Climate Corruption $$$$$

[Big Fitz]

Old Rocks, your flat earth warmism is going the way of the Dodo...

Then you will have no problem explaining why the studies presented earlier from the University of Alaska Fairbanks are false.

Soda, ultimately it's very simple.

Earth's climate always has been and always WILL be in a state of flux.

Mankind cannot affect it beyond putting poisons into it that will kill him off, and the planet will ignore.

Deal with pollutants instead of pretending you can actually control the weather.

Till then, you have not proven changing society in any way shape and form is beneficial or intelligent.

Therefore, no global socialism/fascism for you.

 

[Sodafin]

Soda, ultimately it's very simple.

Simple, and yet only you understand it.

Stephen Hawking obviously does not. Neither do the conservative parties of England, France or Germany. Or John McCain. Or the science units of basically every university on earth.

Only you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Soda, ultimately it's very simple.

Simple, and yet only you understand it.

Stephen Hawking obviously does not. Neither do the conservative parties of England, France or Germany. Or John McCain. Or the science units of basically every university on earth.

Only you.

East Anglia University got it then? That's why they committed fraud to make it look like mankind had something to do with it. Gotcha.

All the science 'proving' AGW based on Mann, Jones, Hansen and other scientists in this little con artist grouping is now invalid. People have been lied. Start from scratch and try again.

Until then, it is incumbent on your warmist allies to PROVE in honest peer review/repeatable tests that mankind is DIRECTLY responsible for this. Not the sun, not oceans, not nature... Man.

I understand it perfectly. It's just a case of finding the right problem to implement global fascism.

 

[Sodafin]

Big Fitz -

You seem to be more than a little lost. Rather than just flail around, let's take a look at some science, and you can give us your impression of it. Otherwise I sense you are just going to rant and we'll never actually get into the area of facts and data.

This from the UK Met Office -

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

And this from the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

Anthony Arendt

These reports cover the collapse of Alaska's glaciers.

What are your impressions?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Soda, ultimately it's very simple.

Simple, and yet only you understand it.

Stephen Hawking obviously does not. Neither do the conservative parties of England, France or Germany. Or John McCain. Or the science units of basically every university on earth.

Only you.

Ahh yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The refuge of the intellectually bereft.

You might just as well have said, "A billion Christians, their universities and their churches believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and God created everything. Since so many people believe it, it must be true."

 

[Sodafin]

Ahh yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The refuge of the intellectually bereft.

It's called presenting facts and evidence.

Should I be surprised you oppose that?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Ahh yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The refuge of the intellectually bereft.

It's called presenting facts and evidence.

Should I be surprised you oppose that?

No, it is not. It's called Appeal to Authority. You're too ignorant and uneducated to recognize it:

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.


The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.


This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam.

Educate thyself.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Ahh yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The refuge of the intellectually bereft.

It's called presenting facts and evidence.

Should I be surprised you oppose that?

Clearly you oppose it, otherwise you wouldn't be supporting the fraudulent scientists involved in the warmergate scandal, which arose out of their desperate attempts to evade a freedom of information act request for the raw data they later lost, just like in the emails they said they might have to do.

Why did they oppose sharing the data? And why are you okay with it, when you should actually be livid?

 

[Sinatra]

Soda, ultimately it's very simple.

Simple, and yet only you understand it.

Stephen Hawking obviously does not. Neither do the conservative parties of England, France or Germany. Or John McCain. Or the science units of basically every university on earth.

Only you.

Ahh yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The refuge of the intellectually bereft.
You might just as well have said, "A billion Christians, their universities and their churches believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and God created everything. Since so many people believe it, it must be true."

___

Great job - the lack of intellectual curiosity is one of the primary bastions of tyranny.

Fewer and fewer have the courage to question what is presented as an absolute - even if that absolute stands upon a foundation of sand...

 

[Big Fitz]

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

And you use this article from BBC to back up your authority's truthiness which has the first line of:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

These organizations ALL have been compromised by Hansen, Mann and the Hadley CRU fraud. That's who supplied their data and computer models which have now been shown to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE THE LIE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Therefore NONE of this data is trustworthy.

