• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming

ruraldean said:
Woke up this morning to this:http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573.

Worth a read for those who haven't yet decided our governments are anything but honest.

Also, here in England, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, faces a backlash from his own people on the issue of Global Warming.

Thankfully, people are slowly waking up to the fact that this is a great way of governments controlling the populace and raising spurious taxes. I wonder how many companies are now relying on the sale of their new "green" products? W S Atkins, huge consulting engineer in the UK has said that they'd be struggling without Global Warming. Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing that link, Paul. And the point on the economics of the matter.
Why is it I have to go to british papers to escape Tiger Woods and ex-Miss Argentina's cosmetic buttocks surgery?

P.S. Mmmmmm.....gravy....
 
Headlines Today at "Drudge Report" include :
1) PAPER: CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'...
2) CLIMATEGATE: Scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down...
3) Penn State Professor also under investigation...
4) Inhofe Asks Boxer to Probe Potential Scientific 'Conspiracy'...
5) Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill...
6) 'It's all unravelling now'...
7) North Texas Wakes to Big Snowflakes...
Click to expand...
It appears Denmark and Australia, in addition to the US and the UK, have stumped their toe as well, and started taking a closer look at AGW.
Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.
Click to expand...
 
You have to have a cause to rally behind. Nobody is going to send money to the Sierra club unless the can get the public riled and angry. Show me a skinny dog and I send money to the HSUS. I wouldn’t throw money on a stage that didn’t have a skinny girl.
 
wade said:
You have to have a cause to rally behind. Nobody is going to send money to the Sierra club unless the can get the public riled and angry. Show me a skinny dog and I send money to the HSUS. I wouldn’t throw money on a stage that didn’t have a skinny girl.
Click to expand...

Wade hits (without knowing it) on the real cause of global warming. it's all the young hotties wearing too little clothing and radiating all that hotness off into the environment. It's too much. The globe can't disperse it fast enough. If you want a cooler planet, cover up the hotties and insulate that hotness from escaping into the biosphere.

The problem is that it feeds on itself. Exposed hotness of young females makes it warmer, so they need to wear more clothing. That makes them wear less clothing and radiate even more heat. Covering it up means less hotness exposed, so it cools down, and they wear more clothing making it even cooler.

BUT, it cycles. Once they become completely naked, they lose some hotness. Don't get me wrong. Nakedness is nice and hot, but some people are hotter with a little clothing than with none....and some people suck hotness right out of the atmosphere when underclothed. Once those very nonhotties exposed too much, it causes a hotness vacuum (negative hotness levels in their vicinity) starting a cooling period. That means more clothing and the cycle decreases temperatures again...causing additional coverings and the resulting ice age.

Proof? Global cooling was a fear 30 years ago, and then less and less clothing started being worn, and NOW we have global warming from all that exposed hotness. There you go. Complete proof that my theory is right!
 
KJ, I thought it was a lack of pirates? But your theory is interesting. Me you and Wade need to investigate this further. Lets meet at the strip club and get started..
 
tom e said:
KJ, I thought it was a lack of pirates? But your theory is interesting. Me you and Wade need to investigate this further. Lets meet at the strip club and get started..
Click to expand...

Argh! Pirates are the chosen people, BUT I'd rather through money at dancing hotties that smelly pirates any day. ...and any Pastafarian will tell you that heaven is full of strippers and beer volcanoes! (Real Pastafarians will tell you hell is much the same, but the beer is flat and the strippers have VD).....

No comment on the ladies, but my wife and I both hope they have a rootbeer volcano, too!
 
This is a repeat of another post I made elsewhere on the site, but I've added extra here:

Update: Just been listening to BBC Radio 4 news in the car, and aside from the UK's own "independent" inquiry into the email scandal, the UN are now launching their own enquiry. Saudi Arabia are viewing this as confirmation that Global Warming isn't man made (if we can agree it's happening at all), and our own UK Climate Secretary, Ed Miliband, has said that he's not going to be swayed by a few emails, but although he's not a scientist, he believes what the scientists are telling him and doesn't believe a "single scientist" denies man's part in Global Warming. WTF?

