How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Ron in Regina]

I was responding to someone on this Thread reporting this Name Calling.
None of this needs to be taking place during the Game, or not during the
Game as far as it goes....

 

[big]

The side that needs to call the other side names demonstrates a weakness in
either their argument or debating skills. Be that calling someone a Contrarian
or a Heretic or a Denier or what have you....

What name calling has Walter had to lower himself to doing? If it has
happened, then I've missed it....

Walter's stance in this debate may not be the popular opinion, but he's
conducting his debate with honor & dignity.
_______________________________

Right from Walter's thread title, I'm, along with Tonington and billions other persons, being called a victim of myth makers.

 

[AnnaG]

Boohoo for you. This difference is that Tonington and others aren't constantly hijacking threads with barely literate comments on side issues.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, the following bits of info don't help quiet the misinformation any. Damn hackers anyway. Now its even harder to figure out what really is going on.

Good climate news bad for alarmists

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes - Telegraph

Pimedast ookeanisügavusest leiti senitundmatu elu - Forte

Opposing Views: OPINIONroof That Global Warming Advocates Use Deception

So how do we know that this wasn't just some hacker trying to throw doubt on people researching global warming or climate change or whatever it's called this month?

 

[AnnaG]

From the 22nd:

Global carbon emissions reach all-time high

Global carbon emissions reach all-time high: Journal

 

[big]

Boohoo for you. This difference is that Tonington and others aren't constantly hijacking threads with barely literate comments on side issues.

I'm not about to let die a thread implicitly accusing me of being a victim of myth-makers without insisting on receiving some strong arguments; this is a reason, good enough I think, to implicitly insinuating that Walter is one of the wrongdoers (or one of their witnesses) who deny their behaviors.

 

[AnnaG]

I'm not about to let die a thread implicitly accusing me of being a victim of myth-makers without insisting on receiving some strong arguments; this is a reason, good enough I think, to implicitly insinuating that Walter is one of the wrongdoers (or one of their witnesses) who deny their behaviors.

Whatever.

Back to the topic:

Climate change poses a huge barrier to a fulfilling future, argues Lord Puttnam, an ambassador for Unicef UK. In this week's Green Room, he asks what price children will have to pay for three or four carbon-happy generations?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8374965.stm

 

[big]

Climate science has nothing to do with sentimental sentences about children's welfare.

 

[AnnaG]

Climate science has nothing to do with sentimental sentences about children's welfare.

:roll:In your opinion.

Climate change certainly has something to do with our kids unless there's no climate in the future.

 

[big]

:roll:In your opinion.

Climate change certainly has something to do with our kids unless there's no climate in the future.

Myth-makers were thriving on the belief that other generations are more important than ours.

 

[AnnaG]

Myth-makers were thriving on the belief that other generations are more important than ours.

*shrugs* That's an opinion. So?

 

[big]

*shrugs* That's an opinion. So?

That's an opinion. So?

 

[L Gilbert]

That's an opinion. So?

It looked like an observation to me. But then don't seem to lend much credence to being cogent or lucid. I suspect you smoke a fair bit of pot, guessing by the amount of detouring you do in threads.

I think Dexter's right about you.
That's observation with an opinion attached, BTW. So, do you have anything to say about the topic or are you bent upon trolling more?

Back to the subject at hand:
perpetuated myth? First off, one has to be able to show it's a myth, right? Nothing I've seen here does that.

 

[big]

Back to the subject at hand:
perpetuated myth? First off, one has to be able to show it's a myth, right? Nothing I've seen here does that.

GW has been shown that it's not a myth.

