Climatology fraud, what will be their sentences?

[TheDecepticon]

NOT ONE national or international scientific body disputes global warming or that it's man made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yet CONZ come on here and point to these emails as PROOF that there is a vast global conspiracy involving ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and POLITICIANS WORLDWIDE to be in on it.

Tell you what CONZ....come up with some SCIENCE that proves EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY wrong AND provide proof of the global conspiracy which you say is occurring.

THEN and ONLY then will you be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

 

[Si modo]

NOT ONE national or international scientific body disputes global warming or that it's man made.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet CONZ come on here and point to these emails as PROOF that there is a vast global conspiracy involving ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and POLITICIANS WORLDWIDE to be in on it.

Tell you what CONZ....come up with some SCIENCE that proves EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY wrong AND provide proof of the global conspiracy which you say is occurring.

THEN and ONLY then will you be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

Well, I understand your handicap. You think science is done by vote.

 

[JDzBrain]

Not perfect, but I am at a loss for an option that is pragmatically better.

If you are interested in reading about the history of science policy and the analysis of why it is important for the country, I recommend this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsf.gov%2Fabout%2Fhistory%2Fnsf50%2Fscience_policy.jsp&ei=KPDgTrPFAebr0gGcsvXKBw&usg=AFQjCNHk5OjVUNwVi1VPRuCF7TaeVRk9zw. I think it's an interesting read.

And, I would never, ever think someone was insane for taking upper level chem classes. (Were you chemical engineering?)

That's why I say we have to address it through our legislators Si. The whole culture inside government has to be changed.

As to the history of science...Ariticle I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

It's one of the very few things the government actually IS suppose to do related to science. But not to do the science or influence it. Just "promote" it. That's with a small "p' and by protecting their Art and Inventions...NOT usurping it!.

It's one of the most miss used clauses in our Constitution. It's right up there with the commerce clause for abuse and fraud.

It's funny. The vast majority of modern conveniences we enjoy now are a direct result of the government funded space race program. However, the vast majority of the individual systems that were used to do the deal were systems that resulted from private research and inventors. As have MOST advances in science that we live with every day.

While I agree science and technology is vital to the welfare of America, the system has been completely bastardized by misguided progressives who view the government as the solution to drive the science that will fix what ails the world. A view I fervently disagree with!

It is private enterprise that will fuel our future...IF we can get the government out of the damn way! ;~)

Nope, not Chemical Engineering. Although I kind of wish it had been now. I really enjoy it. Who knows, maybe someday. I ain't dead...yet! ;~)

My major was Computer Science.

 

[Si modo]

Not perfect, but I am at a loss for an option that is pragmatically better.

If you are interested in reading about the history of science policy and the analysis of why it is important for the country, I recommend this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsf.gov%2Fabout%2Fhistory%2Fnsf50%2Fscience_policy.jsp&ei=KPDgTrPFAebr0gGcsvXKBw&usg=AFQjCNHk5OjVUNwVi1VPRuCF7TaeVRk9zw. I think it's an interesting read.

And, I would never, ever think someone was insane for taking upper level chem classes. (Were you chemical engineering?)

That's why I say we have to address it through our legislators Si. The whole culture inside government has to be changed.

As to the history of science...Ariticle I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

It's one of the very few things the government actually IS suppose to do related to science. But not to do the science or influence it. Just "promote" it. That's with a small "p' and by protecting their Art and Inventions...NOT usurping it!.

It's one of the most miss used clauses in our Constitution. It's right up there with the commerce clause for abuse and fraud.

It's funny. The vast majority of modern conveniences we enjoy now are a direct result of the government funded space race program. However, the vast majority of the individual systems that were used to do the deal were systems that resulted from private research and inventors. As have MOST advances in science that we live with every day.

While I agree science and technology is vital to the welfare of America, the system has been completely bastardized by misguided progressives who view the government as the solution to drive the science that will fix what ails the world. A view I fervently disagree with!

