Global cooling or global warming?

[Oddball]

Hell, half of that dreck is parenthetic qualifications, with enough semantic fudging to claim that they can regulate virtually everything that moves.

And I bet there's not even a pony anywhere to be found in that heap of horseshit.

 

[KittenKoder]

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...

Sadly no ... the original environmental movement was taken over by these Goreans ... they are too stupid to think and just want to "feel good" ... so they force others through laws and other bullshit.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just like every other religion, AGW religion has it's own fanatics.

It sure seems that America is out of touch with the rest of the world regarding global warming, and that the world is slapping us in the face to awaken us from our stupor.

Delegates at last week's Barcelona climate talks were frustrated that U.S. negotiators came to the table unable to commit to concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to our seized legislative engine. Since we only have a month until the U.N. global climate summit that starts December 7 in Copenhagen, Barcelona negotiators vented their frustration by setting high expectations that the U.S. would come to Copenhagen with a plan in hand.

Of course, beside that EU countries introduced cap & trade taxes to their population, they are still falling short to their commintments signed under Kyoto Protocol. Regardless...

"We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century," said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for Climate and Energy.

Is the U.S. News Media Failing to Do Its Job on Climate Change?

European socialists expect from Unisted States to deliver, and they have perfect player for it. Are you guessing who that player is? Of course you are...

"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over, Obama said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. “We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

Matter of urgency, before some incriminating emails pop out? And those emails perfectly explain their liberal credo: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein.

We've seen the urgency in stimulus bill, cap & trade bill, health care bill... we've seen it all, and all at the burden of taxpayers. Just watch what's going to happen in Copenhagen. Obama is going to bow to the gods and kings of the AGW religion and do whatever they ask him to do.

 

[Ame®icano]

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many scientists are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The global warming scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Beside these quotes, I would suggest you take the time and watch paleoclimatologist Robert Carter's recent scientific presentation to the Australian Environmental Foundation. There are four parts, I am posting first, you can navigate to other three. Dr. Carter eviscerates the AGW hypothesis in that presentation, and it might help you understand why the U.S. news media isn't so quick to jump on the very fashionable and politically correct , but scientific inane, theory of anthropogenic global warming.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.

 

[Old Rocks]

So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.

No, wrong and willfully ignorant still.

All of this flap does not change the fact that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice, even East Antarctica. The vast majority of the world's glaciers are in an accellerating retreat. And, overall, the globe is warming. As measured both by US and European satellites.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.

No, wrong and willfully ignorant still.

All of this flap does not change the fact that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice, even East Antarctica. The vast majority of the world's glaciers are in an accellerating retreat. And, overall, the globe is warming. As measured both by US and European satellites.

And were we not just told that the reports of ice melt in the Himalayas was more BS?

 

[edthecynic]

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'

Gee, only a few days ago the Earth was cooling for the last 11 years, now it's down to 4. At this rate in a few more days even you deniers will be saying the Earth has been warming for 3 years.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1736227-post70.html

And are those the hacked emails where a "trick" of using "real temps" was exposed???

 

[Ame®icano]

See all three parts...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, Ian Plimer.

Plimer the plagiarist : Deltoid


Plimer the plagiarist
Category: Plimer
Posted on: October 25, 2009 2:48 PM, by Tim Lambert

Eli Rabett has been investigating Ian Plimer's claim that climate scientists were cooking the books on the CO2 record. Plimer wrote:

The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis [2902,2903]. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. [p 416 of Heaven and Earth]

The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour but were used in the official figures and 866 had large hour by hour variability and were not used.[2102] [p 418]

This drew a correction from NOAA's Pieter Tans:

To illustrate how misleading Plimer is I made a plot of 3 years of all hourly data, with 2004 in the middle because Plimer discussed 2004. ... In the plot, "selected" data means that we have used it in constructing the published monthly mean because those hours satisfy the conditions for "background" measurements. The red stripes are extremely close to the published monthly means. ... Also plotted in purple-blue are all non-background data. If one constructs monthly means from ALL data, incl. non-background, one obtains the purple-blue stripes. The differences are only slight, with the seasonal cycle becoming a bit larger due to upslope winds, esp. during the summer.

