There are a few people around that do. They hooked up with those like the Beav, that say Earth isn't warming. Birds of a scale, flail together. (It ordinarily is "birds of a feather ..." but as there seems to be something that replaced the rational thought processes of these people, I replaced feathers with scales).
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Technically you're right Anna, but not by too much. TAke away the sun and there's no body around who really gives a sh*t. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Have yourself a nice day.
We'd have to do a lot of quick adapting..................that's for sure..........:lol::lol::lol::lol:
A list of the nonsolar causes of earth climate is in order AnnaG. I'm sure you will have some. The global climate is cooling, of this there is no doubt. In a couple of years, maybe even this winter, you will become less inclined to support the warming climate
product of finance. Prepare for the coming Age of Toboggans.
I am a polluter and damn proud of it. Those like me? You do mean heretics, don't you Reverend Anna.
Blah blah blah. How does charge influence absorption and emission? How do you use charge to derive the influence of specific forms of matter in the atmosphere on specific wavelengths? How do you reconcile your claims regarding charge to spectroscopic measurements?
Show me, don't tell me.
Make a prediction using your charge hypothesis and we'll come back at a later date to evaluate.
They will. See my thread here.
Congratulations are in order Walt! When do you get your official conspiracy theorist membership card? DarkBeaver can help you out with the list of reference websites, though I know you visit quite a few already.
Provide it then.
I do have evidence, but as you seem to refuse to provide evidence for your claims, I won't either.
Bullshyte.
It's a possibility, but I doubt it.
That is, indirectly, one of the causes.
Why? We still get winters. You are speaking of weather patterns. This is climate topics. Just because the mean temperatures are climbing doesn't mean weather quits. :roll:
You revere me? Why thank you, Beav.I am a polluter and damn proud of it. Those like me? You do mean heretics, don't you Reverend Anna.
But, alas, I do not treasure being revered by people who love polluting and are proud of it. Nice try, though.
December 12, 2009
The shocking lesson from the climate scandal
By Monte Kuligowski
[FONT=times new roman,times]President Obama's complete lack of concern for the fraudulent science associated with global warming is contrasted with the common sense of Sarah Palin. The gutsy Alaskan suggested that Obama ought to hold his horses on the whole climate change thing until The real verdict is in. Of course, the smartest man in the world will have none of that.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]With the outrageous news of deceit, fraud and suppression of opposing evidence by top climate change "scientists," many conservatives had expected to see the story unfold a little differently (with actual reporting and [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]investigating[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]). Global warming, aka, climate change has been heralded as the preeminent story of our time. As such, the exposing of scientific fraud in the ultimate "science" movement would have made screaming headline news in a sane world.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Unfortunately, however, we've seen a virtual [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]blackballing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]story[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that otherwise would have had a chilling effect on man-caused climate change (MCCC) theory. At best for the hoax deniers, MCCC has been brought into serious question (which would imply the suspension of policy and taxpayer funds). At worst, MCCC has been exposed as the fraud that it always has been. Amazingly, and almost inexplicably, since the East Anglia CRU emails story broke, we've witnessed a barrage of stories promoting global warming as if nothing unusual had occurred.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Here are some recent headlines during the time that scientific fraud should have been the real story: "Climate experts warn: Time to change, or else -- Shift in development and farming advised;" "Global warming may require higher dams, stilts;" "India gives in to US pressure on climate change;" "Dalai Lama says climate change needs global action;" "Toronto is acting on climate change;" "US proposes climate fund for poor nations;" "UN official calls for funds for climate change;" "Climate pledge made by key countries."[/FONT]
bahgdad bob you tube - Bing Video#
The shocking lesson from the climate scandal
By Monte Kuligowski
[FONT=times new roman,times]President Obama's complete lack of concern for the fraudulent science associated with global warming is contrasted with the common sense of Sarah Palin. The gutsy Alaskan suggested that Obama ought to hold his horses on the whole climate change thing until The real verdict is in. Of course, the smartest man in the world will have none of that.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]With the outrageous news of deceit, fraud and suppression of opposing evidence by top climate change "scientists," many conservatives had expected to see the story unfold a little differently (with actual reporting and [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]investigating[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]). Global warming, aka, climate change has been heralded as the preeminent story of our time. As such, the exposing of scientific fraud in the ultimate "science" movement would have made screaming headline news in a sane world.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Unfortunately, however, we've seen a virtual [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]blackballing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]story[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that otherwise would have had a chilling effect on man-caused climate change (MCCC) theory. At best for the hoax deniers, MCCC has been brought into serious question (which would imply the suspension of policy and taxpayer funds). At worst, MCCC has been exposed as the fraud that it always has been. Amazingly, and almost inexplicably, since the East Anglia CRU emails story broke, we've witnessed a barrage of stories promoting global warming as if nothing unusual had occurred.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Here are some recent headlines during the time that scientific fraud should have been the real story: "Climate experts warn: Time to change, or else -- Shift in development and farming advised;" "Global warming may require higher dams, stilts;" "India gives in to US pressure on climate change;" "Dalai Lama says climate change needs global action;" "Toronto is acting on climate change;" "US proposes climate fund for poor nations;" "UN official calls for funds for climate change;" "Climate pledge made by key countries."[/FONT]
bahgdad bob you tube - Bing Video#
UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate
by Mike Flynn A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
YouTube - Armed Response to 'Climategate' question
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
by Mike Flynn A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
YouTube - Armed Response to 'Climategate' question
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
The global-warming Inquisition
December 12, 2009
Ralph Peters
In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced to recant his life’s work. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun threatened the church establishment’s doctrine. Galileo was worse than right — he was inconvenient.