In a separate interview about the rival Conservative Party views on GW, Mr Miliband said: “We have to beware of climate saboteurs, the people who want to say that this is in doubt and want to cast aspersions on the whole process. The science is clear and settled."

Is it? does anyone here think it is settled?

the Head of the Confederation of British Industries (CBI) has also said this morning that he is concerned about this issue because so much of British industry is now relying on the truth of Global Warming, that doubts cannot afford to be listened to.

So who are the real deniers? Sceptics, or the sheeple who blindly follow the party line?
 
ruraldean said:
So who are the real deniers? Sceptics, or the sheeple who blindly follow the party line?
Click to expand...

This entire post is predicated on the notion that anyone who believes mankind has a significant effect on climate change has not done any research into the issue at all. What I find interesting is that this thread, which is dominated by 'skeptics', has presented very little in terms of evidence that climate change is happening without mankind's influence, or evidence that the climate is stable. However, in this thread on the PA D&D forum, there are a lot more people who believe that mankind does have an effect and there is a large amount of evidence being cited.

This is also a fantastic resource for the science behind climate change.

Ultimately, ruraldean, I'm not blindly following anything by believing that mankind has a significant effect on our environment and that the greenhouse gases we're releasing are tipping the scales towards destabilizing the climate. I typically don't buy into editorials, or radio shows, or brief news reports. I look into things deeper to try to get truth of the matter. I believe I have it in this case. If you want to say that not believing what they say on teevee and doing my own research into the issue is being a 'sheeple', then so be it. But that kind of argument will never sway me.
 
Nova_C said:
Nova's Razor: The stupidest explanation is probably the correct one.
Click to expand...

So, is how does "your" razor apply to the hypothesis of Global Warming and fossil fuels combustion? Are you saying this hypothesis is an exception to your razor, that the current leading hypothesis being discussed is wrong, or that it is the stupidest explanation? :rofl: :roflmao: :grin01:

Relax - the smiles and laughs are meant to show I'm just kidding you.
 
Nova_C said:
What I find interesting is that this thread, which is dominated by 'skeptics', has presented very little in terms of evidence that climate change is happening without mankind's influence, or evidence that the climate is stable.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting, is that in this thread which apparently is dominated by "skeptics", is that no one has presented any real evidence that mankind is influencing global temperatures or that the climate would be stable if mankind was not on the earth.
 
mike17l said:
no one has presented any real evidence that mankind is influencing global temperatures or that the climate would be stable if mankind was not on the earth.
Click to expand...

Why must you skeptics keep ignoring my "hotness" theory of global temperature influence???
 
Nova_C said:
Ultimately, ruraldean, I'm not blindly following anything by believing that mankind has a significant effect on our environment and that the greenhouse gases we're releasing are tipping the scales towards destabilizing the climate. I typically don't buy into editorials, or radio shows, or brief news reports. I look into things deeper to try to get truth of the matter. I believe I have it in this case. If you want to say that not believing what they say on teevee and doing my own research into the issue is being a 'sheeple', then so be it. But that kind of argument will never sway me.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the term "sheeple" in this instance was referring to Ed Miliband, who admits to not being a scientist, but blindly following his advisers and drawing the conclusion that the matter is settled (which of course it isn't). My fear is that this "settled" mentality excludes all contrary argument, and this man represents our leaders - a little scary.

Secondly, ignoring the media you've described is a little like shooting the messenger. Look beyond to the original source. Do you believe that these emails are made up by the editorial writers? The UN doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't bother with their own enquiry on top of the UK one.

Thirdly, your own research just means you adhere to the same sources as Miliband does. how much of the alternative evidence have you seriously looked at without dismissing it, and what are your qualifications for dismissal? Is there something in the qualifications of a Java barcode/RFID programmer that gives you scientific analytical powers greater than the rest of us?

