AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Avro
#31
YouTube - Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1
 
Tonington
#32
Ball squirms with the best of them.
 
AnnaG
#33
lol Is AGW denial the biggest scam in history? I don't think so. Doesn't something have to be fraudulent to be a scam? I think there really are people around who really deny AGW. lol
 
relic
#34
Sombody has Daffy confused with Sylvester
 
AnnaG
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

Sombody has Daffy confused with Sylvester

Are you in the right forum?
 
Avro
#36
Second expert panel shows "ClimateGate" was a ClimateSham

An independent panel of experts in the United Kingdom has released a report finding there to be, "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."
The inquiry was headed by former Chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, Lord Oxburgh.
As reported in the Economist today, "The scientists in 'climategate' did not fudge the data."
The Wall Street Journal writes on the matter that:
"An independent academic panel said Wednesday that the U.K. climate researchers at the center of a scandal over hacked emails didn't commit any deliberate scientific malpractice."
This is the second inquiry out of the UK in the last month finding no wrongdoing around the so-called "climategate" incident involving the theft of private emails from top climate researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
An inquiry last month led by a bi-partisan UK government committee found the claims made around the stolen emails to be without merit.
The bi-partisan committee found that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”
You can download that report here: “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
 
AnnaG
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Second expert panel shows "ClimateGate" was a ClimateSham

An independent panel of experts in the United Kingdom has released a report finding there to be, "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."
The inquiry was headed by former Chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, Lord Oxburgh.
As reported in the Economist today, "The scientists in 'climategate' did not fudge the data."
The Wall Street Journal writes on the matter that:

"An independent academic panel said Wednesday that the U.K. climate researchers at the center of a scandal over hacked emails didn't commit any deliberate scientific malpractice."
This is the second inquiry out of the UK in the last month finding no wrongdoing around the so-called "climategate" incident involving the theft of private emails from top climate researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
An inquiry last month led by a bi-partisan UK government committee found the claims made around the stolen emails to be without merit.
The bi-partisan committee found that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”
You can download that report here: “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”

lol Oh, but the expert panel was rigged.
 
Avro
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

lol Oh, but the expert panel was rigged.

...but of course.
 
AnnaG
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

...but of course.

Probably by Snooozuki and Bore.
 
Avro
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Probably by Snooozuki and Bore.


The two douches that have helped politicize it?

Nah, facts are the real enemy of climate sceptics.
 
darkbeaver
#41
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY



Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.


OK I'm willing to awknowledge the anthropocentic CO2 load that my horrible ancestors and me dumped on this planet. Please calculate my share of the global bill and add it to the cheque for my cheezeburger and I'll handle it on the way out.DB
 
AnnaG
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

The two douches that have helped politicize it?

Nah, facts are the real enemy of climate sceptics.

Oh, I know, I just had to mention the world's favorite commentators on the issue, though.
 
AnnaG
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY



Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.


OK I'm willing to awknowledge the anthropocentic CO2 load that my horrible ancestors and me dumped on this planet. Please calculate my share of the global bill and add it to the cheque for my cheezeburger and I'll handle it on the way out.DB

Nuclear explosions are natural, too. So?
 
CDNBear
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

...but of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Probably by Snooozuki and Bore.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

The two douches that have helped politicize it?

Nah, facts are the real enemy of climate sceptics.

Yes facts like this...

Quote:

Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major windfarms in the U.K., France, Spain and Italy, and he’s chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $-trillion industry by 2050.

Yes, Lord Oxburgh has impeccable credentials on the subject. So much for the spirit of impartiality...

And you guys wonder why I'm so jaded and cynical?
 
Tonington
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

This doesn't prove that climate change is natural. First, geologic budgets of carbon don't apply to our timescale. Second, this analogy: A tub is filled three quarters full, and the flow adjusted so that the water exiting the overflow is balanced by the water coming through the faucet. Adding additional water from another source, even if it's just a drip, will still fill the tub.
 
EagleSmack
#46
Ok... quick...eveyone give Trillions of Loonies to Africa and Asia. That will stop it.
 
Tonington
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Ok... quick...eveyone give Trillions of Loonies to Africa and Asia. That will stop it.



Some people don't even want us to debate this. They prefer to obfuscate enough that the policies aren't debated at all.
 
AnnaG
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Yes facts like this...

Yes, Lord Oxburgh has impeccable credentials on the subject. So much for the spirit of impartiality...

And you guys wonder why I'm so jaded and cynical?

lol If the panel only consisted of Lord Oxburgh, I can see a lot of scepticism in the issue. A variety of people, not so much.
All the panels forever more will be labeled "conspiracies to cloud the truth and the facts" of everything.
 
EagleSmack
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post



Some people don't even want us to debate this. They prefer to obfuscate enough that the policies aren't debated at all.


Well to say the climate isn't changing or never will change is absolute nonsense. Boston was once under an ice sheet 3/4 Mile thick. It was also a tropical swamp at one time.

But Climate Change (no longer called Global Warming for some odd reason) is nothing but a tool for the environmentalist to get what they want and to force nations to pay up to so call undeveloped nations.
 