It is private enterprise that will fuel our future...IF we can get the government out of the damn way! ;~)

Nope, not Chemical Engineering. Although I kind of wish it had been now. I really enjoy it. Who knows, maybe someday. I ain't dead...yet! ;~)

My major was Computer Science.

Well, you and I agree on the basics, just not on the logistics. I never want to see government funding of research supplanted by private sector funding. Personally, I think that will make it worse. In this respect, and IMO, I believe we have the lesser of two evils (as far as bias, alone, is considered) holding the cash bags.

I understand completely why you believe the opposite.

The main thing is that we agree on the rest.



And, no you aren't dead yet. It is never too late to get more education.

(My undergrad was chemical engineering, then I went for my doctorate in organic chemistry - from applied science to pure, and I like it. Having background in applied before going pure was a plus, too, IMO. I tend to be more pragmatic than my peers.)

 

[westwall]

Okay..but you need someone to spot you.

Seal up the garage..and turn on the car. Have the spotter watch you either through a window or on video.

And when you fall asleep..because of lack of oxygen..have the spotter rush in to save your life.

That work?

The more crap you spew into the atmosphere..the less breathable material is going to be left. And..it's helping the climate change at a rapid pace.

A very poor analogy. You die because of carbon MONOXIDE poisoning. CO2 will freely release its bond with your hemoglobin. CO does NOT. Once carbon monoxide has bonded with your blood cell it is dead.

My model holds up fine. You spew crap into the atmosphere, injurious to conditions that foster life..then that life dies. Simple as that.

And it's a simple concept, too. We live in a finite world..with finite resources. And it's not like you can't have both..industry and a clean environment. Not many "regulations" have killed off industry. Quite the opposite. It brings about innovation and efficiency, something most private concerns are loathe to do on their own. But in the long run..it actually saves money and makes the overall process better.

No it doesn't hold up at all. CO2 is not poisonous. It is the fundamental building block of life. CO is a poison. Do you see the difference? If CO2 levels drop to around 200ppm growing seasons end. No plants can grow with that low a concentration of CO2. What happens then? Yep, you got it. Everything dies. Do you see the difference yet?

Lots of CO2 in the atmosphere and plants bloom and life does well. Remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and you have a lifeless moonscape.

 

[westwall]

NOT ONE national or international scientific body disputes global warming or that it's man made.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet CONZ come on here and point to these emails as PROOF that there is a vast global conspiracy involving ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and POLITICIANS WORLDWIDE to be in on it.

Tell you what CONZ....come up with some SCIENCE that proves EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY wrong AND provide proof of the global conspiracy which you say is occurring.

THEN and ONLY then will you be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

Actually it's the other way around. We have shown many times that all that is being observed and has been observed is normal variability and has occured countless times in the history of the planet. We have also shown that there is NO empirical data to support the theory of AGW. None. All there is are computer models of proven poor performance.

It is YOU who need to prove that what is occuring now is somehow different then what has happened in the past. Occams Razor my friend, Occams Razor. Look it up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sallow, the AGW scientists HAVE ADMITTED, "self admitted" in their emails that they were being fraudulent. That's tantamount to them ADMITTING GLOBAL WARMING NEVER EXISTED!!! These people have committed crimes in excess of even nazi Germany!

Yeah.....let's bring-in the climate-pros, for Fair & Balanced type data.....​

"[Phil] Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality."

Rewriting The Science​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0i4Sx1edJE]Global Warming and George Bush - YouTube[/ame]

*

January 17, 2012

"Snow this year is a thing of myth and legend."

 

[Conservative]

they should be made to change every light bulb in Al Gores mansion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"When it comes to climate change, the urgency of the problem may not seem so obvious, since it doesn't sound an alarm or poke us in the eye. The consequences appear to be far away. And we find it hard to comprehend the significant risks posed by global warming, such as the rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere or the impending rise in sea levels, because we can't, at the moment, see them with the naked eye. Yet if we fail to reduce heat-trapping emissions, we will cross a threshold, and the changes in our world will be irreversible."

