Global cooling or global warming?

[Ame®icano]

And follow up... with some e-mails published.

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 Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites 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 Hadley 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.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

These emails just show that too many people make money off of lies, and they like the cash cow, and they will lie, cheat and steal to keep milking from it. I'm hoping this all proves to be authentic and true. It will be much easier then to stop Obama's next plan to thwart havoc on America.

 

[Ame®icano]

I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.

No one should have ever paid any attention to anything the IPCC had to say in the first place. There are a couple of major problems with setting up a panel like this that was formed BECAUSE the members had already come to it with a preformed conclusion and refused to consider anything contradictory or didn't conform to it. And there has always been plenty that did. Too bad for the global warmers, but REAL science just doesn't work that way. To prove a theory is a scientific fact REQUIRES repeated attempts to prove it is wrong -and failing to do so under every possible condition. Scientific truth never requires a BELIEF in it as if a religion -it has been irrefutably PROVEN true. You can't prove it is true by ASSUMING it is true and ignoring that which contradicts it -which is exactly what global warmers demand be done. But until then, it will never be anything but an unproven theory. And despite what that lying ass Gore says, theories are NEVER "settled science". Of course they used the very same excuse those who politicize science always use. Doom-and-gloom is so imminent, we just don't have time for proper scientific testing and challenges.

I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.

This is what I wrote earlier:

Does anyone remember Al Gore's movie and famous IPCC "hockey stick"? Well, that "hockey stick is based on a "scientific" computer model. If we are to believe the "scientific" theory consensus that man is driving the current warming and it's not just another of the Earth's natural warming periods, the theory needs to be based on an accurate computer model. Do we really know that model is accurate?

The only way we can prove it is capable of any accuracy at all is to run it backward and let it predict the past. We already know what has happened and determine it's measure of accuracy by known results. The wise thing to do is to have our government ask IPCC to see the results of their computer model with backward accuracy check. Would they do it? Of course not. Since global warming theory is falling apart, they changed terminology to suit their needs, so now we are in "climate change", and that is still taxable.

The John Locke Foundation and Lenoir-Rhyne University's Reese Institute for the Conservation of Natural Resources hosted A Forum on Climate Change: Opposing Views, Feb. 11. 2009.

Check the question and answer on some 3 minute mark.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac[/ame]

To find out what joke IPCC really is, check Q&A at the 4 minute mark:

Q: Dr Schlesinger how many of the IPCC's 2500 scientists are Climate Scientists.

A: I'm going to have to give you a guess, but it's something on the order of 20% have some dealing with climate.

What? That's 500 Scientist that have some dealing with Climate. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?

 

[Oddball]

What? That's 500 Scientist that have some dealing with Climate. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?

I'd like to see a link to the list.

 

[Ame®icano]

What? That's 500 Scientist that have some dealing with Climate. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?

I'd like to see a link to the list.

I'd like to see the list too. I'll try to find and post it here.

Meanwhile, there are some interesting names from hacked e-mails. I think there is a possibility those names are in IPCC list too.

The Death Blow to Climate Science

 

[Oddball]

I don't know for sure...But I did post that list on the other thread that none of the usual suspects will touch with a 10-foot laptop.

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't know for sure...But I did post that list on the other thread that none of the usual suspects will touch with a 10-foot laptop.

Could you link that list here?

At the IPCC website you could click at Meeting Documentation > Sessions and see all the exotic places of their meetings and who participated. Here is also Calendar of Meetings. I wanna go there too...

 

[FactFinder]

The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.

No its called underwater volcanoes

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

No, the energy content in the volcanos is just too miniscule compared to the heat needed to melt the Arctic Ocean ice.

Volcanos in Gakkel Ridge NOT responsible melting the Arctic ice « Climate Sanity

I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.

There have been some attempts to link the arctic sea ice loss of the last several years to reports of volcanoes under thousands of feet of water in the Gakkel Ridge,

The truth is that all the energy from a volcano the size of Mount St. Helens could only melt 100 square kilometers of three meter thick ice. This is a trivial amount of ice for the arctic region, which typically oscillates between about 4 million and 14 million square kilometers every year. 100 square kilometers is only one hundred thousandth of the yearly change in Arctic sea ice extent

Interesting that you could claim this when science does not know the answer to how much volcanoes contribute to oceanwarming. They are currently studying this.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/091027-volcano-ice-age.html
Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

The new findings mesh well with what scientists know about these ancient proto-Atlantic volcanoes, which are thought to have produced the largest eruptions in Earth's history. They issued enough lava to form the Appalachians, enough ash to cover the far ends of the earth, and enough carbon to heat the globe. Atmospheric carbon levels grew to levels 20 times higher than they are today.

 

[FactFinder]

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea | LiveScience

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea

The cluster of five hydrothermal vents, also called black smokers, were discovered farther north than any others previously identified. The vents, one of which towers four stories high, are located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, more than 120 miles farther north than other known vents.

 

[FactFinder]

Here is a contradicting study:

Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

Jennifer Marohasy » Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently-based) conclusion that the long-term (~100-year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most probably the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

Of course there is that nagging little question, if this is the case, why has there been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 150 years? And why has the CO2 increased in the ocean to the extent of creating a measureable increase in acidity?

Why of course it is all the underwater volcanic activity.

 

[jodylee]

doen't matter the earth has been cooling for the last four years, as proven by hacked emails from the univercity of east anglia, showing corespondence discussing how to hide this data. as well as other scientific fraud, as Al Gore said 'the science is over'

 

[Old Rocks]

No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.

