Global warming???

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I find it interesting that Jon Stewart was the only person in the mainstream media to report on this...

I meant to add a link to this previous post, but it won't let me now.

Here is what I was going to link about: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

and

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...l-warming-data


And the original ClimateGate story:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

[randolph]

The skeptics need to look at the data on the internet rather than relying on Fox news to do their thinking. Lots of people deny evolution in spite of the fact that all science and common sence supports the fact of evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is stressing the climate, that is well documented by science. What we don't know is what mother nature is going to do about it. After raping her for years, the consequences for our energy based society will be dire, there is little doubt about that.
Skeptics are yacking about "cooling" but the following chart shows the "cooling" is mainly in the US, most of the world is continuing to warm especially the arctic. Glaciers are melting and the arctic ice is melting those are facts. We need to develop alternative energy sources soon. Otherwise we may see our demise

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The skeptics need to look at the data on the internet rather than relying on Fox news to do their thinking. Lots of people deny evolution in spite of the fact that all science and common sence supports the fact of evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is stressing the climate, that is well documented by science. What we don't know is what mother nature is going to do about it. After raping her for years, the consequences for our energy based society will be dire, there is little doubt about that.
Skeptics are yacking about "cooling" but the following chart shows the "cooling" is mainly in the US, most of the world is continuing to warm especially the arctic. Glaciers are melting and the arctic ice is melting those are facts. We need to develop alternative energy sources soon. Otherwise we may see our demise

Randolph! I wasn't relying on Fox news for my info. It was relevant to what I was trying to get across which was that other than them and Jon Stewarts little show, no one else in the Mainstream Media reported on how the scientists were making GW more of a problem than it actually is. If you looked at the 3rd link of my previous post, you would have seen that a hacker got into the emails of the scientists who are in charge of GW research and spread their emails on the net. Through their correspondence, the scientists were admitting that the original raw data on which they had based their "evidence" had been lost and that the GW issue was more hyped up than it actually is.

[The Conquistador]

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

[The Conquistador]

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

[The Conquistador]

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".

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Oh Dear. The less we know, the more we ' invent ' and speculate !

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
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.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own.
The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long.

The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list.

It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made.

I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way.

The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

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.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! !

I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ?

The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities.
YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit.

And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ?

Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
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.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )

Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?

[cwjakesteel]

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.

[Amy]

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

[williamsmith518]

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.

[LillyBerry]

GW seems t have vanished like a passing fad now

[randolph]

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.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The actual raw field data supports anthropogenic warming, regardless of all the huffing and puffing rhetoric.

And the scientists that derived their positions from this raw data admitted that they had actually lost it and that their findings were somewhat fudged.

Just saying...




Correlation does not equal causation.