Three Big Supporters Throw Climate Hoaxers Overboard

[SpidermanTuba]

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

Al Gore got rich off of Google. I'm not sure what the has to do with global warming.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually the hoax was global cooling in the 70s.

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Tell me more about this mass conspiracy among the a majority of the world scientists Mike?

I didn't say it's a consipracy nor do I consider them scientists.

They are simply people after money.

4 years of undergraduate school in a pure science - then move

6 years in graduate studies paid at 15k a year - then move

3-5 years as a post doctoral researcher for around 35k a year - move twice

5-7 years seeking tenure as an assistant professor for 55k a year


Then finally, at long last the HUGE PILE OF MONEY AT THE END, about 75-100k a year, and a steady job.


Yeah, really greedy people, scientists are.

 

[Xenophon]

Arrrrrrgh, mateys!

The S.S. Global Moonbat is takin' on water!!

Arrrrrrrrgh!

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

Aye, the jig is up, to the life boats!

Argh!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually the hoax was global cooling in the 70s.

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually the hoax was global cooling in the 70s.

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

Also wrong.

 

[Oddball]

oil giants bp plc and conocophillips and heavy-equipment maker caterpillar inc. said

wow how surprising

What motivated them to throw in with the sham artists in the first place, professor?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

oil giants bp plc and conocophillips and heavy-equipment maker caterpillar inc. said

wow how surprising

What motivated them to throw in with the sham artists in the first place, professor?

Hmm, lets see, they are for-profit corporations, so I'm going to hazard a wild guess.....


PROFIT?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

Also wrong.

According to Phil Jones, one of the central scientists involved, there has been no warming since 1995 and the hockey stick charts are not accurate.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

 

[Meister]

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

Also wrong.

According to Phil Jones, one of the central scientists involved, there has been no warming since 1995 and the hockey stick charts are not accurate.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Opppps, let's not get those pesky facts in the way of a good sham.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

[*]There has been no global warming since 1995

Uhhh, sorry, NO again.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

What Dr. Jones is saying, in case you can't understand, isn't that there hasn't been warming since 1995 - but that the warming, if it exists, is not statistically detectable above the 95% confidence level. He then points out an obvious fact that anyone who knows anything about statistics knows - when you pick shorter time periods, the chances of the trend being statistically significant goes down.

[*]Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

WHAT A GROUNDBREAKING DISCOVERY

I'm sure the scientists who spent 20 years studying climate before they could even land permanent jobs looked that one over, you should email one of them, let them know.

 

[Oddball]

Riiiiight.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics also knows that the amount of overall CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to a rounding error, too. But that doesn't stop hysterical fools like you from predicting climate Armageddon.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Riiiiight.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics also knows that the amount of overall CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to a rounding error, too.

Uhhh, wrong again. Modern ppm measurements for CO2 are accurate to about 0.1 ppm. The level in the atmosphere is over 350 ppm. That 0.1 ppm is a lot smaller than the total amount.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Riiiiight.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics also knows that the amount of overall CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to a rounding error, too.

Uhhh, wrong again. Modern ppm measurements for CO2 are accurate to about 0.1 ppm. The level in the atmosphere is over 350 ppm. That 0.1 ppm is a lot smaller than the total amount.

Dude, trying to argue this with spidermantuba is akin to telling a catholic that jesus wasn't the son of god, you'll never get through.

 

[Oddball]

.035% (that 35¢ in $100.00 for you scoring at home) is statistically significant in what way?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

.035% (that 35¢ in $100.00 for you scoring at home) is statistically significant in what way?

Well if we were talking about the federal budget.........

 

[keee keee]

Actually the hoax was global cooling in the 70s.

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

they tried in the 70 with global cooloing but failed almost suceeded with pulling off the global warming hoaxs wonder what they will try next. beware IT'S COMING!!!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

.035% (that 35¢ in $100.00 for you scoring at home) is statistically significant in what way?

Well if we were talking about the federal budget.........

In that case, then the Fabian bedwetters screech about "draconian cuts" to their beloved programs for the sainted pooooooooooor and the chiiiiiillllldrrrreeennnnnnn!

I sense a thematic structure here.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There was no global cooling hoax in the 70's.

Just like there has been no global warming since 1995.

they tried in the 70 with global cooloing but failed almost suceeded with pulling off the global warming hoaxs wonder what they will try next. beware IT'S COMING!!!!!!!

We should be entering another cooling trend soon enough...maybe we can say an Ice Age is coming therefore the government needs to expand its powers and tax revenues as a percentage of incomes to help save us from it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

.035% (that 35¢ in $100.00 for you scoring at home) is statistically significant in what way?

The mass or volume of CO2 is not the issue, it's the infrared absorption cross section that matters.

Please tell me you understand this.