CDNBear
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

lol If the panel only consisted of Lord Oxburgh, I can see a lot of scepticism in the issue. A variety of people, not so much.
All the panels forever more will be labeled "conspiracies to cloud the truth and the facts" of everything.

So you'd think Anna. But it throws a shadow on the panel, period.
 
AnnaG
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

So you'd think Anna. But it throws a shadow on the panel, period.

Yup. But even if there was an issue where there is no avenue for doubt, there will be some twit who will doubt. lol IE: Earth's orbit around the sun, flatearthers, etc.
 
darkbeaver
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

This doesn't prove that climate change is natural. First, geologic budgets of carbon don't apply to our timescale. Second, this analogy: A tub is filled three quarters full, and the flow adjusted so that the water exiting the overflow is balanced by the water coming through the faucet. Adding additional water from another source, even if it's just a drip, will still fill the tub.

Of course climate change is natural, even the change that we may bring on is natural. How in the hell can we have unnatural climate change. What is the unnatural agent of the change? The planet does not have a fixed capacity for anything. The bathtub has a fixed capacity the planet does not. Our capacity is variable and that capacity has changed hugely and rapidly through all time right up to the present change of mass we're witnessing with the volcano. The planet has no permanently fixed diameter or capacity, its variable like everything else here.
 
Tonington
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Well to say the climate isn't changing or never will change is absolute nonsense. Boston was once under an ice sheet 3/4 Mile thick. It was also a tropical swamp at one time.

And what? You're talking about the kinds of changes found in geologic time. Compared to that, our climate over a one hundred year period is very stable. Of course it changes. If it didn't then we wouldn't be interested in studying climate change at all now would we?



Quote:

But Climate Change (no longer called Global Warming for some odd reason) is nothing but a tool for the environmentalist to get what they want and to force nations to pay up to so call undeveloped nations.

Global warming describes one aspect of climate change. Climate also includes precipitation, circulation patterns, cloudiness, humidity, surface pressure, etc.

So long as some are stuck debating facts already established, then the ones who you say are trying to force the payment issue will have fewer credible opponents at the negotiating table.
 
EagleSmack
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post


So long as some are stuck debating facts already established, then the ones who you say are trying to force the payment issue will have fewer credible opponents at the negotiating table.

Ya think?

How did Copenhagen work out for the ones who are trying to force payment? Even Obama brushed them off and he claims to agree with them.

How did Kyoto do? Nobody even bothered following it.
 
Tonington
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Of course climate change is natural, even the change that we may bring on is natural. How in the hell can we have unnatural climate change. What is the unnatural agent of the change? The planet does not have a fixed capacity for anything.

That's stupid. Of course the planet has fixed capacities. How much land can be farmed?

Quote:

The bathtub has a fixed capacity the planet does not.

The bath tub is in a room. A room in a house. A house on land. Land on a planet. The planet has support systems with finite horizons. Don't talk so foolishly.

Quote:

Our capacity is variable and that capacity has changed hugely and rapidly through all time right up to the present change of mass we're witnessing with the volcano.

How does a volcano produce more mass? The mass it's spewing out was already here. Now you're violating laws of physics.

Quote:

The planet has no permanently fixed diameter or capacity, its variable like everything else here.

No, but it does have momentary capacity.

You're talking as foolishly as those who argue for constant GDP growth.
 
darkbeaver
#56
Huge catastrophic geologic change has taken place in recent geologic time and is a matter of scientific record. The birth of the Sahara desert is a matter of historical record. Drastic destructive climatic change is not at all novel.
 
EagleSmack
#57
... and I praise Obama for telling them to stick it. And I enjoyed listening to the people on NPR stamping their feet and yelling that all Obama had to do was sign the paper and keep his mouth shut but didn't.

Good for Obama.
 
Tonington
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Ya think?

How did Copenhagen work out for the ones who are trying to force payment? Even Obama brushed them off and he claims to agree with them.

LOL, so environmentalists aren't the monolithic group you stated they were earlier...

Goal posts are that way smack -------------->

 
Tonington
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Huge catastrophic geologic change has taken place in recent geologic time and is a matter of scientific record.

Duh.

Show me how geologic time scales dictate decadal or even century scale processes.
 
darkbeaver
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

That's stupid. Of course the planet has fixed capacities. How much land can be farmed?

The bath tub is in a room. A room in a house. A house on land. Land on a planet. The planet has support systems with finite horizons. Don't talk so foolishly.

How does a volcano produce more mass? The mass it's spewing out was already here. Now you're violating laws of physics.

No, but it does have momentary capacity.

You're talking as foolishly as those who argue for constant GDP growth.

The bathtub has fixed parameters the planet does not. I mentioned the incoming mass before but you didn't consider it, that variable mass is absolutely necessary for orbital stability.
If the mass was already here what was added to the other ends of the lava tubes to push it to erupt on the surface? And if you're going to say heat and pressure where or how did the extra watts come from?
Constant growth of GDP depends on constant growth of consumers geology is oblivious to both.
I even dropped a nice chart in this thread showing the different geologic ages and the size of the planet at the time. Apparently the reason we don't have big dinosaurs these days is the gravity is now too strong to support giants. Oh and don't mention plate tectonics cuz I ain't entertaining that nonsense anymore.
 

Similar Threads

60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008