 

[Walter]

Worshipping at church of climate 'science'

By SALIM MANSUR
Last Updated: 28th November 2009, 10:35am

Climate change as a result of the natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth has occurred throughout history.
The proposition that, beginning with the industrial age, this natural cycle might have been adversely affected, causing the Earth's temperature to rise unnaturally and threaten some sort of planetary disaster, is worthy of scientific investigation.
But the proposition became a consensus premise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its first report in 1990.
The IPCC, established by the UN through the efforts of its two organizations -- the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Program -- reports that increased emissions into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are causing a greenhouse effect by raising the Earth's surface temperature.
For nearly two decades, the IPCC-backed "scientific" establishment made this proposition the official dogma of the environmental movement.
It has pushed the policy of forcefully reducing carbon emissions by industrialized and industrializing countries through UN-backed international treaties such as the Kyoto Agreement of 1997.
Legions of enthusiasts
Those who question the consensus premise of the IPCC provide independent research on climate change and are skeptical of climate predictions based on computer models are tagged as "deniers" -- similar to the despicable folks who deny the Holocaust -- by the high priests of the environment movement and their legions of "green" enthusiasts.
Science without a healthy dose of skepticism and which isn't open to hard questioning becomes ideology.
An ideology is a closed system that distorts or excludes empirical data to serve its dogma.
As opposed to ideology or pseudoscience, science advances through critical thinking by subjecting theories to falsification tests and revisions.
There is no church of science except independent researchers commonly engaged in humility, trust in each other's integrity, and certain of one thing, as Einstein noted: "That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
The U.K.-based Climate Research Unit is one of the world's four centres where global-temperature data is compiled.
CRU computers were hacked by a whistleblower. The content of many of the 3,000 leaked e-mails and documents by CRU scientists confirms how much the "science" of man-made global warming has been subjected to deliberately false manipulation of data, deception and pseudoscience.
All in the interests of serving the ideology the IPCC has sold as science and for which it was awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize.
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, a man-made global-warming skeptic and author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming -- The Missing Science.
Answer revealed
Plimer writes that insisting "humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
"The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud."
Now with proof of the scam in the pseudoscience of man-made global warming, the right thing should be a pause in pushing the IPCC agenda by parties invested in promoting it since Kyoto.
But since big governments and organizations such as the UN are not known for acknowledging any error or wrongdoing on their part, the global warming fraud will continue being pushed unless the people put a halt to it.

 

[Walter]

Worshipping at church of climate 'science'

By SALIM MANSUR
Last Updated: 28th November 2009, 10:35am

Climate change as a result of the natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth has occurred throughout history.
The proposition that, beginning with the industrial age, this natural cycle might have been adversely affected, causing the Earth's temperature to rise unnaturally and threaten some sort of planetary disaster, is worthy of scientific investigation.
But the proposition became a consensus premise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its first report in 1990.
The IPCC, established by the UN through the efforts of its two organizations -- the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Program -- reports that increased emissions into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are causing a greenhouse effect by raising the Earth's surface temperature.
For nearly two decades, the IPCC-backed "scientific" establishment made this proposition the official dogma of the environmental movement.
It has pushed the policy of forcefully reducing carbon emissions by industrialized and industrializing countries through UN-backed international treaties such as the Kyoto Agreement of 1997.
Legions of enthusiasts
Those who question the consensus premise of the IPCC provide independent research on climate change and are skeptical of climate predictions based on computer models are tagged as "deniers" -- similar to the despicable folks who deny the Holocaust -- by the high priests of the environment movement and their legions of "green" enthusiasts.
Science without a healthy dose of skepticism and which isn't open to hard questioning becomes ideology.
An ideology is a closed system that distorts or excludes empirical data to serve its dogma.
As opposed to ideology or pseudoscience, science advances through critical thinking by subjecting theories to falsification tests and revisions.
There is no church of science except independent researchers commonly engaged in humility, trust in each other's integrity, and certain of one thing, as Einstein noted: "That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
The U.K.-based Climate Research Unit is one of the world's four centres where global-temperature data is compiled.
CRU computers were hacked by a whistleblower. The content of many of the 3,000 leaked e-mails and documents by CRU scientists confirms how much the "science" of man-made global warming has been subjected to deliberately false manipulation of data, deception and pseudoscience.
All in the interests of serving the ideology the IPCC has sold as science and for which it was awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize.
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, a man-made global-warming skeptic and author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming -- The Missing Science.
Answer revealed
Plimer writes that insisting "humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
"The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud."
Now with proof of the scam in the pseudoscience of man-made global warming, the right thing should be a pause in pushing the IPCC agenda by parties invested in promoting it since Kyoto.
But since big governments and organizations such as the UN are not known for acknowledging any error or wrongdoing on their part, the global warming fraud will continue being pushed unless the people put a halt to it.

