field day with it, we are seen how living is in the world of the book "1984". I have a problem with your logic about the 50 years when they are projecting it out that far while I claim that is not going to be any chance for accuracy. Yet your seemingly saying if we don't carbon tax and stomp out CO2 we are going to flood NY and all major coastal cities. Those who would brainwash reality so are doing fearmongering for a profit. I believe it is established by now as to what I am witnessing.


Second,climate and weather are somewhat different things due to time required for one to exist is very long for climate verses a day. For that longer period I expect you should indeed study the graphs provided by theuniverse. For the weather models being bad verses your idea of climate models then you must consider this one fact. They happen to be the same modelswe use in my office that they use for long range forecasting of the AGW and are flawed at the shorter ranges. So now we have proof, that they admit in their emails to altering the data to make it fit what they expect. Bad science every time. Data is data and it is NOT to be tweeked or admitted to be tweeked. It is then thrown out for hard data that is repeatable and uses proper scientific approach and avoids a collective gov controlling what is and is not. Facts know no governments and governments want to control facts. We must proceed accordingly as they have tipped their hand.

Originally posted by Mapkar

Originally posted by solargeddon

Any impact we could have on "Global Warming" in the grand scheme of things, has to, by definition, be too small to be significant.

edit on 5-7-2011 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)

We may be small and seem insignificant, but something very small, and insignificant can cause big stress on the bigger scheme of things. For example, a CD looks perfect, but there are small imperfections that can disrupt how they function. Let's watch a CD spinning and say it's the world, and we are a small imperfection. Watch the entire video and notice that at about 1:35 the imperfection starts to get to work.

You want to comapre the world to a CD !

Lmao, the analogy is flawed, given that if you read the comments relating to the cd, nowhere does it state that it shattered due to a tiny imperfection.

The CD shattered because it rotated at such a riddiculous speed.

I appreciate what you were trying to convey, however the anology wasn't bullet proof, where you saw a flaw in the cd causing its demise, I see the speed at which it spun, being the primary cause, so all you have served to acheive is that causation isn't always straightforward, moreover, nobody in the comments section of the video has expressed the explantion you have.

So yeah, thanks for not clearing that up.

Oh and by the way, try as you might to put across your argument for global warming,and the significance of humans, If its alright by you, I'll just keep on believing what I wish, and at present I stick to my original posting

edit on 6-7-2011 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Justoneman

By shifting to Carbon Credits because of AGW they divert the real story about how we steadily ignore real renewable energy and safer thorium nuclear generators. Sure splitting of water it takes more energy than you get, but the Sun isn't going to run out of free energy anytime soon and our borrowing it is just that. After all, you know you can't destroy energy. If you know your Physics that is.

Yes Exactly you should see this thread about H2 Energy

Magnesium Injection Cycle Engine

You should really see this thread and how many were trying to dis-prove to me how common magnesium actually is in the Crust.

Its quite common.

In many of the different conspiracy theory threads on this site, people often say "follow the money" to find the truth. Well, here it is:

Al Gore has seen his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100, 000,000.00 ($100 million) since he began pushing global warming hysteria. This doesn't even take into account all the jet fuel he uses to fly from lecture to lecture advocating against Global Warming.
As an update to this article the Los Angeles Times reported on the most recent purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Al Gore...an 8,875,000 dollar beach house! So much for rising tides!
Link

reply to post by Mike_A


In this day and age, I think that most of us would believe any non-partisan individual and not their government or "scientific advisors". The government is actually waking up a lot of people with their own words, flip flops and their bizarre indifference to their own citizens.

Your logo "Sillyness Shall Not Be Tolerated" coupled with your member photo clearly gives the message to ATS members that to hold a belief contrary to the Mainstream propaganda is somehow wrong.

The last time I Googled it, CO2 gas was 392 parts per million, that is less that one percent (1%) of the total atmosphere, can so little really have so much effect on the rest? Volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, more sulphur dioxide, CO2, Hydrogen, Helium, Methane, ash particulates, Hydrogen sulphide etcetera than humans have in the last 2,000 years, and its still Humans fault? yeah, right.

Originally posted by Mike_A
,,,
But I’m referring to the general consensus among the scientific community that supports global warming.

There is no such thing. This has been proven in these forums, time, after time, after time.

We even have had a majority of scientists, in scientific groups which have claimed that there is concensus, that there is no such thing.