 

[jodylee]

No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.

more maniplulated data! Chosing to ignor ocean temperatures when they make up 75% of the earth surface.

 

[Sinatra]

I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.

No one should have ever paid any attention to anything the IPCC had to say in the first place. There are a couple of major problems with setting up a panel like this that was formed BECAUSE the members had already come to it with a preformed conclusion and refused to consider anything contradictory or didn't conform to it. And there has always been plenty that did. Too bad for the global warmers, but REAL science just doesn't work that way. To prove a theory is a scientific fact REQUIRES repeated attempts to prove it is wrong -and failing to do so under every possible condition. Scientific truth never requires a BELIEF in it as if a religion -it has been irrefutably PROVEN true. You can't prove it is true by ASSUMING it is true and ignoring that which contradicts it -which is exactly what global warmers demand be done. But until then, it will never be anything but an unproven theory. And despite what that lying ass Gore says, theories are NEVER "settled science". Of course they used the very same excuse those who politicize science always use. Doom-and-gloom is so imminent, we just don't have time for proper scientific testing and challenges.

I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.

This is what I wrote earlier:

Does anyone remember Al Gore's movie and famous IPCC "hockey stick"? Well, that "hockey stick is based on a "scientific" computer model. If we are to believe the "scientific" theory consensus that man is driving the current warming and it's not just another of the Earth's natural warming periods, the theory needs to be based on an accurate computer model. Do we really know that model is accurate?

The only way we can prove it is capable of any accuracy at all is to run it backward and let it predict the past. We already know what has happened and determine it's measure of accuracy by known results. The wise thing to do is to have our government ask IPCC to see the results of their computer model with backward accuracy check. Would they do it? Of course not. Since global warming theory is falling apart, they changed terminology to suit their needs, so now we are in "climate change", and that is still taxable.

The John Locke Foundation and Lenoir-Rhyne University's Reese Institute for the Conservation of Natural Resources hosted A Forum on Climate Change: Opposing Views, Feb. 11. 2009.

Check the question and answer on some 3 minute mark.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac[/ame]

To find out what joke IPCC really is, check Q&A at the 4 minute mark:

Q: Dr Schlesinger how many of the IPCC's 2500 scientists are Climate Scientists.

A: I'm going to have to give you a guess, but it's something on the order of 20% have some dealing with climate.

What? That's 500 Scientist that have some dealing with Climate. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?

The IPCC has been a world-government shake down organization from the start.

 

[Oddball]

No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.

NOAA, NASA and RSS have been using faked Hadley numbers to confirm their numbers, you myopic stooge.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's interesting how fraudulent scientists need to enact a coverup. This is exactly what on the fence skeptics (if sceptic is called someone who live in the real world) like me refer to when we say scientists and the pro-global warming crowd will do anything to move their theory forward including silencing the opposition. Now we have a bunch of scientists and "scientists" trying to skew data to make it say what they want. Making it look even more like a complete fraud on the part of the global warming crowd. That they have to completely lie and commit fraud (which is what this is) says a lot about the actuality of their theory. If it were true the facts would speak for themselves. Apparently they don't so they make crap up.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just saving this link...

US Senate Minority Report

 

[JeremyNight]

doen't matter the earth has been cooling for the last four years, as proven by hacked emails from the univercity of east anglia, showing corespondence discussing how to hide this data. as well as other scientific fraud, as Al Gore said 'the science is over'

Have you got any documents/links to confirm that?

 

[Ame®icano]

In the wake of illegaly obtained emails here is little reminder what global warming and cap and trade did in Europe.

Meanwhile, energy prices for end users have risen sharply. From 2004 to 2007, household energy costs rose by 16% on average in the 25 EU countries and industrial rates rose by 32%, according to the European Commission.

Those prices have meant windfalls for some companies. CEI's Ebell cites as an example how the German utilities used their influence to wrangle more allowances than the automakers.

"One utility immediately raised their rate 70%" after ETS was implemented, Ebell said. "But they had more credits than they needed to cover their emissions for that year, so they sold them to automakers. So the (utility's) shareholders got two windfalls: one from raising the rates and one from selling the excess credits."

"Congressman Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said we're not going to make the same mistake here," Ebell noted. "But as soon as it became apparent they didn't have the votes without big-business support, they started giving away all of the credits."

Indeed, the current bill began as a 100% auction of permits to emit greenhouse gases. It now would give away 85% of the permits to businesses, utilities and the like.

Europe's Cap-And-Trade Scheme A Cautionary Tale For The U.S.

Are we going to make the same mistake that Europe did? And since we really can't rely on "scientists" data, is it time to revise our thinking? Results of cap and trade when implemented across the EU are speaking for itself. There is nothing in the cap and trade bill to prevent the exact same thing from happening in the US. Does anyone think that House Energy Committee will pull the plug on this bill and start over? Well, considering the donations made to the House Energy committee for the 2008 elections by the electricity industry, I there would be any change.

 

[Sinatra]

No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.

NOAA, NASA and RSS have been using faked Hadley numbers to confirm their numbers, you myopic stooge.

No kidding - is Old Rocks actually putting us on with his rampant stupidity on this subject?

These figures were all shared - rebooted, and shared again. It was scientific incest on a global scale...

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is the Framework of the Convention on Climate Change. This piece of garbage should be discussed in Copenhagen and signed into the treaty. Based on this document and the unregulated and biased global commodities market they are trying to create, the United Nations should be ejected from the United States and our country withdrawn from the organization.

Framework Convention on Climate Change