Climatology fraud, what will be their sentences?

[Mr. Shaman]

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 since AGW or Climate Change is being pushed to push UN Agenda 21 which seeks to turn the people in to life time prisoners of a global elite.....

Can you direct us to their Charter?

​

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

 

[Vast LWC]

Is your side relying on fear-mongering, or isn't it?

My point was that both sides are using those same tactics.

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

And I used that point to respond to the OP, to point out how over the top it was...

 

[Photonic]

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Not so fast...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
DPA Climate Change

Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The earth’s climate naturally varies continually, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years.

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.

Funny that you should post the latest AAPG position. You see, they used to flat out state that AGW was wrong. Then they had a membership rebellion, where a majority of the members stated, "change the policy statement to reflect real science, or we will not renew". So, they changed it to a fairly non-commital statement. Note, they do not deny AGW at all, just call for further study, and lie about the present changes being within the range of natural variability. Another couple of years, and the scientists in the membership will force that to be changed, also.

What happens when a group’s position statement does not reflect its members accurately? | Grist

21 Feb 2008 6:41 AM
A while back, I blogged on the huge number of scientific organizations that had put out position statements supporting the mainstream theory of human-induced global warming.

Many commenters on my post and around the internet have suggested that one can’t trust a statement put out by a professional organization. They argue that these statements are not voted on by the membership, but generally drafted by an ad hoc committee and adopted by the organization’s leadership.

If this small clique of members turned out to be advocates, the hypothesis goes, then the resulting statement will not reflect the overall views of the organization.

It occurred to me, however, that this is a testable hypothesis. How do we test it, you ask? We have a professional organization try to put out a statement that its members don’t agree with. What would happen?

Well, this actually happened. In the late 1990s, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists put out a statement that essentially said human-induced climate change was a bunch of baloney. When it came time to revise the statement in 2006, the initial draft contained roughly the same statement.

By this time, however, a significant fraction of the AAPG membership disagreed with the position, and a revolt ensued. In his newsletter, AAPG president Lee Billingsley said:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.

In the end, the resulting AAPG climate change statement was sharply amended to more or less avoid the issue.

It turns out that, if a scientific organization tries to put out a statement many of its members disagree with, the membership will rise up and rebel. If the AGU tried to put out a statement saying that climate change was not caused by humans, I guarantee the membership would not accept that.

Given that, the lack of outrage by the membership at its new statement suggests that this statement does represent the beliefs of the 50,000 members of the AGU.

 

[Vast LWC]

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

It's a decent point, that once the probability of something being true has reached a certain point, we should logically take action, in case that probable scenario turns out to be the case.

I will not dispute that.

I was simply pointing out that I don't believe the case to have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and therefore cannot fully refute the arguments of the other side.

That's also why I'm an agnostic.

 

[konradv]

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???

BOBO the Clown strikes again!

 

[Conservative]

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.

Not so fast...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
DPA Climate Change

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.

Funny that you should post the latest AAPG position. You see, they used to flat out state that AGW was wrong. Then they had a membership rebellion, where a majority of the members stated, "change the policy statement to reflect real science, or we will not renew". So, they changed it to a fairly non-commital statement. Note, they do not deny AGW at all, just call for further study, and lie about the present changes being within the range of natural variability. Another couple of years, and the scientists in the membership will force that to be changed, also.

What happens when a group’s position statement does not reflect its members accurately? | Grist

21 Feb 2008 6:41 AM
A while back, I blogged on the huge number of scientific organizations that had put out position statements supporting the mainstream theory of human-induced global warming.

Many commenters on my post and around the internet have suggested that one can’t trust a statement put out by a professional organization. They argue that these statements are not voted on by the membership, but generally drafted by an ad hoc committee and adopted by the organization’s leadership.

If this small clique of members turned out to be advocates, the hypothesis goes, then the resulting statement will not reflect the overall views of the organization.

It occurred to me, however, that this is a testable hypothesis. How do we test it, you ask? We have a professional organization try to put out a statement that its members don’t agree with. What would happen?

Well, this actually happened. In the late 1990s, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists put out a statement that essentially said human-induced climate change was a bunch of baloney. When it came time to revise the statement in 2006, the initial draft contained roughly the same statement.

By this time, however, a significant fraction of the AAPG membership disagreed with the position, and a revolt ensued. In his newsletter, AAPG president Lee Billingsley said:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.

In the end, the resulting AAPG climate change statement was sharply amended to more or less avoid the issue.

It turns out that, if a scientific organization tries to put out a statement many of its members disagree with, the membership will rise up and rebel. If the AGU tried to put out a statement saying that climate change was not caused by humans, I guarantee the membership would not accept that.

Given that, the lack of outrage by the membership at its new statement suggests that this statement does represent the beliefs of the 50,000 members of the AGU.

You counter the actual website of a scientific organization.... with a blog about it?

Really???

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Hey, dumbfuck, Tyndall's experiment doesn't prove what you were programmed to believe it proves.

Daveyboy, just because you are too stupid to read what the old scientific paper stated does not mean the rest of us are.

Ya' gotta understand.

The daveman is your typical self-centered, "conservative"-prick.....who figures he'll be dead-and-gone when the-shit-hits-the-fan.

