Yes it does. It proves that the science behind the conclusions was unfounded, unsubstantiated and chalk-full of errors - so much so, that they were compelled to announce their ineptitude on a public basis
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
What in the article causes you to think that I'm obtuse. The article is about the sea not rising. Where is the relationship between my mental acuity and the sea not rising?
All that says is their calculations were off and they don't know if they underestimated or over estimated the amount of sea level rise.
I see you still have trouble understanding anything past the header of an article. Well, maybe one day you may clue in.
All it proves is that they made miscalculations. The article said nothing about being "chalk-full" (I'm guessing you meant chock-full) of errors, nor does it say anything about their estimates being unfounded and unsubstantiated.
You are projecting your hopes into an exaggeration of what WAS said in the article. That is a pretty typical reaction from the opposite extreme. Sort of like the extreme reverse of panic-mongering.
It's just another drop in the ocean proving the fraud of AGW. All the drops are making the ocean bigger and I'm sure more drops will be found to make it into a flood and our figurative ocean will actually rise as opposed to the real oceans which are not rising, now that the threat of shunning and persecution is out of the science community bag.
The entire movement is "chalk-full" of miscalculations and fraud... And yes, it does state that:
"The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher."
... So. I'm guessing that having made predictions on "incomplete information" that it is fair to say that the estimates are unsubstantiated and unfounded. Case in point - they are retracting their statement today.
On the exaggeration note; did you notice that despite the IPCC knowingly employed "incomplete information" that they were more than happy to over-estimate in a manner that ONLY supported their position?
That said, I do not need to project any "hopes", this inept body of fraudsters are ensuring the reality.
Movement? Who's talking about the movement? Switching focus around now to try and hide your folly?
Well, we all know what guessing does, don't we. It makes more errors than research.
So? I've never put much stock into what political bodies come up with. Why should anyone else?
Whatever.
From what I've seen, chemicals can affect weather, weather affects climate, we've been spewing chemical crap into the air for decades of decades, so I am not shocked if we have affected the climate at least indirectly. I can't see any scam. The mean temperature of the globe has been warming.
Last edited:
Apparently everyone except you.
Are you aware of what this issue is really about?
The eco-fascists would do well to consider this, wouldn't they?
Are you saying that you have no confidence in the pro GW scientists?
So, who says that the global mean temperature is supposed to be a static number? History has clearly shown it to fluctuate enough to cause many periods of massive glaciation. What makes you think that somehow it should be different today?
Gee, the title says, "Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'". It isn't about the IPCC, the CIA, MUFON, the Obama administration, etc.
If the globe is warming, then it isn't a scam, right?
Calling people fascists does nothing to depoliticize the issue.
Nope.
The global mean temperature for a year is a constant. The global mean temperature for a day is a constant.
I would imagine the mean temp fluctuates from minute to minute. If you plot many time periods on a graph, however, they show trends. Did you forget how to read graphs?
Here's one about land and ocean averages for about 100 years. You notice that there are points charted on the graph? Those are the fixed constants, the mean temperatures for each particular year.
Maybe this is news to you, but it is the IPCC that is the chief voice in attempting to forward this fraudulent agenda. You might want to familiarize yourself with this area prior to making naive statements
The question is WHY is it warming. If it is a natural cycle, then there is no need to get your panties all in a bunch and levy taxes all over the place.
Are you starting to get it now?
But "deniers" is completely acceptable.
Are you for real?
Think - I mean really think about what you just posted. You changed direction 3 times in one small statement, each direction opposite to the last.
If you still really believe what you've posted (ie temperature constants to fluctuations and back to constant), apply that to explaining how it was possible to experience the many periods of freezing coupled with the warming periods... I'm really looking forward to seeing more graphs.
You seem to have a failure to recognize data from what this group or that group says about the data.
I said, if the globe is warming, then global warming isn't a scam, is it?
No, that's the other thread called " Death knell for AGW " that is concerned about the whys.
But it IS about time people got their knickers in a bunch about how we treat our planet.