Statements by leaders like Miliband get picked up by the populace and taken as fact. Much in the same way that some still think that Saddam was responsible for the Twin towers. For some it is considered that GW is a man-made phenomenon; for many others it isn't. I'm one of the latter and I have my opinion formed through deeper research than I've illustrated here. I may be no more qualified to have reached that opinion than you, but I may well be your equal. Unless you're telling me I'm not?
 
ruraldean said:
Secondly, ignoring the media you've described is a little like shooting the messenger. Look beyond to the original source. Do you believe that these emails are made up by the editorial writers? The UN doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't bother with their own enquiry on top of the UK one.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not ignoring the media, just not accepting what they say at face value, for or against.

Thirdly, your own research just means you adhere to the same sources as Miliband does. how much of the alternative evidence have you seriously looked at without dismissing it, and what are your qualifications for dismissal? Is there something in the qualifications of a Java barcode/RFID programmer that gives you scientific analytical powers greater than the rest of us?
Click to expand...

My qualifications? That statements suggests that no one who isn't a climate scientist can form their own opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm stating what I believe is based on research, not just swallowing what I am told.

Statements by leaders like Miliband get picked up by the populace and taken as fact. Much in the same way that some still think that Saddam was responsible for the Twin towers. For some it is considered that GW is a man-made phenomenon; for many others it isn't. I'm one of the latter and I have my opinion formed through deeper research than I've illustrated here. I may be no more qualified to have reached that opinion than you, but I may well be your equal. Unless you're telling me I'm not?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that. In fact, can I ask where you got the idea that I don't think of you as an equal? And the contrary evidence that I've seen against mankind's influence on climate change (It's not called global warming anymore because that was a misnomer) hasn't convinced me. If you'd like to present the evidence that convinced you, I'd love to see it. I don't know what convinced you so I can't say I've considered it or not.
 
By the way Nova, does your research include research of the scientists themselves, including who funds their research? Have you also researched what raw data they used (part of the current controversy refers to the fact that much of this has been destroyed, making checks impossible)? Have you looked at the influence of big business in the climate debate? In short, have you genuinely considered an alternative view to your own?
 
Sorry, above post made before reading yours.

Your first response is a bit of a "don't confuse me with facts, I have an opinion" type answer. I'll ask again - have you looked at the sources which form the basis of these media reports?

Second response - I'm not suggesting you need formal qualifications, but your statement "I typically don't buy into editorials, or radio shows, or brief news reports. I look into things deeper to try to get truth of the matter. I believe I have it in this case." makes you seem a little superior. As far as your research is concerned, I refer you to point number one.

Your last point about Global Warming indicates the political shift in phraseology having to be adopted due to new evidence. You may believe that the phrase Global warming is dead, but do the general populace?
 
More data juggling, now NASA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
Click to expand...

:roflmao:

That's is my blue-ing.
Rejiggered, I think, is my new favorite word of the month.
If the data doesn't fit, well just rejigger it.
 
Well wouldn't you know it...

Don't forget to read both pages of the article people - there's more on page two.
 
Nova_C said:
What I find interesting is that this thread, which is dominated by 'skeptics', has presented very little in terms of evidence that climate change is happening without mankind's influence, or evidence that the climate is stable.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding of SCIENCE is showing. Disproving a theory does NOT mean you have to prove the opposite. I've already shared a reasonably accurate description of just one possible reason why temperatures have "increased". You can go back and find it.

Nova_C said:
there are a lot more people who believe that mankind does have an effect and there is a large amount of evidence being cited.
Click to expand...
Your lack of understanding of science is still showing. You believe in religion. You prove science. Nothing has been proven.

Forcing me to expend extra money out of my pocket for a "maybe" is as bad as any religion asking me to give money so I can be "saved". I'll buy "better" gas if it saves me money, but it doesn't, I've tried. I drive a flexfuel vehicle. E85 has horrendous gas mileage so I just have to buy more. It's worse actually. I'll give money if it's used to help somebody, but don't tell me I'll be "saved" because I did it.

D80
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top