He (obviously) has no heirs/descendents.....or, he'd (at least) care about their Future....even though he won't profit from it.

He's a true Conservative.....who dreads change.....of ANY kind.....and, if his inaction has a negative-impact on future-generations, he could (almost) give-a-fuck.

His type TALKS about sacrificing for a Greater Good......but, when-the-rubber-hits-the-road.....he's as genuine as Jr. Chickenhawks.


*

 

[Photonic]

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

It's a decent point, that once the probability of something being true has reached a certain point, we should logically take action, in case that probable scenario turns out to be the case.

I will not dispute that.

I was simply pointing out that I don't believe the case to have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and therefore cannot fully refute the arguments of the other side.

That's also why I'm an agnostic.

Being that we are a sentient, industrialized species, and there is no evidence of any other sentient, industrialized species on Earth, all we can do is draw from the way mother nature reacts to similar situations that arise in nature. We've seen the dangerous smog in China, we've seen the holes in the Ozone layer caused by human industry, we know what the Ozone does for us.

We also know that the Earth regularly goes through periods of warming and cooling, and that we ARE due for another period of cooling.

 

[daveman]

Is your side relying on fear-mongering, or isn't it?

My point was that both sides are using those same tactics.

To differing extents.

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

And I used that point to respond to the OP, to point out how over the top it was...

I don't agree that AGW cultists should be executed. Jailed or fined, or both, if fraud is proven in court.

And Hansen should face punishment for his violations of Federal ethics laws.

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

Thank you. Yes, that question is being asked, and perhaps answered in a way not to anybodies likeing.

Arctic methane emergency

Methane catastrophe

 

[daveman]

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

 

[Photonic]

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

"We know humans have a significant impact on climate..."

You may know it. But you haven't proven it.

Know what nuclear winter is?

Ever been to heavily industrialized areas of China?

Do you know what acid rain is?

 

[Old Rocks]

Is your side relying on fear-mongering, or isn't it?

My point was that both sides are using those same tactics.

To differing extents.

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

And I used that point to respond to the OP, to point out how over the top it was...

I don't agree that AGW cultists should be executed. Jailed or fined, or both, if fraud is proven in court.

And Hansen should face punishment for his violations of Federal ethics laws.

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts. A non-degreed ex-TV weatherman. No credibility in any sphere, has been proven to be a liar many times. How about linking to the specific laws that you claim Dr. Hansen may have broken? Can you do that, or is this just more of your idiotic flapyap.

 

[Photonic]

True, but I was saying we have no evidence to prove the warming is in the normal range, which does not contradict what you are saying.

As I said, there is evidence that points to this warming to be outside the normal range, but (thought it seems likely to me) I have not seen what I consider to be absolute proof that that is the case.

Do we have to wait till we actually have a climate issue on our hands for it to be absolute? What's the limit? We know humans have a significant impact on climate, but what we don't know is if that impact can cascade to total climate failure.

I'm not on either side but the question needs to be asked.

Thank you. Yes, that question is being asked, and perhaps answered in a way not to anybodies likeing.

Arctic methane emergency

Methane catastrophe

I already know full well about methane hydrates.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Yes, because massive conspiracy theories...
claiming the entire world's scientific community is in cahoots with the UN and most world governments...
on a giant world-wide scam to defraud everyone on the planet...

isn't "emotionalism" and "fear-mongering" at all.

Right?

Are you saying "We're all gonna DIE!!! if we don't wreck the economies of the Western world right now!!"

Yeah.....that's what recycling & improved gas-mileage are gonna do.

I truly do sympathize with you folks who aren't excited about what the Future holds.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw&feature=fvw]Solar hydrogen home Michael Strizki - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

Don't forget that temperature increases always precede CO2 increases by several centuries.

How awful CO2 is! It goes back in time to make the earth hotter!

But go ahead, accept the rants of an obese junkie over all the research of the scientists involved in the study of climate. It is only your children and grandchildren that will pay for your willfull ignorance.

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

Daveyboy, once again you are repeating nonsense. Yes, in the natural order of the Milankovic Cycles, the warming of the Southern Oceans precedes the emission of CO2 from that source. And that CO2 is the feedback that changes us from the continental glaciers to the interglacial period. And, if you look at the rythmic glaciations and interglaciations, you note that the descent into glacial conditions is slow, while the heat increase that creates the interglacial periods is very fast.

And that increase of CO2, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, is only 100 ppm. We have already added 110 ppm of CO2, and over 1000 ppb of CH4. And CH4 is a stronger GHG than CO2 by a factor of at least 70 over a 20 year period.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Not so fast...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

BEEN there!!!!!!

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

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Well, we have this record that goes back at least 650,000 years in the ice cores from Antarctica. And we see no increase in GHGs at any time to match that we are seeing today. And the changes that we see in that record that involved rapid change, also involved catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the Younger Dryas period.

Yes, we do have a record of what is normal range variability in both temperature and time, and we are far outside of it.

Don't forget that temperature increases always precede CO2 increases by several centuries.

How awful CO2 is! It goes back in time to make the earth hotter!

Ah, yes......more Teabagger-science.

'Tis a wonderment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNk--ZXoGVY]Michele Bachmann thinks that carbon dioxide is a harmless gas, here she is saying so in Congress. - YouTube[/ame]​