Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

^ Ah mate - I know that the world is being poisoned, but I know that Viking settlements were growing crops on greenland during the last time the earth warmed up.

All this Climate Rage has come from the Club of Rome, of which Al Gore is a member, about which even Wiki says;

According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

It's all a con. It's fake. The world get's hotter and colder. It's what happens. Climate change is WMD. It is Al Qa'ida. It is the Banks failing that need cash. It is the big bogey man in the cupboard. It is simply another fear tactic.

Just ask one question. After WW2 when there was so much industrialisation, and so much damage done to the world, why did the temp drop for 30 years? That was the peak time when every nasty chemical and process in the world was being spewed into the air and dumped all over the place and yet year after year temps dropped. Then in the 1970's the temp went up a little. Then the last 12 years it has stopped.

It's all a pile of shit. Pollution is not good but it has nothing to do with climate change.

Of course there are doubts, always will be

The sun plays a bigger role in climate change than man!

Global warming: is there anything it can’t do? CNN anchor Deb Feyerick accomplished a remarkable two-fer yesterday, when, in the space of a few seconds, she suggested that global warming may be causing both 1) blizzards and 2) asteroids.

Still waiting to hear if MMGW has caused that cop in LA to start shooting up the place...

Parody or Does She Believe It? CNN Anchor Blames Asteroid on Global Warming | NewsBusters

Originally Posted by swampfox1001

The sun plays a bigger role in climate change than man!

True.

Originally Posted by swampfox1001

The sun plays a bigger role in climate change than man!

It is rather amazing that the scientists pushing forward man made climate change from their government back studies and their junta's made up of one bent scientist and a few thousand administrators seem to completely write of the possibility of the big firey thing in the sky being at all linked with a change in climate. They discount it regardless of how many times in their life they have sought shelter because the sun is hot.

It's sun spots. Have a little look at these two graphs that are not connected with the Climate Change pogroms.

Earth temperatures fell for 20 years after WW2. As you will see, so did the amount of recorded sun spots. Temperatures then started getting hotter in the 1960s following increased activity of sun spot. Coincidence? Hmmmm. It takes a while for the heat to travel that distance so there will be a lag...




Now as you will be aware over the last 12 years, temperatures have fallen. Now what a coincidence. Again. Sun spot activity is high in the 90's and then starting to fall again, hence the cooler weather. Again - remember the time lag from there to here. All syncs up.



Sun spot - Like a volcano. Pressure builds, it's released. It builds. It gets released.

CO2. Boooo Hissss shout all of the Al Gore Pogrom members. Plants need it. In fact where there are higher levels of CO2, plant life flourishes. It is more dangerous to control it and take it out of the atmosphere. We want a greener planet, well the best way to do that is to allow the CO2 levels to increase because the plant in the world go through a major surge chewing it all up. People seem to forget where what fossil fuels actually are. They are all from the carbon/oxygen cycle from when the earth was a much greener place. There is not enough stored in fossil fuels to destroy the earth because other wise it would have done already the first time is was out and in the air and atmosphere.

Meanwhile, Al Gore incorporated is doing very well out of it. Want him to speak at your function? Sure, a snip at $175,000 per hour. His firm, started in 2004 just before his road show began, Generation Investment Management LLP , is raking in billions of dollars as a result of the changes he is forcing upon the world.

But of course, those with a memory longer than an episode of the simpsons will remember that Gore is very good at using political clout to enrich himself.

The Real Problem With Al Gore's $100 Million Payday From Selling Current To Al Jazeera - Forbes

The mans a crook. Climate change is a clever scheme for two reasons. It raises cash through tax (the end consumers ALWAYS pay for the tax) and gives the banks something new to trade. Also, they use it to put fear into those who can see through the fake wars but are naturally more earth friendly - fear in all quarters.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Now as you will be aware over the last 12 years, temperatures have fallen.

A fine example of why these threads are completely pointless. It's already been shown (repeatedly) why this is wrong but you completely ignore those posts and carry on with your rubbish about global conspiracies. The only remotely interesting thing about any of this is as a demonstration of how myths never give way to facts.

just how exactly do they know the carbon levels of 400,000 years ago?

If you don't know the answer to that question, you're not in a position to have an opinion on climate change.

^
Ice cores are not infallible - depends on who is interpreting the data.

We do know for certain that Gore is a crook.

no one disputes that there is climate change. Change. It changes. Ice age anyone? Remember that? How old is the planet? How many ice ages? How many warm periods? It's a cycle. It is a good thing that SOME of the activities polluting water has stopped but that should be the big concern and not many people are talking about it....

Just before Gores convenient self promotion, the reports were showing that yes indeed it had all stopped. Hoorahh... and then sir Gore of the padded wallet hits the scene.

Gore is a crook. If he is involved then something is wrong.

Do not agree Zoo. You can rant and rage at me because I refuse to believe the state enforced fear tactics that you are swallowing. Are you aware that the "consensus of scientists" that is put forward rarely contains climatologists?