Since his trial, scientists have mythologized him as their secular saint.
How times have changed: With the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of inquisitors — suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming clergy.
There are two potentially world-changing issues in play. First, as President Obama prepares yet another soaring speech, this time for Copenhagen, we face the complex issue of climate change.
The second vexing issue is: Can we trust our scientists? They’re supposed to be the guardians of truth, who unlock the secrets of the universe with scrupulous objectivity. Can we survive scientists who lie to influence policy?
On the first count — the global- warming question — I’m like most Americans: I lack the technical background to investigate and judge the data myself. Is climate change real? Yes. But the climate has always changed in great cycles. Are today’s changes man-made and newly destructive? I don’t know — although I suspect we make things worse.
It would help if I could depend on scientists to lay out the case honestly. But now we find that some of the most influential specialists on climate change are outright liars, manipulating data and (shades of Inquisition bookburnings) using the peer-review process to silence those who suggest that global warming’s more complex than Al Gore claims.
This matters. Because we non-experts are trying to find our way. Responsible citizens care about the environment, if to varying degrees — who among us doesn’t want clean drinking water?
Most of us are willing to do sensible things to safeguard the environment. But we don’t want to break our economy. Nor do we want to give China, the world’s worst polluter, a free pass. Rational burdens shared make sense, but ideology-driven restrictions unfairly applied won’t fly (despite the Obama administration’s attempts to end-run Congress).
And sorry: A green-jobs revolution remains a dream. Americans need real jobs now. Does it really have to be either/or? I’m a conservationist, but not an environmentalist. The difference? A conservationist believes that trees are important. An environmentalist believes that trees are more important than people. I love the outdoors, but I also like electricity.
And I don’t like agreements that only we, the Canadians and a few European nations will honor. I don’t want vast sums of money poured into corrupt foreign governments, leading to worse environmental degradation. Unearned wealth transfers between classes or continents are poisonous to all parties. Let’s not do further damage to the human environment.
December 12, 2009
Ralph Peters
In the most notorious trial in the history of science, the Inquisition condemned Galileo in 1633. The aged scientist was forced to recant his life’s work. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun threatened the church establishment’s doctrine. Galileo was worse than right — he was inconvenient.
Since his trial, scientists have mythologized him as their secular saint.
How times have changed: With the Climategate scandal, we now find scientists in the role of inquisitors — suppressing inconvenient facts and persecuting researchers who challenge the doctrine decreed by the Global Warming clergy.
There are two potentially world-changing issues in play. First, as President Obama prepares yet another soaring speech, this time for Copenhagen, we face the complex issue of climate change.
The second vexing issue is: Can we trust our scientists? They’re supposed to be the guardians of truth, who unlock the secrets of the universe with scrupulous objectivity. Can we survive scientists who lie to influence policy?
On the first count — the global- warming question — I’m like most Americans: I lack the technical background to investigate and judge the data myself. Is climate change real? Yes. But the climate has always changed in great cycles. Are today’s changes man-made and newly destructive? I don’t know — although I suspect we make things worse.
It would help if I could depend on scientists to lay out the case honestly. But now we find that some of the most influential specialists on climate change are outright liars, manipulating data and (shades of Inquisition bookburnings) using the peer-review process to silence those who suggest that global warming’s more complex than Al Gore claims.
This matters. Because we non-experts are trying to find our way. Responsible citizens care about the environment, if to varying degrees — who among us doesn’t want clean drinking water?
Most of us are willing to do sensible things to safeguard the environment. But we don’t want to break our economy. Nor do we want to give China, the world’s worst polluter, a free pass. Rational burdens shared make sense, but ideology-driven restrictions unfairly applied won’t fly (despite the Obama administration’s attempts to end-run Congress).