Climate change carries serious consequences both for humans and for ecosystems. This is a crisis that will affect our food, our national security, our water, our ability to live where we choose, and other basic human needs. Whether and how we address global warming is not a question of science, it's a question of values."

Tomorrow Is HERE!!!!!​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_42HBOI3XQ]Ticking - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Vast LWC]

Sallow, the AGW scientists HAVE ADMITTED, "self admitted" in their emails that they were being fraudulent. That's tantamount to them ADMITTING GLOBAL WARMING NEVER EXISTED!!! These people have committed crimes in excess of even nazi Germany!

Hey, BOBO, Global Warming does exist.

Even the skeptics have been convinced.

No matter how many times to cry "Conspiracy", the fact are the facts. Global Warming is in fact happening. The icecaps are in fact melting.

The only question that remains is what is causing Global Warming.

Most people in the scientific community believe that it is man-made, and there are many indicators that back this up, but it is not proven.

But there is no "giant socialist conspiracy led by the UN". There's just a bunch of people who are worried about the future of humanity.

Apparently, you personally don't give a shit about humanity.

You don't have to believe that Global Warming is man-made, but if you decide not to believe Climate Change is real, then you are a moron.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually it's the other way around. We have shown many times that all that is being observed and has been observed is normal variability and has occured countless times in the history of the planet. We have also shown that there is NO empirical data to support the theory of AGW. None. All there is are computer models of proven poor performance.

It is YOU who need to prove that what is occuring now is somehow different then what has happened in the past. Occams Razor my friend, Occams Razor. Look it up.

Um, actually, you have not.

You have shown that there is variability in the planet's temperatures, yes.

But no-one has shown that the temperature changes we are seeing now are in the "normal" range.

There has in fact been evidence to the contrary, but again, the cause of Climate Change has not been proven to be man-made.

But, the cause of our current climate change has certainly NOT been proven to caused by something other than man either.

So, your assertion is incorrect.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's like this:

I see a particularly large wave coming in from offshore.

I say to you: "Man that wave looks big, maybe we should move away from the shore."

And the you say to me: "No, you're clearly just trying to scare me. Waves come into shore all the time."

You would be correct in saying that waves come into shore all the time, but I may also be correct in thinking that the tidal wave currently barreling towards the beach may harm us.

Unfortunately, if I'm right about the wave, and we don't do anything, I won't have the chance to say "I told you so", because we'll both be dead.

 

[Conservative]

Actually it's the other way around. We have shown many times that all that is being observed and has been observed is normal variability and has occured countless times in the history of the planet. We have also shown that there is NO empirical data to support the theory of AGW. None. All there is are computer models of proven poor performance.

It is YOU who need to prove that what is occuring now is somehow different then what has happened in the past. Occams Razor my friend, Occams Razor. Look it up.

Um, actually, you have not.

You have shown that there is variability in the planet's temperatures, yes.

But no-one has shown that the temperature changes we are seeing now are in the "normal" range.

There has in fact been evidence to the contrary, but again, the cause of Climate Change has not been proven to be man-made.

But, the cause of our current climate change has certainly NOT been proven to caused by something other than man either.

So, your assertion is incorrect.

If you do not know what the 'normal range' is, how can you prove it one way or the other?

 

[Old Rocks]

Corrupt Science : Evidence of Massive Climatology Fraud Exposed | ARCHITECT AFRICA | ARCHITECTURE

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

The Flathead Society - Page 1 - Cal Thomas - Townhall Conservative

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming


The link below exposes the back door global socialism motive of the 'professional' environmentalists...

Global Warming Equals Socialism

I wonder what the legal sentencing will be for these criminals? The tax cost globally to the human community from their fraudulent back door global socialist scheme certainly has to be measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. This would make their crime the single biggest premeditated crime against all of humanity in the entire history of recorded human existence.
What would you expect for sentencing for this crime these people did to us???

Well, damn those socialistic glaciers. You tell them they have to stop melting! Right now!

