69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[darkbeaver]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/Some Big Lies of Science by Denis G. Rancourtsome big lies of science
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”
– Harold Pinter, 2005

A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 for a laboratory demonstration that CFCs could deplete ozone in simulated atmospheric conditions. In 2007 it was shown that the latter work may have been seriously flawed by overestimating the depletion rate by an order of magnitude, thereby invalidating the proposed mechanism for CFC-driven ozone depletion [3]. Not to mention that any laboratory experiment is somewhat different from the actual upper atmosphere... Is the Nobel tainted by media and special interest lobbying?

It gets better. It turns out that the Dupont replacement refrigerant is, not surprisingly, not as inert as was Freon. As a result it corrodes refrigerator cycle components at a much faster rate. Where home refrigerators and freezers lasted forever, they now burn out in eight years or so. This has caused catastrophic increases in major appliance contributions to land fill sites across North America; spurred on by the green propaganda for obscenely efficient electrical consumptions of the new appliances under closed door (zero use) conditions.

 

[petros]

• About us
• Issues
• What you can do
• Blogs
• David
• Donate

Close
Sign up for our newsletter and get the latest environmental news and green-living tips in your inbox.



Issues » Wildlife & habitat » Science & policy » Critical species
Issues

• Climate change
• Health
• Oceans
• Wildlife & habitat
  • Our projects
  • Take action
  • Science & policy
• Freshwater

Polar bear fact sheet

Canada is home to nearly 60 per cent of the world's polar bears.

Polar Bear Facts

• Nearly 60 per cent of the world's polar bears live in Canada.

• Polar bears spend so much time on ice and in the water that some scientists consider them to be marine mammals.

• Polar bears can swim up to 100 kilometres.

• Polar bears use sea ice as a hunting platform to catch seals and other marine mammal prey. Without sea ice, they have difficulty meeting their dietary needs.

• Male polar bears can be two to three times larger than females—one of the greatest differences between sexes in all mammals.

• The largest recorded polar bear weighed a whopping 1,002 kilograms (2,209 lbs.) and measured 3.7 metres (12 ft.) long.

• Polar bears are so well insulated that they easily overheat and sometimes swim in frigid waters to cool down.

• Six out of eight members of the bear family are now considered endangered in Canada.

• A recent study disproved the theory that the hollow hairs of the polar bear's coat carried light to its dark skin to warm the bear.

• The Canadian two-dollar coin or "toonie" features a polar bear.

• A polar bear can eat up to 46 kilograms (100 lbs.) of food at one sitting.

Sea Ice and Polar Bears

Temperatures are rising far more rapidly in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. Since 1978, sea ice cover has declined by approximately nine per cent per decade, and the rate of melting appears to be increasing each year. This loss of sea ice threatens Canadian wildlife, like the polar bear, which are wholly dependent on the Arctic sea ice habitat for survival.
Sea ice is so important to polar bears that scientists have defined seven types of sea ice habitat and have documented different preferences for each.
Polar bears use sea ice for a variety of purposes including hunting, seeking out mates and travel.
Temperatures are rising far more rapidly in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. Since 1978, sea ice cover has declined by approximately nine per cent per decade, and the rate of melting appears to be increasing each year. This loss of sea ice threatens Canadian wildlife, like the polar bear, which are wholly dependent on the Arctic sea ice habitat for survival.
Scientists have identified a strong correlation between the decline in polar bears and the reduction in sea ice in Western Hudson Bay, which is breaking up on average seven to eight days earlier per decade. When the sea ice melts earlier, the population of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay are forced to come ashore, where they do not eat until their return to the ice.
Recent studies show that the increased time on land is leading to weight loss, physical deterioration and decreased rates of reproduction. Scientists have predicted that by 2012 most females in the Western Hudson Bay population will be below the minimum required weight for successful reproduction.

They can live on a can of Coke a day. It's a fact!

 

[darkbeaver]

Polar bears can bloody well follow the ice, like they have done for some time now. And since they are late evolutions of brown bears anyway they can revert to acclimatize again if they want to. The bears most present threat is their addiction to CHOKE A COLA and green idiots.

 

[petros]

Why is this "pack ice" so funny looking?

 

[darkbeaver]

Why is this "pack ice" so funny looking?

After he's finished eating that environmentalist he's going to swim at the beach.

Would polar bears eat the homeless and unemployed I wonder?

 

[petros]

Would polar bears eat the homeless and unemployed I wonder?