And sorry: A green-jobs revolution remains a dream. Americans need real jobs now. Does it really have to be either/or? I’m a conservationist, but not an environmentalist. The difference? A conservationist believes that trees are important. An environmentalist believes that trees are more important than people. I love the outdoors, but I also like electricity.
And I don’t like agreements that only we, the Canadians and a few European nations will honor. I don’t want vast sums of money poured into corrupt foreign governments, leading to worse environmental degradation. Unearned wealth transfers between classes or continents are poisonous to all parties. Let’s not do further damage to the human environment.
That would be your antiwarming terrorist. Thank god the thought police are alive and kicking.
Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale
12 12 2009
One of the favorite buzzwords of alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming. Yah, the Earth’s never, ever, been hotter, the “hockey stick” proves it, it’s unprecedented, and its all your fault!
Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website. But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.
The source of inspiration is from my post Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data. And the source of inspiration for that is from J. Storrs Hall, writing here.
WUWT reader “docattheautopsy” produced a YouTube video for us for distribution for which I’m grateful and you can see below. I’ve also produced an animated GIF which is done somewhat like a video, since not all blogs and websites can support video. Here is the low-res version at 480 pixels wide. As you go back in time, our “unprecendented” temperatures of the present day don’t seem quite so large, when put in perspective of geologic time.
Low res version - click for hi-definition version (0.7MB)
Here are the permalinks to both the low-res and hi-def versions:
Low-res: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim.gif
Hi-Definition: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def.gif
And here is a YouTube video showing the same process:
YouTube - The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data
Just a couple of caveats to mention:
1) The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900
2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.
3) From the observed temperature change in the last century, one could add about a .5C to 0.7C line to the end of the ice core data. It does not change the conclusion
Fairly definitive, I'd say.
12 12 2009
One of the favorite buzzwords of alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming. Yah, the Earth’s never, ever, been hotter, the “hockey stick” proves it, it’s unprecedented, and its all your fault!
Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website. But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.
The source of inspiration is from my post Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data. And the source of inspiration for that is from J. Storrs Hall, writing here.
WUWT reader “docattheautopsy” produced a YouTube video for us for distribution for which I’m grateful and you can see below. I’ve also produced an animated GIF which is done somewhat like a video, since not all blogs and websites can support video. Here is the low-res version at 480 pixels wide. As you go back in time, our “unprecendented” temperatures of the present day don’t seem quite so large, when put in perspective of geologic time.
Low res version - click for hi-definition version (0.7MB)Here are the permalinks to both the low-res and hi-def versions:
Low-res: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim.gif
Hi-Definition: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def.gif
And here is a YouTube video showing the same process:
YouTube - The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data
Just a couple of caveats to mention:
1) The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900
2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.
3) From the observed temperature change in the last century, one could add about a .5C to 0.7C line to the end of the ice core data. It does not change the conclusion
Fairly definitive, I'd say.
Data is data. What seems unprecedented to me is that the cycle of alternate warming and cooling has hit a roadblock. Earth should have started cooling according to the cycle but hasn't. Whining about how thew data is presented is just that, whining. It doesn't change anything but it does serve to polarize people.
What is definitive? I didn't see any attribution there at all. Pointing at graphs is a good way to show relationships, but it's not very informative for attributing the spikes, dips, and plateaus to particular causes or interactions.
The evidence gathered doesn't point to a transient climate change.
December 16, 2009
'New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom: '
Ben-Peter Terpstra
[FONT=times new roman,times]Why is climate change natural? For some family holiday fun, pick your favorite reason. Thanks to the United Kingdom's Daily Express - there are 100 choices! [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]For some extremely subversive fun - but be careful now - read Tim Blair's sixteen reasons for laughing at The New York Times (aka The Church of Global Warming) in Australia:[/FONT]
'New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom: '
Ben-Peter Terpstra
[FONT=times new roman,times]Why is climate change natural? For some family holiday fun, pick your favorite reason. Thanks to the United Kingdom's Daily Express - there are 100 choices! [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]For some extremely subversive fun - but be careful now - read Tim Blair's sixteen reasons for laughing at The New York Times (aka The Church of Global Warming) in Australia:[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom: [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1881: "This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting ..." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1932: "NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1934: "New Evidence Supports Geology's View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1937: "Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1954: "The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1957: "U.S. Arctic Station Melting" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1958: "At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago]." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1959: "Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1971: "STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1979: "A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth's ice caps." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1982: "Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels ..." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]And so on.[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]• 1881: "This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting ..." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1932: "NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1934: "New Evidence Supports Geology's View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1937: "Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1954: "The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1957: "U.S. Arctic Station Melting" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1958: "At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago]." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1959: "Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1971: "STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities" [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1979: "A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth's ice caps." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]• 1982: "Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels ..." [/FONT]
- Status