The lovely thing is that occasionally there is a little breach in the media vilification of those who refuse to buy into the Gore-ish road show;

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

Then the door slams shut again. They are all getting rich. All of them. That's why they manipulate and manufacture "peer reviews" to keep the gravy train rolling.

Science is built upon questioning and the moment that the scientific debate was declared PROVEN and CLOSED was the moment you need to know that something is wrong. True scientists never stop questioning. What happened next was labelling those who questions "denialist" a word chosen on purpose to evoke thoughts of the holocaust denialists. Emotive to the maximum.

So you can bang on about peer reviews and the like, but whilst these boys are making millions and receiving huge grants to fabricate reports (even though they have been found out and exposed) I am not going to stop questioning it. Especially as Gore is involved; a huge crook.

Your hockey stick graph you love so much

From the co-author of the Mann report where is came from who disassociated himself from it as being biased, incorrect, and only useful as a tool for the pro climate change lobby as opposed to being the truth.

"But in April 1999, Ray Bradley, a co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study, was apologising for Mann's stance. "I would like to dissociate myself from Mike Mann's view [expressed in a complaint Mann had made the previous summer to the journal Science]… I find this notion quite absurd. I have worked with the UEA group for 20+ years and have great respect for them. Of course, I don't agree with everything they write, and we often have long (but cordial) arguments about what they think versus my views, but that is life… As for thinking that is it 'better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us'… as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant."'

Manipulation - suppression of information that does not support the climate change theory - putting out a graph based upon two different sources of information (Ice cores v thermometers " . How can that be quality based?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You can rant and rage at me because I refuse to believe the state enforced fear tactics that you are swallowing. Are you aware that the "consensus of scientists" that is put forward rarely contains climatologists?

The lovely thing is that occasionally there is a little breach in the media vilification of those who refuse to buy into the Gore-ish road show;

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

So you can bang on about peer reviews and the like, but whilst these boys are making millions and receiving huge grants to fabricate reports (even though they have been found out and exposed) I am not going to stop questioning it. Especially as Gore is involved; a huge crook.

That was put to rest in the very first post on this thread,……

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Stick it.

For those of you who are still undecided, keep reading.

Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!)

One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Michael Mann of Penn State, has been vindicated by the National Science Foundation. Almost no one noticed.

Mann is the author of the famous “hockey stick” graph showing rising global temperatures. The graph, based on research conducted in 1999, was included in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (here). It is significant because it resulted from the first “multi-proxy” effort to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past thousand years. The “proxies” used included ice cores, tree rings, lake sediment cores, etc.

His results provoked interest and followup by scientists, some of which was fairly exacting. Some claimed that the data was incomplete or the statistical methods were wrong. That’s to be expected; scientists examine one another’s work as a matter of routine.

More significantly, the graph put Mann on a collision course with the emerging climate change denial industry (see also here, here, here and so on). A series of charges and accusations ensued.

Starting in 2006 and continuing to the present, all the investigations have turned up the same results. The climate scientists, including Mann, have been vindicated each time.

The accusations at issue in the current investigation arose from the “Climategate” scandal of late 2009; a trove of emails from climate scientists was put onto the web and attacked as proof that climate science is a fraud. As a result, Mann and numerous other scientists were investigated for scientific misconduct.

The NSF’s recent report followed up an investigation of Mann by Penn State. The university investigated charges against Mann for:

1. Falsifying research data
2. Concealing, deleting or otherwise destroying emails, information or data
3. Misusing privileged information
4. Seriously deviating from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research and other scholarly activities.

The university concluded there was no basis for the first three allegations. The NSF challenged the university to back up this conclusion by documenting its inquiry process, including how inquiry committee members were selected, what evidence they used, how they verified statements, etc. After investigating all the allegations de novo, the NSF decided the university had not adequately addressed the issue of falsification. In particular, it had not interviewed experts who were critical of Mann’s work. The NSF’s own investigation was not limited to the subject of falsification, but looked at the entire record for signs of research misconduct. It found that Mann had not concealed or falsified data, destroyed emails, misused privileged information or deviated from accepted practices. The NSF report is here.

In other words, Mann got the fine-tooth-comb treatment. And he was cleared, not just partly, but completely. After a series of investigations this exhaustive, on a subject this important, one would expect some news about it.

In fact, there has been only a trickle of interest. The climate-change blogosphere has noted it (DeSmogBlog, ClimateProgress, BadAstronomy). James Fallows noted it at the Atlantic, and Fox News managed a couple of dozen words. The other major media have relegated the issue to blog posts here and there.

More remarkably, there has been a deafening, thunderous silence from the climate-denialist crowd (Globalwarming, which has bragged of reducing the “hockey stick” to “splinters” and “sawdust”, has ignored the report. Likewise Wattsup, Heartland, Air Vent, Climate Audit). I could only find a snarky little post at Climate Depot, which tries to minimize the NSF conclusion. It cites a post by antigreendescribing a “whitewash”. The author grumbles that the investigations by Penn State and by the NSF were “limited”.