Just the ones who declare themselves green.

 

[darkbeaver]

I would have thought the polar bear language was not widely practiced among the homeless and unemployed. A education subsidy is needed

 

[L Gilbert]

"69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research"

Anything is possible, but so what? 95% of the human population of the planet is ignorant of science, let alone climate science. I wouldn't doubt it at all if SOME research was rigged. But that's no reason to ASSume the entire ball of wax is worthless.

I don't see any reason to believe that what the general population thinks scientists are up to has anything to do with reality. Most people haven't the slightest idea of what science is or how it works.

Yeah, what he said.

Yikes.

Well there's a clear indication that despite natural changes in the climate, that there is a human element to it. The nature and scope of any possible ramifications should be balanced with appropriate (and I stress appropriate) investments to reduce our dependency on oil.

And I am sure that even some vehicle manufacturer's et al are not producing more efficient vehicles just because of mere public demand.

We should be well beyond the acknowledgement of AGW by now, and moving on to what the scope of the repercussions are.

Actually, we should be past that and be considering how we'll adapt to the changes.

I live in a bunkhouse, five days a week, with up to five other guys, who's only
hot meals are once a day in the evenings in whatever small town bars that
have kitchens. On top of that, our food (lunch meats, etc) are in a fridge
that only has power from 7am to 7pm-ish while the generator is running,
so they get pretty nasty by the end of the week. Lots of methane is
released under those conditions. By Thursdays, we can compete
with cattle and soil bacterias, I'm sure.

hehehe Gimme that pot of chili.

 

[Tonington]

In 2007 it was shown that the latter work may have been seriously flawed by overestimating the depletion rate by an order of magnitude, thereby invalidating the proposed mechanism for CFC-driven ozone depletion [3].

Supposing for the moment that this alleged work showed that the depletion rate was overestimated by an order of magnitude, it would in no way invalidate the mechanism of CFC-driven ozone depletion. All it would mean is that the magnitude of the mechanism was overestimated.

Invalidated? Jeez, it's stuff like this believed by people like the dim rodent that explain why a poll of non-subject matter experts is just a red herring. They think getting the magnitude wrong means that the mechanism must be wrong. That's just absurd. Laboratory measurements are idealized, the mechanism can be correct but far off. The atmosphere is not a laboratory environment.

And again, this is if the supposed work even showed that the depletion rate was overestimated. Considering that the author believes this falsifies the mechanism, I'm dubious of their interpretation of any science at all...

 

[L Gilbert]

Invalidated? Jeez, it's stuff like this believed by people like the dim rodent that explain why a poll of non-subject matter experts is just a red herring. They think getting the magnitude wrong means that the mechanism must be wrong. That's just absurd. Laboratory measurements are idealized, the mechanism can be correct but far off. The atmosphere is not a laboratory environment.

But that's the extremely funny part so "dim rodents" do have a use. lol

 

[damngrumpy]

What troubles me is the truth was thrown out the window by both sides years ago.
Another troubling thought is what else has science skewed to meet the ends of the
people they serve. Yes the people they serve, not the global community anymore.
Science is like everything else its owned by people with a basket full of self interest
on every venture.
Back in the sixties and seventies the environmental issues of the day were left to
the domain of the long haired hippie wierdo's who were nuts and that was that. What
happened? Commercial interests embraced the environmental movement for their
own reasons. One, they could make a buck on changing everyone over to everything
green. Large corporations could make a buck publicizing what wonderful people they
were looking after your environment. Manufacturers could of course introduce new
green products that cost a lot more, but hey its good for the environment.
It was never ending, the Organic Industry was able to gain power in the market place.
There were new regulations and a book of paper work to keep you safe of course and
make sure the farmers were doing the right thing growing your organic food. Ya,
right. It turns out the organic industry is as bad as the rest. The enforcement is based
on paper work and the honour system. The rules are not worth the paper they are
written on. If you have some doubts read the book Is It Organic, written by a man
with experience as an organic inspector no less.

On the other side of this debate, science owned lot stock and barrel by big oil interests.
they keep putting out findings that tell us how we can benefit from clean coal, there is
no such thing, and we can make it look more pleasant by fracking, no matter how
much we pollute the water basins. At least some can set their drinking water on fire.
It goes back further than that though, remember when those same scientists told us
smoking didn't cause cancer? It was also mainstream science that identified Pot as
a killer drug and produced video's showing people having serious withdrawals from
smoking it. Why because prohibition was over and the FBI would close its doors unless
we had a new reason for them to exist.