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

We even had prominent scientists state that many, if not most, scientific groups have been claiming that a majority of them agree with the AGW claim/scam (Anthropogenicn Global Warming) when only the small groups of directors/council of such scientific groups were the ones to conclude AGW is real but they never actually asked for the opinion of their scientist members.

AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a global scam to redistribute wealth and to give more power to the hungry elites.

In 1991 an evil green environlunatic, i mean a good environmentalist known as professor Ignacy Sachs wrote a paper for the UN in which he describes step by step the phases that need to be taken by the SOCIALIST elites in order for western countries to redistribute their wealth to developing countries, as well as the emergence of a One World Government.

He states in this paper that the governments of the western world will most probably not accept this transfer of wealth, and dissolution of their sovereignty unless their hands are forced "by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster.“

How about if you cause all three of them?... Cause a worldwide economic crisis, claim that there is an environmental problem that MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, and that if you don't do it THE WORLD WILL DIE, and make a "popular movements of the people backing immediate action to stop such an environmental problem, and economic prolem....Wouldn't that be better?.....

He discusses how it will be needed for the dissolution of all middle classes around the world, which will mean EVERYONE will be equally poor which happens in Socialist dictatorships.

He states this plan, and strategies should cover several decades in order to be implemented slowly, unless there can be redistribution of wealth at a faster pace, which would shorten the time needed to implement this plan.

BTW, I am going to be linking to the official UNESCO website where the paper can be found.

Without further due, here is the article and links supporting what I just described above.

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
........

blacklistednews.com...


Scientific groups now a days base most of their research on topics that will increase their funding, and for a long time, and thanks to the elites, the main topic has been Global Warming, or to put it correclty Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Everyone in the scientific community depends on funding from pro global warming groups? Can you prove this?

Are you kidding me? Even the IPCC, and their main scientists were caught and they confesed that they had been fudging the data, publishing false information, and in conclusion LYING about Climate Change simply because they wanted to FORCE governments into accepting their plans...

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.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobbys regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

online.wsj.com...

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 Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

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.

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...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link

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 Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

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.

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...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Here are the statements by Dr. John Christy who happens to be a Climatologist and was trying to warn people years ago as to what he wtinessed the IPCC policy makers" wanted to do to coerce all nations into accepting the Kyoto Protocol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
.............................

www.drroyspencer.com...

Dr. Roy Spencer has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a climatologist

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh, and don't forget the following educational video....

Peer reviewed means allowing all to review not just those on your side of the fence.

Originally posted by Mike_A
No it means being reviewed by their peers, i.e. people with similar qualifications and experience. Not some bloke on the internet.

Like who? the main proponents of the AGW/Global Warming scam like Mann, Jones et al?...

These "scientists", which shouldn't be called scientists, lke Mann, Jones, and many others belong to groupslike RealClimate.org which has been linked to Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues"[1]. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate[2], and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications, "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[3], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS.

en.wikipedia.org...

Realclimate.org is where you find the main proponents of the AGW SCAM, and they have been receiving web hosting and SUPPORT from none other than Arlie Schardt... and you want to ask if these scientists proponents of the AGW scam are not dirty?...


Listen to this REAL Climatologist, who has a Phd, and among many others have been trying to warn people for years about the scam that is AGW.

November 21st, 2009

The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).

Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.

The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.

At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which peoples energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.

Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.

Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.

The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.

A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.

The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?
.........

www.drroyspencer.com...

Originally posted by Mike_A
Again, says some bloke on the internet while most scientists disagree. I can’t be sure but I’d bet that you are not qualified to judge this research, I’m not either; given that I have a choice between believing the scientific consensus or you. I can’t see much reason to believe you.

Where have you been all these years? Several scientists, including from the IPCC have come forward for YEARS explaining that AGW/Global Warming and in general Clmate Change has become politicized, and those in charge of the IPCC, the UN etc are NOT interested in science but in FORCING THEIR WORLD POLICIES using AGW/Global Warming/Climate Change.

For example...

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.
..

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Some other members, and including I have been posting for years what the REAL scientists have been warning us about, that THEY ARE BEING IGNORED, and AGW/Global Warming/Climate Change has been politicized just to FORCE policies upon nations and their people...

Again, I recommend you to watch the video I gave above to the end.

Great post Electricuniverse!

