AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
A new paper out this week on one of Petros' favourite tiny radiative forcings...contrails.
The error they quantified when correcting model bias was very large, 25%!!! The climate model they looked at was underestimating the optical depth over America by 25% when compared against satellite values.
Interesting. So contrail forcing is now somewhere between 8–20 mW/m2 , while anthropogenic forcing is still somewhere around 1,500 mW/m2.
Everybody get down!
Everybody get down!
This is still a really easy issue to see the light at the end of the tunnel with. The bullying and misrepresentations that the Green Nazis do makes it clear that they are the ones with the big business, and international banks behind them, let alone the Rothschilds paying for Al Gore's little campaign. How did NAFTA work out? Exactly, it was big business, and big banking screwing the middle class. Just the same as Global Warming is and just the same as anything with Al Gore behind it will be. It's not real science because they decide on the outcome before they actually study anything and make sure that only their side of the issue is ever studied. Even if they were right, they still have zero credibility. There is not a credible piece of information on Planet Earth that concludes that the Earth is warming. It's not science. It's a dictatorship. When there is real science happening they might actually convince somebody. That won't happen though because if global warming is out there they have over exaggerated it ten fold anyways.
We're already done with the Illuminati theory, Skatch. Unless you have some sort of scientific foundation of an agenda, we usually try to keep the conspiracy rhetoric out of the discussion. It's good to question authority on principle, but banging the empty drum doesn't really help.
Also, no one here is blindly accepting AGW as some sort of doomsday theory that ends the world in 10 years. The focus is still on getting over the fact that it exists and is a legitimate threat for the distant future that preventative measures can alleviate now.
Also, no one here is blindly accepting AGW as some sort of doomsday theory that ends the world in 10 years. The focus is still on getting over the fact that it exists and is a legitimate threat for the distant future that preventative measures can alleviate now.
so who decides what theories are "done" and what are worth keeping in discussions? You? If so, what are your qualifications to do so? I simply pointed out that thr Rothschilds fund Al Gore. That's actually not a theory. They do fund him. They paid for Live Aid. His little earth concert to raise money for himself.
It's also true that the scientific community is not conducting science. They are bullying their opinions as facts. Maybe it is true. Maybe the Earth is warming. I'm just saying that until there is legitimate science with unbiased free thinking allowed there will be no way to move forward with preventative measures and determining a threat level. If you don't actually know what is what you can't fix the problem.
No it isn't.
Observations aren't opinions.
It is warming.
Define legitimate science.
All you've done is throw out assertions as truth, unfounded assertions. That's not what I would call factual.
What happens now?
CHERSKY, Russia – The Russian scientist shuffles across the frozen lake, scuffing aside ankle-deep snow until he finds a cluster of bubbles trapped under the ice. With a cigarette lighter in one hand and a knife in the other, he lances the ice like a blister. Methane whooshes out and bursts into a thin blue flame.
Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_siberian_meltdown
CHERSKY, Russia – The Russian scientist shuffles across the frozen lake, scuffing aside ankle-deep snow until he finds a cluster of bubbles trapped under the ice. With a cigarette lighter in one hand and a knife in the other, he lances the ice like a blister. Methane whooshes out and bursts into a thin blue flame.
Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_siberian_meltdown
So when people observe that the Earth has actually cooled in recent years, then what? Oh, they are full of crap but you're scientists aren't??? I am not throwing anything out there that is an assertion. I rightly admit that I don't believe any of the science, completely, on either side of the debate. You are the one making assertions. I am not. I am just pointing out that for every bit of science saying one thing there is science saying another.
Legitimate science is when the answer isn't known before the experiments are done. It's also when you don't get fired or have your funding cut for getting a different answer than what the bully pulpit morons want you to have, which did and has happened.
Back to what I said. I said nothing of any conspiracy. I simply brought up that the Rothschilds are financial backers and endorsers of Al Gore. They are. That is not an assertion. They have done interviews campaigning for the events he was putting on to raise money for his GW agenda. It is very factual to point that out. It is also very factual to point out that the very findings used to say that the world is warming have been sullied by the Climategate scandal. What happened there is very clear. They lied and misrepresented data. They colluded to ensure funding and positions were taken away from disagreeing scientists. That can't be argued. It happened. It's very clear.
That doesn't mean the Earth isn't warming. It may well be. I'm just saying that I don't believe these A holes because they aren't credible. You can go ahead and believe them. You all can if you want. I don't really care what you believe. The science behind GW is not credible. It's tainted, to say the least. And the political and financial agendas of the people involved in bullying the message home also has to be taken into account. Who trusts Al Gore or the Rothschilds? You'd have to be stupid.