 

[Oddball]

Ah yes, NOAA...Some of the people who have verified the cooked data from CRU as valid, and further built upon that shaky ground.

 

[Old Rocks]

This fellow has some very interesting and eccentric views on many subjects.

Ian Plimer - SourceWatch

Book: Heaven and Earth
Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism.[1]


Argument with George Monbiot
After the publication of his book met with harsh criticism from The Guardian's George Monbiot, who derided the book, saying that "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data",[1] Plimer challenged Monbiot to a public debate on the issues covered in the book. Monbiot responded by insisting that Plimer, who is known for his "Gish Gallop"[1] approach to debates (a rapid-fire presentation of arguments and changing topics very quickly),[1] first answer a series of written questions for publication on the Guardian's website.[1] Plimer refused and Monbiot labeled Plimer a "grandstander" with a "broad yellow streak" who has never answered the accusations of serious errors in his Heaven and Earth book, and accused him of trying to "drown out the precise refutations published by his book's reviewers".[1] Plimer then reversed his decision, and agreed to answer written questions in return for a live debate.[1] However, instead of the expected answers, he sent a series of questions to Monbiot.[1][1][1] Negotiations with Plimer for a face-to-face debate eventually broke down and no debate was held.[1][1]


Weather theories
Plimer holds some unusual views on a variety of weather-related topics. He believes that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[1] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[1] Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in sea level not because of global warming, but due to "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip making.[1]

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, NOAA...Some of the people who have verified the cooked data from CRU as valid, and further built upon that shaky ground.

Oh Dear God!!!!!!!!!! Grab your tin hats. Find big beds to hide under.

Everybodys in on this conspiracy!!!!!!

No one to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, asswipe.

The incestuous nature of your worshiped "peer review" has cast into doubt everyone who has either verified or used CRU's numbers. It's not our fault that the Goebbles warming crowd is a bunch of whores passing the clap around.

 

[Old Rocks]

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. That number will be considerably smaller after November.

 

[Oddball]

Here we go folks!!

 

[Old Rocks]

I am sure General Gordon finds them very humorous

 

[JD_2B]

I do know that we seem to have an ice age every 10,000 years - give or take a few.

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.

I would also journey a wild guess that this would probably be the first time in history that humans have actually buried tons and tons of waste that takes thousands of years to decompose.. and has polluted the water with our own fecal matter, along with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, not to mention the choice to use, exclusively, a fuel which we knew nothing about the source from which it came. (That would be oil and natural gas- fossil fuels)

We have absolutely done far more damage in the past 100 years, than in the entire history of the world.

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.

 

[Oddball]

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.

Actually, that's a myth too. The dreaded ozone hole comes and goes. BTW...the sun interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.

First, you'll have to define down what "sustainable" means.

Secondly, most people are for waste reduction, as it positively affects their bottom lines. However, they're against things called "waste reduction" that end up causing more waste than they reduce (i.e. glass recycling).

 

[Ame®icano]

I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend. I am not denying solar cycles and warming as a result from it. I am denying that humans are principle cause of the warming.

First time I started following climate was when I started reading articled from Claude Allegre, scientist from France. He's one of the early stage high end scientists to whom other "warmers" turned to for their argument. Honestly, that long ago I wasn't paying much attention to the whole thing, until he reversed his course upon reviewing new data on glaciers, what resulted in being castigated and roundly attacked by his former supporters. It became clear to me then, that warming became more of a religion then a science and that whole thing was primarily driven by a desire to control, then to do what is right for the environment.

Let me be clear: I'm all for wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen and geothermal energy sources, but more then any of these, I am for modern and clean nuclear energy. If "warmists" were truly about the environment then they would be pushing for nuclear power along with everything else. But no, "warmists" reject it and that's telling me they are not completely honest to us. I was thinking what they could be hiding and it hits me... Nuclear power plants cannot be built by the "common people" with no money, experience and knowledge. But if enough money is redistributed (taken then given) to those all those special interest groups who support this government under "green job" umbrella, many will become instantly rich without even showing results of their work or producing anything, since they have to do the research in the field that is still not much known. No guaranties they will succeed, but if they do, they will become even richer.

I am all for solar improvements and other alternative energies. But, if you are going to scream and cry that we have to change right now, then you better support shovel ready nuclear power or you are nothing but an ideological hack.