|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Bookmark & Share ![]() |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-warming/:says
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009 673 Comments Comment on this article If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: “In an odd way this is cheering news.” But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. Here are a few tasters. Manipulation of evidence: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Suppression of evidence: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists: Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority. “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC. I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane. The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view. Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover. UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy). Here are a few links: Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process. An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples. A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist) 59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots” Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government? UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...hange-Examiner
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/clima...ulation-112009 http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/...ming-alarmism/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHsithnEf8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. Last edited by The Conquistador; 12-12-2009 at 06:23 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Make no mistake, I'm all for renewable energy, but the whole issue of Man-Made Global Warming is just as I suspected. As the wise men of Public Enemy once said:" Don't believe the hype".
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#5
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
![]() Quote:
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation. Quote:
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now? Quote:
To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small. Quote:
Quote:
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer. Quote:
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value). If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)). The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising. Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses. The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it? We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us. Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is ) Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not. I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It all boils down to world population. If the world population was a tenth of what it now is, oil would last for centuries and the natural environment would survive. We are literally eating and consuming ourselves out of house and home. So, what politician is going to advocate and what government is going to enforce what china has done, limit children to one per family? ![]()
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.
Without Global warming, us humans wouldn't survive. Without the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the earth would be as cold as the moon. Water is the biggest green house gas so don't let anyone tell you that carbon emmisions contribute to global warming in any great extent. What I know contributes to global warming would be: Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere. However, this is mostly countered by the ocean's natural absorption of CO2. Cows: The methane produced from cow belches is a greenhouse gas. But enough of the causes. I don't think we can stop any of that. I care more about the purity of our air rather than the temperature of the earth. I'd prefer if we remove the POLLUTANTS from our air (noxious gasses and particulates). Greenhouse gasses naturally exist in the air, just as bacteria naturally exists in the colon to digest plant food. But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism. Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps. Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Or do it the way we have been doing in Europe for the past 50 years. Reduce poverty and inequality, and as quality of life increases the birth rate naturally declines, because more people simply choose to enjoy life and not have kids. Apply it on a global scale and you get an overall downward trend in population until it hits a sustainable level. The main places globally for population increase are places where traditionally large families are the means used to guarantee survival because infant mortality rates were so high, with better medical access, those mortality rates drop and population explodes. Improve quality of life there to western levels, and you should see birth rates begin to drop off again. All we need is to get it to the level where humans on earth are the equivalent of the bugs in your house. A lot of them, but not on the termite infestation levels we're currently at, where the house is beginning to fall apart. *EDIT* Also, that's some pretty impressive conspiracy theory shit right there. Well, except the promotion of income inequality, unfortunately the IMF has in fact been pushing that shit for all too long with all the dictatorships they have propped up, and backed in the overthrow of democratic governments... Last edited by Amy; 06-13-2012 at 07:35 AM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).
Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever. I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following: For an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time a basic lesson taught in science and maths is "Correlation does not imply causation" and "cause and effect" if you follow your logic then not only is global warming caused an increase in global temperatures (in the past) but it also has caused global temperatures to remain steady, if not decline (as it is at present). any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future). although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted, and still remains a hotly debated issue within the scientific community (not the same articles that get published in wikipedia), and there are many eminent researchers who do not see what you seem to see in the evidence. Haven’t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"? and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence... but calling people colossally retarded and anencephalic is a tad extreme. anyway, always willing to be proven wrong. regards your brain dead retard friend Last edited by aussiepride; 06-10-2012 at 10:04 AM. |
#13
|
||||||
|
||||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I fully acept that debate has proven useful, it has led to every possible angle being explored. Now we have the avidence from all the new lines of ingestigation which debate has spurred, and they all confirm each other. Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been. I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.
--------------------------------- Travesti. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Whaat? China's CO2 emmisions have only shot up in the past 60 years. Are you going to make everyone else pay who was a part of the industrial revolution centuries ago?
What are we going to have to give up to reduce our effect on global warming? (If there's any significant effect) What is practical without singling out anybody? And what about that statistics manipulation sham? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
GW seems t have vanished like a passing fad now
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The actual raw field data supports anthropogenic warming, regardless of all the huffing and puffing rhetoric. However, the "modeling" of future warming is, in my opinion, bullshit. One computer climate modeler when asked about the future of climate stated "my best guess is its going to get warmer". I suggest anybody interested in this issue read "The Black Swan" by Nicolas Taleb.
He points out the futility of making long term projections about anything. Something always screws up the works. Nerveless, we have a problem, we have too many people on the planet consuming not only fossil fuels but all of the useful resources of the planet. Our current system is not sustainable. Someone accused the people concerned about warming as making it a religion, well how about the skeptics who grab every bit of contrary information to hype up that warming does not exist? Sounds like religious fervor to me. ![]()
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Just saying... Correlation does not equal causation.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. Last edited by The Conquistador; 12-13-2009 at 05:16 AM. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Global climate is a big slow reacting system. The graphics in your Link show the massive increased use of fossil fuels. Such a fast and massive change of atmosphere CO2 has never happened before. So what makes you belief someone can predict that it don't warm climate, but at the same time say we don't know much enough to say man has a significant effect on climate? A lot of this is based on the US and not global. What uses a accelerated growth of plants, when at the same time the space that is available for plants is shrinking? It's a stupid assumption that more CO2 will increases the diversity of plant and animal life. Man destroy the diversity faster than nature could regenerate (not to speak of increasing) it. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am in the fossil fuel business and I really believe that we had better get our shit together because we are running out of easily exploitable resources here on this planet. Some years ago, some caps with the logo:
Earth First We'll drill the other planets later were popular in the oilfield. Funny, yes, in a way. But also true. The other planets and the rest of space are going to be our next sources of hydro-carbons. Meanwhile, we had best get with the space program while we still have the resources to get out there. Mankind has a long history of being wasteful and short-sighted and I really don't see that changing much for the better in the near future. I applaud the efforts of the conservation-minded folks out there; but are very many people listening? And how many really give a damn? Where is the motivation to take care of what we have now? What is going to motivate our ruling bodies to make wise rulings when the fact is that money talks loudest of all? Is global warming a fact? Seems to be a lot of doubt in the media right now. There is no doubt that historically the temperature goes up and down. I think it is good that we are looking at the potential problem, but I don't really believe that we have any solid answers yet, much less, a clear course of action. Something that I think is a much more pressing concern now is WATER. Clean water that is usable. ???????????
__________________
Ask Jenae anything, just click on this link: http://forum.transladyboy.com/showthread.php?t=6056 |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|