Long ago. And I am still trying to explain it to people like you.
If you say so. IMO, they both use the same tactics.
You are posting to me, are you not?
Only between your ears, child.
Look at it this way, if you set your household temperature to 21º and then take readings from your thermometer for a day, then take the mean average of those temps you collected, you have one number answer for that day. It's a constant and can only have one single value, in spite of the fact your furnace caused the temperature to fluctuate up and down around 21º all day.
Averaging isn't rocket science. I'm sure if you try, you will understand eventually.
That's not what I said, so no, I don't believe your version.
So you don't think that various place on the planet can be warming the same time as other places are cooling? I'm impressed .... and it isn't your intelligence I am impressed with.
Ok, Here comes more of that scam. :smile:
Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report.
As a result, sea levels along the East Coast rose about a foot over the past century, the EPA's report, commissioned by the Climate Change Science Program, said.
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast | Reuters
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast
WASHINGTON -- Drip, drip, drip come the studies one after another, reinforcing the threat to the Northeast from rising sea levels along the U.S. and Canadian East Coast. If Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 could shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 30 to 50 centimetres more than other coastal areas, researchers report yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters.
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast | World | News | Edmonton Sun
Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report.
As a result, sea levels along the East Coast rose about a foot over the past century, the EPA's report, commissioned by the Climate Change Science Program, said.
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast | Reuters
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast
WASHINGTON -- Drip, drip, drip come the studies one after another, reinforcing the threat to the Northeast from rising sea levels along the U.S. and Canadian East Coast. If Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 could shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 30 to 50 centimetres more than other coastal areas, researchers report yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters.
Rising sea levels threaten East Coast | World | News | Edmonton Sun
Hmm, so Rahmstorf and Vermeer find a higher amount, they notify Siddall et al. about their error, and you later talk about sea level not rising, as if it rested on this one study.
That's what makes you obtuse. You and many others see this as more than it is. It's an error, and other scientists have called them on it. Hardly the monolithic cabal of fraudsters ehh?
The sea level is obviously rising:
Oh, but the IPCC said it was rising, so it can't be rising. lolHmm, so Rahmstorf and Vermeer find a higher amount, they notify Siddall et al. about their error, and you later talk about sea level not rising, as if it rested on this one study.
That's what makes you obtuse. You and many others see this as more than it is. It's an error, and other scientists have called them on it. Hardly the monolithic cabal of fraudsters ehh?
The sea level is obviously rising:
.... and Suzuki is a geneticist. He doesn't know anything about climate.
Neither do zoologists. It's hilarious. Yet some of them are such experts themselves on climate, they can say things like that.
Hilarious.
I'm an agrologist technically, and I think I happen to have a pretty good beat on the information that is relevant. You don't really need to be a climatologist to grasp what's going on, though it will obviously help to give the individual more insight into the nature of the dynamic systems involved. Einstein was a clerk before he was a great scientist.
You still don't get it do you? I left a hint for you below.
Just as expected. Hollow explanations and no answers.
Where are the graphs to explain the historical periods of glaciation, hmmmm? Seeing how you are reluctant to apply your logic to my question, I'll answer for you. You are entirely unable to explain, in any way shape or form, that anthropogenic global warming exists. The sole relationship that you can point to is that the mean global temperature is increasing on a minuscule annual basis and this relationship is the only "proof" you need... Sadly, this does not provide any form of explanation about previous global temperature fluctuations.
Although there is no one person or group that has a definitive understanding in this area, you are in way over your head and it shows.
possible solution.
Bloom Energy inventor K.R. Sridhar makes bold promise with fuel-cell powered 'Bloom box'
Bloom Energy inventor K.R. Sridhar makes bold promise with fuel-cell powered 'Bloom box'
Bloom Energy inventor K.R. Sridhar makes bold promise with fuel-cell powered 'Bloom box'
Bloom Energy inventor K.R. Sridhar makes bold promise with fuel-cell powered 'Bloom box'
- Status