You stooges of willfull ignorance are a hoot. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

You lying bastards have already prevented any measures that would have addressed the warming in time to prevent major consequences. Now you are doing your best to prevent any measures that would address hardening the infrastructure to deal with the consequences. Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the two biggest re-insurance companies in the world, both state that the cost of extreme weather events has increased five fold since 1970, and that at least 50% of increase is due to the increase in severity and number of storms.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you do not know what the 'normal range' is, how can you prove it one way or the other?

That is why so many studies, using ice core samples and other methods, have been done, and so many are currently being conducted.

As I said, cause is not known for a fact yet, but the earth is warming at an alarming rate.

So, in answer to the OP....

If Global Warming is man-made, then what will be the penalty paid by Global Warming deniers when we all suffer for their actions?

If there are major world-affecting problems, should we just put them and their descendants to death? Of just take away all their ill-gotten wealth to help the people who are suffering?

 

[Old Rocks]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

Only if I own beach front.

In the mean time work on that one experiment that puts all doubt to rest.

Hey dumb fuck, it was done in 1858 by John Tyndall of England, and published in 1861. It has been done and refined many times since. Just because you are totally ignorant, and proud of it, does not mean the rest of us are.

 

[daveman]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't need emotionalism and fear-mongering.

 

[Old Rocks]

Full-Auto, I never heard about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION as the reason for global warming??? All I ever read was global warming was supposed to be a 'threat' to the existence of mankind.

The UN is where is STARTED. They wish to control the development of other nations, in return you get a few bucks.

Ye Gods and little fishes. Do you have to continualy prove what a dumb ass your are?

In the 1820's the great French polymath, Joseph Fourier noted that something in the atmosphere had to be retaining heat, as the re-radiation and reflection of sunlight without that factor would have the Earth with continental glaciers down to the equator.

In 1858 an English chemist did the first measurements of the absorption spectra of the GHGs in the atmosphere. And in 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, a Nobel Prize winner, did the first estimations of the affects of doubling CO2 in the atmospher. He came amazingly close to the present accepted figure.

Since then, many scientists have addressed all aspects of global warming. Almost all have come to the conclusion that the result will be very unpleasant for all of us.

The American Geophysical Union has more climate scientists than any other Scientific Society in the world. This is their statement on global warming;

AGU revises position on climate change

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Decepticon]

Perhaps the OP could tell us the names of ANY scientific body, national or international that denies global climate change or that it's man made?

It's a TRICK QUESTION! Because NO SCIENTIFIC BODY, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD denies climate change. Not ONE.


This is like Creationists and Evolution. They deny evolution took place, yet don't have anywhere NEAR the level of empirical evidence to support their claims.
Ask a creationist HOW fossils got there and you get some variance on the theme of "it's magic!"
Same thing if you ask a climate change denier where HIS empirical data is.

Instead of posting links to various conspiracy theories, perhaps the OP could point us to the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC DATA which disputes the measurements that the climate is changing.
Oh, wait, he can't because it doesn't exist.

Insistence that global warming isn't occurring is based in nothing other than ignorance and wishful thinking and a fear of change.

 

[Old Rocks]

"When it comes to climate change, the urgency of the problem may not seem so obvious, since it doesn't sound an alarm or poke us in the eye. The consequences appear to be far away. And we find it hard to comprehend the significant risks posed by global warming, such as the rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere or the impending rise in sea levels, because we can't, at the moment, see them with the naked eye. Yet if we fail to reduce heat-trapping emissions, we will cross a threshold, and the changes in our world will be irreversible."

Climate change carries serious consequences both for humans and for ecosystems. This is a crisis that will affect our food, our national security, our water, our ability to live where we choose, and other basic human needs. Whether and how we address global warming is not a question of science, it's a question of values."

Tomorrow Is HERE!!!!!​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_42HBOI3XQ]Ticking - YouTube[/ame]​

Here and apparent for those that are willing to research the issue.

Arctic methane emergency