Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

reply to post by burntheships


Actually, you are focusing on a snippet that is irrelevant to what I'm saying!
Your quote mentions "down to 700 meters". The bulk of the warming has happened AFTER 700 meters.
They're two different things.
I trust this is a simple mistake on your part, and ask that you look into the matter in more depth

Originally posted by Xieon
Those who willingly supported this fake science should be charged with murder.

How many lives have been lost due to the fight against man made global warming? I would suspect quite a bit

Why would you expect that? Can you explain this a bit more?
Actually, it seems inaction has caused the lives of many people.
All you have to do is look at the insurance premiums going up in relation to environmental damage increases over time.
That paints an entirely different story, and uses objective data instead of opinion.

reply to post by uniquelysane


Thats just a quote, the rules here are that entire pages can not be posted,
only a small snippet. However since your new, that is understandable that you did
not know this, so that you can read the source material, then we can discuss if you
would like.

We are in an interglacial period, this does not "prove" AGW..

reply to post by burntheships


That is entirely irrelevant. You could have posted the snippet which had something to do with what I said.
Please be more honest.

For all of the fanatics that worry hysterically about melting glacier ice, beyond
the fact that we are in an interglacial period, and ice will melt...as normal climate
cycles progress, there is erreneous thought circulating about Glacial Ice.

A new report by a senior Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite intact, thank you.

The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Evidently, the bogus reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
theresilientearth.com.../himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

Originally posted by uniquelysane
reply to post by burntheships

 

That is entirely irrelevant.

This thread is 7 pages long, and a lot of relevant discussion has taken place,
points made from both positions. It would be helpful if you read all of the
source material for a good discussion.

reply to post by burntheships


Oh, hi Burntheships... I didn't recognize your avatar. Thanks for the reply. It was late and I didn't have time to reply.

I see you see the ploy...

Climategate and pollution


Chemtrails and just jet exhaust

911focus on the buildings instead of the wars.

Thanks for helping everyone to learn.

reply to post by intrptr


And thank you intrptr for the reminder, and a very pertinent one at that,
about pollution.

I do say, they are really good at the game they play....
This I deduce from just how many people are frightened they will
wake up soon and the ocean will be in thier back yard, and nevermind
that companies like Monsanto are given free reign to pollute the farmlands
with toxic chemicals while they sue the pants off little farmers.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by burntheships

 

The problem is that they KNOW their so called scientific evidence doesn't hold any water. It is just composed of illusions brought up by their emotions that "we are going to change the world for the better, and how WE see it fit" but they do not, and have not used any sort of rational, empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.

Thanks for your comments Electric Universe, very good points, I
hope people will investigate!

They are forced to use manipulating tactics, as you have well pointed out they do not
have empirical scientific evidence backing them. They grovel, fear monger, and use
propaganda tactics like there is no tomorrow....it is so obvious, and becoming more so every year.

The whole Global Warming/Climate change movement was invented so that people will get used to the idea of believing we need a One World Government, derived from corporate mandates, and the reason they say this One World Government is needed is "to combat Climate Change"...

Exactly! And its fairly obvious to see this, every month there is evidence of this if people
would just follow the money trail of the IMF!

Look at how they robbed Cyprus, and the next week give 15million as a grant
to Tajikistan

The grant aims to support more sustainable management of natural resources in the Central Asian republic and increase the resilience of communities to the impact of climate change, the World Bank said in a statement.

"Tajikistan is prone to natural disasters and it is assessed as the most vulnerable country to the impacts of future climate change in the Europe and Central Asia region," said Marsha Olive, World Bank country manager for Tajikistan.
www.newstrackindia.com...

So they can lead anotherr country on the path to destruction!

reply to post by burntheships


Look, you replied to me. I wrote about the "missing heat" being now known as attributed to heating the lower depths of the ocean, post 700m.

You then replied with a quote which mentions being ABOVE 700m. Either you goofed, else it was purposeful misdirection.
Now you're trying to deflect away. Either admit you goofed, else be realized as some sort of disinfo queen.


Here's the deal. What you're trying to say is complete, and utter nonsense. Here's why.
Your whole case rests on the notion that if the science is sound, it speaks for itself, and there would be no need to sensationalize, or use any form of propaganda.

That is simply an incorrect assumption. The problem is that the public is quite obviously too ignorant to absorb the hard science, so it must be dumbed down, and sold by the best known means. That includes, "emotions and visuals".

You are being a hypocrite, as you employ these same tactics and more throughout your posts. I looked at some of your threads. It's there.

The fact that they are employing every tactic known to masterfully get the public on board (or at least attempt to) in no way discredits the science.
There is an incredible amount of empirical data which shows exactly what's going on, and to pick out the few which seem to prove otherwise, and cherry pick out of the data, is intellectually dishonest. Again, this shows hypocrisy.

reply to post by uniquelysane


No, I did not goof, I purposely posted that snippet, and link, as the
entire article is relevant....and hoped you would at least review the
7 pages of the thread, and all of the contribuitons.