Equally stupid is thinking these "scientists" are giving you accurate information. If I know that there is huge financial incentive for me to conclude that the earth is warming, which is undeniably true, and absolutely zero financial incentive in me finding it to be hogwash, what do you think I'd conclude? Not to mention, that not only can you not get funding to do the research unless you conclude that the world is warming but you also have people actively trying to get you fired, discredited and abolished from the scientific community. In that environment, it doesn't matter what any of them conclude and how they've supposedly set up their research, whatever they say can't be trusted.
Then that is called cherry picking. There's an entire record to use, and it also has ups and downs. Climate change like that humans are imposing now doesn't mean monotonic increases in global temperature every year...anyone who uses this argument is indeed full of crap.
Skatch criticizing objectivity in science and then using anecdotal evidence and isolated events to plead his case, lol
YouTube - Rep. Inglis attacks GOP on climate change
and.....
Sherwood Boehlert (a republican who represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007) wrote a piece in today’s Washington Post asking, “Can the Party of Reagan Accept the Science of Climate Change?”.
Of course, this is no longer the party of Reagan, who would be seen as a flaming, florid, flamboyant socialist by the current crop of Beck-ites and Palin-oids.
Excerpt:
“I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.
What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.”
..including, I might add, cap and trade, which was developed in the Reagan White House.
and.....
Sherwood Boehlert (a republican who represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007) wrote a piece in today’s Washington Post asking, “Can the Party of Reagan Accept the Science of Climate Change?”.
Of course, this is no longer the party of Reagan, who would be seen as a flaming, florid, flamboyant socialist by the current crop of Beck-ites and Palin-oids.
Excerpt:
“I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.
What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.”
..including, I might add, cap and trade, which was developed in the Reagan White House.
You're full of crap
That entire record, you speak of, is the record that we know was tainted with misinformation and data misrepresentation. They admitted this in their own emails. Neither side has a legit record to point to. That's the whole point. One can not say for certain on either side of the debate that they are right. It is not known what is right. That's the junk science going on today. That's the problem. The idea of science is hypothesis and proof. It is known that at no time in human history have we ever fully understood the world or have even been really close to it. It is arrogance and elitism on the part of the so called scientific community to even think they "know" that man is causing the Earth to warm. They have no f'ing clue. They have been wrong about virtually everything that they have ever stood in their ivory tower and propagandized about in the past. What makes this the first time they aren't wrong?
Testing the Earth's temperature is an isolated event, in itself. The truth is, you're just a moron like every other partisan moron out here. Your position is no different than the partisan conservatives that defended Bush tripling the size of government, the partisan liberals that defended Dion's stupidity, the partisan westerners that still support Harper even though he screwed us just as much as the Liberals did to give Quebec everything, the partisan Christians that blindly support Israeli policy because they are stupid and think it's the end times, the partisan Leafs fans that defend the Kessel trade. I could go on and on. It's all the same. You guys try to call me the one with an agenda. Accusing me of conspiracy stuff and saying that my opinion is based on isolated events and anecdotal evidence when your opinion is just based on what you WANT to be true but you're too stupid to see the forest through the trees.
I don't have anything to gain either way in this issue. I have no rooting interest. I used to believe this crap, like you all do. I don't anymore because unlike GW green idiots, I can think and reason for myself without being part of a mainstream thought process put in place to control people.
Why would they conspire to manipulate data if they didn't need to? If the earth is warming why would they not want scientists that don't think it is to let their opinion out too so people could see it for being ridiculous? Unless of course, it's not warming and their opinions aren't ridiculous. That is the only logical answer to come to. Of course, they're full of sh1t. They're always full of it and they always have been full of it. These are the same morons that did a Life magazine cover in the 70s about the threat of man made global cooling. I know nothing scientifically on this issue, and neither do any of you btw, but at least I have the integrity to admit that the so called "authorities" on the issue are a bunch of lying morons with a monetary agenda. It's more than can be said for either of you two idiots.
You're full of crap
Ahh, so I'm full of crap for using what you say is a crappy record (with nothing but baseless assertions no less,) that must mean the $hit is oozing out every one of your orifices if you're cherry picking from data sets that you say are illegitimate.
That's standard denier tactics though. Use the record when it suits you, and trample it when it doesn't.
Others have verified those records you denounce. If you have the math skills, try following the work they do at clear climate code. It's all documented, and they've validated the work of the surface station thermometer based temperature records like NASA GISSTemp and HadCRUTEM and the GHCN.
Yes, they do. The thermometer records are in agreement with the satellites. The temperature records are in agreement with broad and robust measurements of ocean heat content, receding glaciers, changes in atmospheric water vapour content, melting sea ice, increasing sea level, poleward migrations of temperate species, poleward migration of isotherms, earlier blooming dates for flowering plants, and a host of other physical and phenological indicators.
It's pure delusion to think this is mere coincidence.
Don't bother Ton. He's just going to throw a hissy fit filled blabber-fest worse than before.
It's not a bother at all to debunk his nonsense. I'm an eternal optimist though. Maybe one day they'll remove the blinders.