Science and social and economic interaction has been suspect for decades its just that
it more blatant now. With social media and the Internet, it is exposed more and more as
well. Social engineering has some serious challenges from the general public and that
is a good thing. Belief in science and religion are much the same when we add the
social aspects, they are beliefs and nothing more in many cases, and we should question
them. Who knows someday we might scratch the right place and the truth will pop up;

 

[darkbeaver]

The mechanism could only work if the magnitude was grossly inflated. That means the mechanism was wrong. The above self appointed keepers of science are telling you that a wrong answer is OK, you can always inflate to fit.

 

[Tonington]

The mechanism could only work if the magnitude was grossly inflated. That means the mechanism was wrong. The above self appointed keepers of science are telling you that a wrong answer is OK, you can always inflate to fit.

Garbage. If the mechanism didn't work, they would say it didn't work, not that the magnitude is overestimated, again assuming that whatever you posted is even true. Try finding that work Beaver. Otherwise, tell yourself whatever you need to to make your toy electric universe hypothesis work.

 

[mentalfloss]

Another troubling thought is what else has science skewed to meet the ends of the people they serve.

Science is like everything else its owned by people with a basket full of self interest
on every venture.

You're confusing this ^^^

With this..

Commercial interests embraced the environmental movement for their own reasons.

 

[ironsides]

Looks like the only thing were going to have to get used to will be the warming. Whether some scientists misread or falsified data or not, we are warming up.


Next ice age not likely before 1,500 years: study
LONDON (Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.
Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping out emissions today, according to the U.N.'s weather agency.
An ice age is a period when there is a long-term reduction in the earth's surface and atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers.
There have been at least five ice ages on earth. During ice ages there are cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating.
Officially, the earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, and estimates vary on how long such periods last.
Next ice age not likely before 1,500 years: study - Yahoo! News

 

[darkbeaver]

Garbage. If the mechanism didn't work, they would say it didn't work, not that the magnitude is overestimated, again assuming that whatever you posted is even true. Try finding that work Beaver. Otherwise, tell yourself whatever you need to to make your toy electric universe hypothesis work.

You're a gambling man Tonington? Those of science who don't adopt and adhere to the electrical theory of the universe will be laughed at and rendered unemployable by reason of their obvious insanity. Already the jokes about the big bang and it's acolytes are common on the street. None of the models include the polar influx of electrical current nor it's equatorial exit therefore none of them remotely describe any terrestrial reality. I can wait for your eventual capitulation and unconditional surrender whereas you do not enjoy the same luxury.

 

[Tonington]

You're a gambling man Tonington?

No, I'm not, which is why I wouldn't side with a hypothesis like that when the amount of variation left when accounting for the various forcing factors is so small. Perhaps you could explain with your knowledge of the electric hypothesis how the greenhouse effect is confounded by the electric hypothesis, and not to mention how the rest of the radiative forcings are as well. Or maybe it's just the greenhouse effect that you think is confounded.

 

[petros]

Mmm... donuts.

 

[darkbeaver]

No, I'm not, which is why I wouldn't side with a hypothesis like that when the amount of variation left when accounting for the various forcing factors is so small. Perhaps you could explain with your knowledge of the electric hypothesis how the greenhouse effect is confounded by the electric hypothesis, and not to mention how the rest of the radiative forcings are as well. Or maybe it's just the greenhouse effect that you think is confounded.

Yes you are. You are gambling that the electric universe theory is incorrect and there is absolutely no possibility that it could be. It has already revolutionized science across the board. Of course you can't or won't abandon whatever warped hypothetical you adhere to. That's to bad you're so young and promising to become yesterdays scientist. Even biology, most importantly biology is being transformed by electricity. Join the army.

I'll have two Boston cream and a double single.

 

[Tonington]

Yes you are.

You're the gambler...deny it all you want but you are not playing the odds. There is only so much response, and there is already a well characterized grouping of forcings impacting the imbalance inside our atmosphere. You are basically pinning your money on a long shot. That's the gamble. You're gambling that all the physics is wrong, but you're so delusional that you don't view this as being unlikely.

You are gambling that the electric universe theory is incorrect and there is absolutely no possibility that it could be.

It's not a gamble. I realize you desperately would like to believe the current evidence is not true, but the probability is not on your side at all. I gave you a chance to explain the confounding, but you chose to double down, like the gambler you are.