Try again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's look at some facts:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

I see your link and raise you mine.

The whole basis of the AGW idea is that CO2 increases warming and that more CO2 will cause larger and faster increases. We have as much now as we've ever had and the warming is stalled. It has stalled where it was when the stall occurred which was very high, but it has stalled.

The linked article contains a pretty well researched article on the ocean's lack of warming and the data that is currently being re-calibrated by the intelligencia to show that warming has occurred based on data showing that cooling has occurred. Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, there is a large enough lack of certainty to promote a healthy skepticism. A lack of skepticism in the face of the lack of proof raises questions for me.

Here's the link:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

 

[elvis]

Let's look at some facts:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

I see your link and raise you mine.

The whole basis of the AGW idea is that CO2 increases warming and that more CO2 will cause larger and faster increases. We have as much now as we've ever had and the warming is stalled. It has stalled where it was when the stall occurred which was very high, but it has stalled.

The linked article contains a pretty well researched article on the ocean's lack of warming and the data that is currently being re-calibrated by the intelligencia to show that warming has occurred based on data showing that cooling has occurred. Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, there is a large enough lack of certainty to promote a healthy skepticism. A lack of skepticism in the face of the lack of proof raises questions for me.

Here's the link:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

speaking of crank pseudoscience, how are Jones and Mann doing?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. The so called corruption by the 'top climate dudes' is warming the ice caps and melting the glaciers?

The evidence for the warming can be seen in every scientific study of the earth. At the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco on Dec. 15, many of the presentations were dealing with the observed effects of the warming. And the causes of such warmings in the past, the relationship of CO2 to those warmings.

For you politically driven trolls, no amount of science will make you face reality. For the rest of us, here is a very good site where you can access those lectures;

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Lectures, Union Sessions & Webcasts

I don't dispute the warming today nor do I dispute the warming that ended about 4 to 3000 years ago when many of today's melting glaciers started to freeze. The cooling that starrted 8000 years ago was caused by what?

What I do dispute is the cause of the warming that you cite today. What was the cause of the cooling then?

Was there a successful IPCC administered by Phillip of Macedonia?

Let us see. We are in a current solar minimum. We just came out of a strong and persistant La Nina. Yet the past decade is the warmest on record. How does that square with cooling?

There has been no cooling. Just lies from people like yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see your link and raise you mine.

The whole basis of the AGW idea is that CO2 increases warming and that more CO2 will cause larger and faster increases. We have as much now as we've ever had and the warming is stalled. It has stalled where it was when the stall occurred which was very high, but it has stalled.

The linked article contains a pretty well researched article on the ocean's lack of warming and the data that is currently being re-calibrated by the intelligencia to show that warming has occurred based on data showing that cooling has occurred. Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, there is a large enough lack of certainty to promote a healthy skepticism. A lack of skepticism in the face of the lack of proof raises questions for me.

Here's the link:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

speaking of crank pseudoscience, how are Jones and Mann doing?

Speaking of a brain dead troll, and look who shows up.

 

[elvis]

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

speaking of crank pseudoscience, how are Jones and Mann doing?

Speaking of a brain dead troll, and look who shows up.

No, your boyfriend is in the other thread pissing on Limbaugh's grave before he's even dead.

 

[Old Rocks]

speaking of crank pseudoscience, how are Jones and Mann doing?

Speaking of a brain dead troll, and look who shows up.

No, your boyfriend is in the other thread pissing on Limbaugh's grave before he's even dead.

Well, that is a good thing, how else is Limbaugh going to appreciate the action

 

[Sinatra]

+

The British press - with an assist from jounalists in India, is hitting hard the strong ties that the world's "top climate official" has with monetary and business interests that are making him a very wealthy man via his continued insistence that something needs to be done to halt climate change - so long as that "something" continues to line his own pockets...

____

...Across the Atlantic, as the northern hemisphere was plunged into its third freezing winter in succession, violent snowstorms left more than two thirds of the US and almost the whole of Canada under December snow for the first time in decades. In the wake of that acrimonious shambles in Copenhagen, ever more questions are now being asked not only over the validity of the science behind the belief that man-made CO2 is causing runaway global warming but about the methods being used to meet that supposed threat...