Some of this is news to me regarding the UN and not surprising considering the ease at which I detected liars from just the emails. Any doubt they may have caused me in the beginning has been flushed by those emails and further information such as the location of many of the weather stations and exclusion of certain sites that were available in Siberia etc..... Throw in all the stuff they've retracted like the ice sheet is shrinking in places like Antarctica and the fact that plus or minus two degrees change is less than the accuracy possible in their 'models', we have a fantasy being projected as 'settled science'. Hell, even nuclear science is not all the way settled. Their are lots of things left to discover. We don't close the door on nuclear research because we've already built a bomb and some energy plants do we? They say settled science to make the little man believe their fantasy for concensus of AGW.

Global warming is a complete hoax in order to bring world wide taxes to set up a world bank to make the rich richer while also paving the way for the New world Order. The idea that carbon should be taxed is laughable but of course no one thinks for themselves these days even if the whole man made global warming thing was real a tax would do nothing.. Its a known fact that the main driving force for changes and life on earth is the Sun and the Sun for the last 100 years has been getting hotter and hotter, also the real correlation is that as the heat increases on earth (from the sun) carbon increases, not the other way around like the elite try to tell us.. Also all the planets in the solar system have began heating up! Check it for youself:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


That's a great post starred.

I will be looking over the info in your post for quite some time thank you.

I may also make a thread in the future about it.

We will see

Keep on fighting the good fight. Against the Fraud that is AGW (Climate change)

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Mike_A
,,,
But I’m referring to the general consensus among the scientific community that supports global warming.

There is no such thing. This has been proven in these forums, time, after time, after time.

Yes there is. How many cimate scientists have you spoken to lately? Besides, the facts speak for themselves. But it's a free world. You can believe the Earth is flat if you like

Anyway, back on subject, there's an excellent apprasisal of the media and others response to this latest study here:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Its well worth reading regardless of your views on the extent to which carbon emission may affect global temperature. If you don't believe that humans affect the climate don't bother. But I have a magic potion you may like that makes you to invincible to bullets, only $1,000

reply to post by TheUniverse


I like scientifically researched posts very much.

While I will not argue the merits of human contribution to Global Warming as that is still hotly debated would you suffice to say that the even though a rise in global temperature is normal our current spike is far outside of normal historical patterns?

All the data i've been exposed to has pointed me to that conclusion.

Originally posted by yadboy
reply to post by yadboy

 

You poor poor thing.
You get my chuckle for the day.

The tilt that causes winter/summer has existed since the planet has formed, and it has never changed, and it has allowed all the pretty things we see to flourish.
That is just business.

You obviously have reading comprehension problems, the point was not that the tilt is something new, but that a small change to our system can make a big difference. Nice try at misdirection though. .

What change? I would love to see what force is driving the Sun to change suddenly.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
What people on here are saying is that the sun is actually getting warmer, and that is what is causing the heat up. Not the natural occurence.

Actually I think most people believe that the solar maximums and minimums have a much greater effect of global temperature than a little extra CO2. I tend to agree with them. I don't think people are assuming the solar maximum is not a natural occurrence..

Not my point at all, who has lost their reading comprehension now? If solar minimums/maximums had an effect then we would be on a 11 year cycle for weather. But we don't, because earth has this really neat atmosphere that buffers against changes.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
See, it can't be something simple like man made pollution, but they will make this H U G E leap that the biggest baddest body in our solar system is changing, having a tantrum, and that is causing problems. Oh wait its aliens shooting lazer beams at us. Me personally, I think all the alien gods are mad at us.. It is ANYTHING but pollution.

Are you for real? So the most energetic source of radiation, heat and light in our solar systems is less likely to have an effect of us than some particulates and water vapor in the atmosphere? Wow, just wow.

.

While the Sun's energy increased, temperatures rose. When the Sun's energy decreased, temperatures rose.
If the Sun's activity is increasing, which is isn't, there would be less cosmic rays, less cloud cover and the Earth would warm. Any changes in the Sun's activity is about .1%. It has always been that way and always will be, the huge body is pretty constant itself. So the idea of changes in activity having an effect are bunk. Cosmic rays would have the most effect if any, they increase during a solar minimum, they create more clouds and the Earth cools. But that is not happening. Even during an maximum, there are less cosmic rays, any increase in temperature is not enough to stay step in step with the current warming trend.
So maybe you should understand the relationship with the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere before you go make comments about how BIG it is.

reply to post by kro32


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0be110b509ca.gif[/atsimg]

The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change)) Fraud

reply to post by TheUniverse


Yes but that wasn't my question.