AG Warmists view:

“Observations of the sea water temperature show that the upper ocean has not warmed since 2003. This is remarkable as it is expected the ocean would store that the lion’s share of the extra heat retained by the Earth due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The observation that the upper 700 meter of the world ocean have not warmed for the last eight years gives rise to two fundamental questions:
1.What is the probability that the upper ocean does not warm for eight years as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise?
2.As the heat has not been not stored in the upper ocean over the last eight years, where did it go instead?

These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough. We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.”

Answer to AG Warmists:

If the “question cannot be answered using observations alone“, how can it be stated that “When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well“? This is a circular argument.

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...

Which I hoped to avoid with you, instead, you have resorted to name calling.
and ad hominem posts, with logical argument, or source data.

Sigh....

reply to post by burntheships


You're only showing your ignorance.

I have ten units of sugar, and ten cups.
If I place one sugar cube in each cup, then there is one in each!

If I distribute them differently, then they will not remain equal.
You are either incapable of grasping very basic logic, else have an agenda.

This is third grader logic that somehow you're not getting.

reply to post by uniquelysane


Well, if your willing to stop your ad hominem attacks we could start with
discussing the material from the OP.

Why has the AGW crowd resorted to using manuals entitled The Game?
if they have empirical science they would not need propaganda.

"The Game".?

From The Game in the OP...

“The Rules” teaches sophisticated behavior change tactics, including:
“Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works” …

“Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations” …

“Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance” and “Use emotions and visuals”

No empirical science, just games.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by uniquelysane

 

if they have empirical science they would not need propaganda.

Incorrect assumption. We have had the empirical science, and it didn't phase the public.

No empirical science, just games.

Absurd. There is an incredible amount of empirical science.
You are choosing to ignore it.

You are also choosing to see nefarious intent in these phrases, where it simply DOES NOT exist.
They are stating facts.

reply to post by uniquelysane


Well, here is your big opportunity, post all of the "empirical science"
and lets debate its merits. .

reply to post by burntheships


You have proven to care not for the science, as is evidenced by your continued focus on data which has NO relevance WHATSOEVER to the topic at hand.

I challenge you to look at the data ALREADY presented.
Tell me how the data post 700m under the ocean in any way backs up your ABSURD claims that warming is not continuing, in spite of the non-change, else slight decrease in temperatures at and above 700m.

reply to post by uniquelysane


Au contraire,

I am not a mind reader, I have no idea what "data" you have in your mind
that you hold as "empirical science". If you refuse to present anything but
your circular rhetoric , there is nothing I can further discuss with you.

reply to post by burntheships


A LINK from my earlier POST clearly shows some data which must be taken into consideration, and is quite relevant to the thread/discussion.

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

It continues:

As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Check out the link, and follow the references. It's all laid out quite well.

Imagine you have red dye dropper, and a cup of water in a glass.
You put a drop into the glass.
Does the coloring remain on the surface?
The depth?

No, it remains in flux, until it's equally distributed after a given period of time.
Though not the best comparison, it has merit.

The skeptics are simply looking at small chunks of the picture, when the whole of the data accounts for the petty contrarian arguments.

While there has been focus on the surface temp of land, or sea, or this depth, or that, it's in reality all been going on at once, and we have data for each. If we put it all together, the science says the heating is increasing on the whole.
We must do our best to not start from an agenda, and cherry pick to satisfy our beliefs.

I regret to inform you, but it seems you're projecting your own shortcomings onto the issue. Instead of owning your limitations, you project it out onto the world. It's pretty obvious to me.
I add these, because it must be understood in order to grow.
It's relevant.

So, is the gist of this thread that there is a grand conspiracy and every scientist that's actually studied global warming data and supports AGW is in on it? For instance, the list of scientific societies here that support and back these claims - they are all in on it?

www.ucsusa.org...

Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire thread, so wanted to verify what you're claiming here. I just can't fathom why a vast majority of scientists would independently falsify data and/or conclusions. Or why someone who hasn't actually studied the data would jump on the anti-AGW bandwagon based on a small minority of scientists and a lot of hype in the right-leaning blogosphere. Puzzling.

reply to post by uniquelysane


I did post a rebuttal to the ""missing heat" argument.
It was here, perhaps you missed it. There is no actual data that
proves the missing heat, rather this was "modeled" and therfore
was a "projection". You do understand the difference?

If so, please respond accordingly....acknowledge.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1.What is the probability that the upper ocean does not warm for eight years as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise?
2.As the heat has not been not stored in the upper ocean over the last eight years, where did it go instead?

These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough.

We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.”


Even if there was real "data"...which there is not...only simulations!
certainly you do not imagine that the entire concept of AGW has
been predicated on "missing heat", there is no empirical scence there...

edit on 2-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)