In last week's Sunday Telegraph Richard North and I wrote an article revealing the worldwide business interests of Dr Rajendra Pachauri who, as chairman since 2002 of the UN's Inter*governmental Panel on Climate Change, is the world's "top climate official". Our report was picked up by newspapers and blogs across the world, and was even the basis for a question put to Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary General, at a New York press conference. But nowhere did it provoke a greater storm than in India, where Dr Pachauri is director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), based in New Delhi, the country's most influential private body involved in climate-change issues and renewable energy. In addition, as we reported, Dr Pachauri also holds more than a score of positions with banks, universities and other institutions that benefit from the vast worldwide industry now based on measures to halt climate change.

...For a start, we should be allowed to know what Dr Pachauri is paid by us all as chairman of the IPCC, a figure that remains confidential. Teri should make public its accounts, including details of all payments it has received from Dr Pachauri's work for other organisations – particularly those that stand to benefit from policies arising directly or indirectly from the recommendations of the IPCC.

...Similarly it is Tata which next month is to close down its Corus steel works at Redcar, to make a potential £600 million in "credits" from the carbon emissions this will save, while in India it will earn a similar amount in UN CDM "credits" by building a plant of similar capacity in Orissa. It will thus make a potential gain of £1.2 billion, at the expense of 1,700 jobs on Teesside, for no overall reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

Truly, as the snow falls, does the business of saving the planet from global warming become more convoluted and more lucrative by the day.

_____


Full article here:


The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer - Telegraph

 

[Sodafin]

Sinatra -

Why do you refuse to debate the topic, or look at any of the science presented?

You just seem to concede defeat as soon as anyone else expresses an opinion.

 

[code1211]

Let's look at some facts:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

I see your link and raise you mine.

The whole basis of the AGW idea is that CO2 increases warming and that more CO2 will cause larger and faster increases. We have as much now as we've ever had and the warming is stalled. It has stalled where it was when the stall occurred which was very high, but it has stalled.

The linked article contains a pretty well researched article on the ocean's lack of warming and the data that is currently being re-calibrated by the intelligencia to show that warming has occurred based on data showing that cooling has occurred. Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, there is a large enough lack of certainty to promote a healthy skepticism. A lack of skepticism in the face of the lack of proof raises questions for me.

Here's the link:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

That's all well and good, except that not one word of the link came from Anthony Watts. Do you even bother to read a thing before condemning it?

It was an article from William DiPuccio who is pretty much retired and presented a pretty cogent though technical argument.

In this link, there is an article from the same guy which is very layman orientated. It reminds of a thing that Eistein said. "You never understand anything until you can explain to your grandmother."

http://www.savegreenearth.com/Free_Downloads/A_Glimpse_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf

 

[code1211]

Big Fitz -

You seem to be more than a little lost. Rather than just flail around, let's take a look at some science, and you can give us your impression of it. Otherwise I sense you are just going to rant and we'll never actually get into the area of facts and data.

This from the UK Met Office -

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

And this from the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

Anthony Arendt

These reports cover the collapse of Alaska's glaciers.

What are your impressions?

Merely pointing out that the Globe is warming does not isolate the cause and the cause is at the root of the discussion. If the cause is man-made, then man can un-make it and correct the problem.

If the cause is not man-made, than efforts by man to affect it are pointless.

The question, then is not whether or not we can find evidence of warming. The question is whether or not we can somehow isolate the warming absent the effects of CO2 to see if there is a causal connection or not.

One researcher has graphed the increase of temperature since 1900 and has overlayed the predictions of Dr. Hansen of GISS from 1988 based on the possibilities that CO2 might increase, might stay the same and might decrease. These are respectively Scenarios A,B and C

The goal of his presentation is to show whether the CO2 has had a predictable impact or not. Or not seems to be the answer. Couple this with the fact that warming since the Little Ice Age seems to predate the Industrial Revolution and one can reasonably have well founded doubts about atmospheric CO2 is, for the first time in history, causing warming.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansenlineartrend.jpg

The Blackboard » Ordinary Eyeball: How did Hansen’s Predictions Do?