It's obvious Global Warming is happening, can't really debate that and the evidence of it's effect on climate change is still unknown. I know of a few studies looking into this right now but they are a long way off. However the data I've seen suggests that the current spike in global temperatures starting around the early 20th century is far outside of any recorded rise that we have data for of previous warming periods.

Can you verify this or shall we debate the facts. I admit that it is unknown what the source of this rapid rising is at this point and is speculation until further research is done.

reply to post by TheUniverse


Okay a false graph. Becuase I'm sure you know it's really not quite as simple as that. But even it seems to acknowledge a 0.28% increase in temp due to anthropogenic carbon emissions

And of course, there's a lot more to it than just CO2.


Not that this has any real relevance to the subject. Are you disputing that anthropogenic sulphur emissions cause cooling?

reply to post by TheUniverse


She is politely saying what I am going to blatantly say, that posting pages of drivel and graphs that no one has a hope of picking through is a trolling tactic and a poor way to debate. So you can say ah ha, I was right and you were wrong because you can't pick through pages of drivel. Oh, and your patronizing attitude doesn't help.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Mike_A
,,,
But I’m referring to the general consensus among the scientific community that supports global warming.

There is no such thing. This has been proven in these forums, time, after time, after time.

Yes there is. How many cimate scientists have you spoken to lately?

Besides, the facts speak for themselves. But it's a free world. You can believe the Earth is flat if you like

Incidentally Essan if you ever want some links to refute these delusional claims here are a couple of recent studies done that both found a 97-98% consensus on anthropogenic global warming amongst real climate scientists:

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Of course it's completely pointless arguing with these ideologues, since facts absolutely do not matter in their world - what's important is just repeating the same debunked and discredited sock puppet memes "time after time, after time", (after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time...)

Because that apparently makes it true now. And if anyone challenges you on it you can just point to the fact it's been repeated "time after time, after time", (after time, after time, after time, after time, after...)


I also like this short video because it not only cuts to the chase on the real story behind AGW so-called "skepticism" - it also features notorious denier/corporate shill Stephen Milloy admitting and BRAGGING how his side has managed to skew a false sense of balance in the (non) debate DESPITE the fact his side is composed of "a band of about 25 people or so" (see the part starting around 1:48).



It then goes on to explain how they've managed to do this - by building up an echo chamber of front groups and astroturf organizations whose propaganda gets picked up by the legions of unwitting ideologue sock puppets that go on to spread and repeat these false memes time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time...

reply to post by kro32

Yes but that wasn't my question.

It's obvious Global Warming is happening, can't really debate that and the evidence of it's effect on climate change is still unknown. I know of a few studies looking into this right now but they are a long way off. However the data I've seen suggests that the current spike in global temperatures starting around the early 20th century is far outside of any recorded rise that we have data for of previous warming periods.

Can you verify this or shall we debate the facts. I admit that it is unknown what the source of this rapid rising is at this point and is speculation until further research is done.

First off I never said Global warming wasn't happening.

I said Anthropogenic Global warming was a Fraud. (There's a big difference between Global warming and AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming))

It is extremely exaggerated as to its effects on the environment that which i have laid out in my post and linked said sources. If you wish to critique my post do it properly.

The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years. We are probably just seeing the continuation of this.

There is no evidence that humans are causing an significant increase in warming. It could and probably is environmentally induced if there is any increase in warming.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8eccc8c5ac42.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Essan


Still you ignored the link to my post and no-one here has garnered a response to it yet so i'll link it again.

----------------------------------------------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
----------------------------------------------------------

Until you take the time to critique it and contrive a post it may be vain to keep answering to these suppositions of yours.

Okay a false graph. Becuase I'm sure you know it's really not quite as simple as that. But even it seems to acknowledge a 0.28% increase in temp due to anthropogenic carbon emissions

And of course, there's a lot more to it than just CO2.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0be110b509ca.gif[/atsimg]

Second i did not say it was just only CO2 or anything of that matter; your creating lies.

As you can see the graph shows all the contributions to the green house effect by the gases in the atmosphere; that cause the green house effect source here.

www.geocraft.com...

and here

www.geocraft.com...

Not that this has any real relevance to the subject. Are you disputing that anthropogenic sulphur emissions cause cooling?

................ No i never said that. But maybe you'd like to assume things that i never stated.

Maybe you ought to look at the total outputs of human green house gas emissions that are in my linked sources.