 

[TenPenny]

Global Warming now world's most boring topic: report

• Email
• Print
• Normal font
• Large font

Jim Schembri
July 18, 2007

Page 1 of 2 | Single page
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Global warming and the debate over whether man-made carbon gas emissions are having a detrimental influence on climate change has been ranked as the most boring topic of conversation on earth, according to a new report.
The issue of global warming far out-performed other contenders for the title, such as the production of goat cheese, the musical genius of the artist formerly known as P Diddy and media speculation over the likely outcome of the upcoming federal election.
These topics still tracked strongly, according to the report, but global warming was identified as the topic most likely to prompt people into feigning heart attacks so as to avoid hearing the phrases "procrastination penalty", "precautionary principle" and "peer-reviewed analysis" ever again.
The study, conducted by a non-partisan think tank located somewhere between the small township of Tibooburra and the NSW border, identified global warming as the current topic of choice for people who want their dinner party to finish early.
According to the parents in the survey, global warming has now replaced the traditional bedtime story when it comes to putting children to sleep. The study found the topic was also being used instead of water cannon by riot police around the world to disperse crowds.
In a key finding, the survey revealed that the amount of damaging carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of discussing the global warming issue now exceeds the greenhouse gas emissions of northern China.
The survey also raised a number of important issues regarding the global warming debate.
Of those surveyed, 83 per cent said that while they understood both sides of the issue, they did not understand Al Gore.
Participants in the study were asked whether Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth had helped enlighten people to the importance of the global warming issue.
The standard response was that if the issue of global warming is as important and urgent to Gore as he keeps saying every time he is on Letterman, then why didn't he make the movie during the eight years he was vice-president of the United States, the second most powerful position in the world? Why did he wait until his political career was dead?
The issue was also raised as to why Gore personally came out to promote his film in Australia - a relatively insignificant market - and then make a big deal about all the carbon off-setting he had done to counter the pollution his trip had generated. Over 95 per cent of those who took part in the survey wanted to know why he didn't just do it all from his house via satellite

 

[AnnaG]

Worshipping at church of climate 'science'

By SALIM MANSUR
Last Updated: 28th November 2009, 10:35am

Climate change as a result of the natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth has occurred throughout history.
The proposition that, beginning with the industrial age, this natural cycle might have been adversely affected, causing the Earth's temperature to rise unnaturally and threaten some sort of planetary disaster, is worthy of scientific investigation.
But the proposition became a consensus premise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its first report in 1990.
The IPCC, established by the UN through the efforts of its two organizations -- the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Program -- reports that increased emissions into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are causing a greenhouse effect by raising the Earth's surface temperature.
For nearly two decades, the IPCC-backed "scientific" establishment made this proposition the official dogma of the environmental movement.
It has pushed the policy of forcefully reducing carbon emissions by industrialized and industrializing countries through UN-backed international treaties such as the Kyoto Agreement of 1997.
Legions of enthusiasts
Those who question the consensus premise of the IPCC provide independent research on climate change and are skeptical of climate predictions based on computer models are tagged as "deniers" -- similar to the despicable folks who deny the Holocaust -- by the high priests of the environment movement and their legions of "green" enthusiasts.
Science without a healthy dose of skepticism and which isn't open to hard questioning becomes ideology.
An ideology is a closed system that distorts or excludes empirical data to serve its dogma.

And the Church of Climate Science is balanced by the Church of Humans Have Never Done Anything Wrong.

As opposed to ideology or pseudoscience, science advances through critical thinking by subjecting theories to falsification tests and revisions.
There is no church of science except independent researchers commonly engaged in humility, trust in each other's integrity, and certain of one thing, as Einstein noted: "That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

Yup.