It doesn’t conclude there is “nothing wrong” with Mann’s conclusions, all it concludes is there is no basis to conclude he did anything improper (WITH NSF FUNDING).

Would it be too much to ask of these people to say “gee, maybe we were wrong”. They claim to be interested in facts, in science, and some of them even have scientific degrees. They presumably understand what intellectual honesty is. As John Belushi used to say, “but NOOOOOO…” All we get is sour grapes, griping that Mann was only cleared of doing something improper with NSF funding. Well, perhaps that’s because that’s what Mann was charged with. I suppose they should have investigated whether Mann was bank robber or space alien. THEN they would have come up with something…

More seriously, if Mann had been condemned, I imagine there would have been a lot more attention. According to the “heads I win, tails you lose” standards applied to climate science, it is simply not news when an accused scientists is upheld.

Accusations: that’s news. Vindications: *yawn*. This skews the record and gives the deniers most of the headspace. So, in spite of all the facts, we can hear from presidential candidates that scientists have “manipulated” climate change data, and everyone just nods.

Link: Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!) | MyFDL

Originally Posted by S Landreth

That was put to rest in the very first post on this thread,……

No it wasn't. You can keep telling people that the science if proven and "put to rest" but it has not been. It can never be.

How can science be "put to rest" unless its done by the condescending "you know nothing you silly fool...pfft (rolls eyes in patronising manner like Gore does)". The holier than thou faux science supporters (bet they have iPhones as well.. love the brand and don't understand they are flawed) just dismiss everything like this because the media tells them they are right to do so, because the media has been told it in government press releases, who are in turn making a shit load of cash from tax on carbon. Woo hoo. Sorry to break it to you - you're being played mate.

You have the scientists actually involved, on their own emails, saying it is a sack of shit. Suddenly they then say "it's all good... have you seen the amount of funding I have just received?" Scientists rarely bite the hands that feed them. If they do, you tend not to hear about them because the work is

The science backing up global warming is as good as it gets and the consensus is that humans are the cause of global warming is caused by humans and that unchecked it's going to have serious negative impacts on most of the world economies and quality of life.

The question is when does a sceptic become a tin foil head denialist? There was once a rather clever chap that said that no matter how wonderful and elegant an idea is, no matter how much you want it to be try.... If the evidence says its wrong.... Then it's wrong. Once you start cherry picking data, ignoring anything that disagrees with what you want to be correct you have moved from the being a sceptic to being a tin foil head denialist.

This transformation occurred for global warming,when the results of the results of the first phase of the koch brothers reaserch in to global warming reported. This project collected a data set and created a climet model from scratch dealing with with all the issues that the climate sceptics had with the existing models and data sets. They were exstreamly open and transparent with their work.

The results of this reaserch was that this new model and data set produced very simular predictions to the earlier models and this is the point in time where sceptics would follow the evidence and denialists just pretend it didn't happen. This the point that global warming stopped being sceptism and joined the other tin foil head denialist movements aids, vaccination, fluoride, tobacco.

It was also a hard lesson for the koch brothers why denialists do not conduct reaserch, a lesson they have now acted upon in shutting down their own reaserch project, now that it's not given them the answer hey wanted. And if you are looking for conspirisy in global warming and who's taking who for a ride, take a look where the kosh brothers made their money, you look at most of the people funding global warming denialism and you will see the oil industry and hard core Christians convinced the apocalypse has started and staying to stop it is going against gods word.

Now regarding the "but for the last xx years there was no average temperature increase" arguments. It all cherry picking, it's the same as saying there was no increase in the value of the uk and us stock exchanges in the 20th centryary and presenting data from the great depression, and the 1980,1990 recessions to show it was falling in value. An obvious and stupid fallacy that I don't think anyone has fallen for.

Lord Christopher Monckton offers ten questions that should be asked of climate alarmists. Here are a few gems:

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?


4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?


8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.0006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?

Maybe the polar bears got them...

going to have serious negative impacts on most of the world economies and quality of life.

The fear tactics being used already are having serious impacts on world economies and quality of life. You do realise just house rich Gore and his banking buddies are getting from Carbon emissions trading. They are not limiting those who are the heaviest polluters. These firms are buying the right to pollute. The Gores of the world are sat between the firms making a fortune trading on this con.

Q9 - If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

news,.....

Few glaciers in the world draw more interest from glaciologists than Pine Island Glacier (P.I.G.), in West Antarctica. The speed of its ice flow has been increasing exponentially in the past two decades. P.I.G. rests on bedrock that sits below sea level — making it more vulnerable to continued acceleration and increased contribution to global sea level rise.

P.I.G. also drains a massive section of the West Antarctic ice sheet that, alone, would add about 1 meter to global sea level.
Given all this, it should be no surprise that scientists — including those at NASA — have made P.I.G. a high-value science target. Why is it accelerating so rapidly? How much of its ice will move into the sea in future years; how much sea level rise will it cause? These are the questions scientists are trying to answer, using satellite data, observations from low-altitude research flights and even field campaigns to the bitter cold and remote region.

CLIMATE 365