The U.K.-based Climate Research Unit is one of the world's four centres where global-temperature data is compiled.
CRU computers were hacked by a whistleblower. The content of many of the 3,000 leaked e-mails and documents by CRU scientists confirms how much the "science" of man-made global warming has been subjected to deliberately false manipulation of data, deception and pseudoscience.

There seems to be a wee bit of exaggeration in this comment. One was hacked. Yet its data seems to coincide with the data of the other 3 that weren't hacked. Go figure. Funny how the climate seems to be doing just as the data says it has been. Go figure.

All in the interests of serving the ideology the IPCC has sold as science and for which it was awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize.
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, a man-made global-warming skeptic and author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming -- The Missing Science.
Answer revealed
Plimer writes that insisting "humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
"The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud."
Now with proof of the scam in the pseudoscience of man-made global warming, the right thing should be a pause in pushing the IPCC agenda by parties invested in promoting it since Kyoto.
But since big governments and organizations such as the UN are not known for acknowledging any error or wrongdoing on their part, the global warming fraud will continue being pushed unless the people put a halt to it.

Are you going to post this "proof of fraud"?

 

[AnnaG]

Worshipping at church of climate 'science'

By SALIM MANSUR
Last Updated: 28th November 2009, 10:35am

Climate change as a result of the natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth has occurred throughout history.
The proposition that, beginning with the industrial age, this natural cycle might have been adversely affected, causing the Earth's temperature to rise unnaturally and threaten some sort of planetary disaster, is worthy of scientific investigation.
But the proposition became a consensus premise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its first report in 1990.
The IPCC, established by the UN through the efforts of its two organizations -- the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Program -- reports that increased emissions into the atmosphere as a result of human activity are causing a greenhouse effect by raising the Earth's surface temperature.
For nearly two decades, the IPCC-backed "scientific" establishment made this proposition the official dogma of the environmental movement.
It has pushed the policy of forcefully reducing carbon emissions by industrialized and industrializing countries through UN-backed international treaties such as the Kyoto Agreement of 1997.
Legions of enthusiasts
Those who question the consensus premise of the IPCC provide independent research on climate change and are skeptical of climate predictions based on computer models are tagged as "deniers" -- similar to the despicable folks who deny the Holocaust -- by the high priests of the environment movement and their legions of "green" enthusiasts.
Science without a healthy dose of skepticism and which isn't open to hard questioning becomes ideology.
An ideology is a closed system that distorts or excludes empirical data to serve its dogma.
As opposed to ideology or pseudoscience, science advances through critical thinking by subjecting theories to falsification tests and revisions.
There is no church of science except independent researchers commonly engaged in humility, trust in each other's integrity, and certain of one thing, as Einstein noted: "That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
The U.K.-based Climate Research Unit is one of the world's four centres where global-temperature data is compiled.
CRU computers were hacked by a whistleblower. The content of many of the 3,000 leaked e-mails and documents by CRU scientists confirms how much the "science" of man-made global warming has been subjected to deliberately false manipulation of data, deception and pseudoscience.
All in the interests of serving the ideology the IPCC has sold as science and for which it was awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize.
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, a man-made global-warming skeptic and author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming -- The Missing Science.
Answer revealed
Plimer writes that insisting "humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
"The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud."
Now with proof of the scam in the pseudoscience of man-made global warming, the right thing should be a pause in pushing the IPCC agenda by parties invested in promoting it since Kyoto.
But since big governments and organizations such as the UN are not known for acknowledging any error or wrongdoing on their part, the global warming fraud will continue being pushed unless the people put a halt to it.

Do you think being redundant awards you more credibility?

 

[AnnaG]

Global Warming now world's most boring topic: report

• Email
• Print
• Normal font
• Large font

Jim Schembri
July 18, 2007

Page 1 of 2 | Single page
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Global warming and the debate over whether man-made carbon gas emissions are having a detrimental influence on climate change has been ranked as the most boring topic of conversation on earth, according to a new report.

lol People have attention spans similar to dogs.

 

[big]

Global Warming now world's most boring topic: report

I think people say they are bored when they are annoyed.