Global warming biggest science scandal ever

[Billy_Bob]

Does anyone here know why there are so few people who actually understand the science of climate change posting here these days? It is because the forum has been taken over by right wing political pundants who don't even understand the very simple fact that weather and climate are not the same thing. Talking to these people is like talking to a creationist with the exception that at least a creationist can justify their ignorance on religious grounds. And at least creationists for the most part don't use foul and/or insulting language when you converse with them. I can accept that even if I think their denial is irrational. I can accept that because their belief in creationism mostly doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. On the other hand, right wing political pundants who are actively denying the science are hurting everyone because every day nothing is done to mitigate CO2 emissions, because every day their activism against science affects all of us and pushes us further and further away from our former leadership role in the sciences, the more at risk is our future and that of our children, and their children. It really does border on criminal behavior, IMHO. But who the hell wants to have a conversation with some one like theowl32, or Flash, people who obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation, or even at least one of the moderators, who apparently feels it to be their place to shut down the conversation of anyone who disagrees with them? I certainly see no point to it. But perhaps that was their aim in the first place: To shut down all reasonable discussion and claim, in their eyes at least, some sort of victory. Sorry, folks. Alienating people doesn't make one superior to anyone. And considering the fact that the only ones who appear to be taken to task on the forum rules are those who support climate change science, such behavior certainly isn't contributing to the conversation. So what's the point? Anyone? Why even have an environment forum at all?

There is no science when data is manipulated to get results. Climategate I and II provided the direct evidence of the manipulation. Did you bother even to read the article posted by the OP about the temperature fudge factors being used? What kind of science is that?

Talk about about children this Left Wing religious like belief in something that has absolutely no credible scientific basis is really comical.

Arguing with these Environmental wacko nutcases about AGW is like discussing Islamic religion with Muslim terrorists. They refuse to believe the facts and they make up shit.

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you.. I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

One lie begets two lies and that begets 4 lies and pretty soon your lies catch up with you..

 

[westwall]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

 

[orogenicman]

Does anyone here know why there are so few people who actually understand the science of climate change posting here these days? It is because the forum has been taken over by right wing political pundants who don't even understand the very simple fact that weather and climate are not the same thing. Talking to these people is like talking to a creationist with the exception that at least a creationist can justify their ignorance on religious grounds. And at least creationists for the most part don't use foul and/or insulting language when you converse with them. I can accept that even if I think their denial is irrational. I can accept that because their belief in creationism mostly doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. On the other hand, right wing political pundants who are actively denying the science are hurting everyone because every day nothing is done to mitigate CO2 emissions, because every day their activism against science affects all of us and pushes us further and further away from our former leadership role in the sciences, the more at risk is our future and that of our children, and their children. It really does border on criminal behavior, IMHO. But who the hell wants to have a conversation with some one like theowl32, or Flash, people who obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation, or even at least one of the moderators, who apparently feels it to be their place to shut down the conversation of anyone who disagrees with them? I certainly see no point to it. But perhaps that was their aim in the first place: To shut down all reasonable discussion and claim, in their eyes at least, some sort of victory. Sorry, folks. Alienating people doesn't make one superior to anyone. And considering the fact that the only ones who appear to be taken to task on the forum rules are those who support climate change science, such behavior certainly isn't contributing to the conversation. So what's the point? Anyone? Why even have an environment forum at all?

There is no science when data is manipulated to get results. Climategate I and II provided the direct evidence of the manipulation. Did you bother even to read the article posted by the OP about the temperature fudge factors being used? What kind of science is that?

Talk about about children this Left Wing religious like belief in something that has absolutely no credible scientific basis is really comical.

Arguing with these Environmental wacko nutcases about AGW is like discussing Islamic religion with Muslim terrorists. They refuse to believe the facts and they make up shit.

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get ...

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And yet another denier conspiracy theory crumbles. And it won't matter. Being that all the deniers here are all deeply stupid and dishonest cultists, they'll run right back to the people who lied to them and beg for more lies, after screaming curses at me for popping their latest delusion bubble.

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The Bitch of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

If you believe that science is "left wing propaganda", you are too far gone for any reasonable person to consider having a conversation with you. I cannot say what your chances are of recovering from your condition, but you do have my sympathy.

Everything you have posted to date has been debunked and shown inaccurate. The beauty of it is, the earth did it all by itself. Empirical evidence shows that all the warming we have seen is from NATURAL VARIATION. CO2 has ZERO to do with it.. Yet you cling to it as if it was the bible. This is odd behavior as real scientist are always questing the norm and asking why or why not...

 

[orogenicman]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!

Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.

 

[orogenicman]

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get ...

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And yet another denier conspiracy theory crumbles. And it won't matter. Being that all the deniers here are all deeply stupid and dishonest cultists, they'll run right back to the people who lied to them and beg for more lies, after screaming curses at me for popping their latest delusion bubble.

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The Bitch of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

If you believe that science is "left wing propaganda", you are too far gone for any reasonable person to consider having a conversation with you. I cannot say what your chances are of recovering from your condition, but you do have my sympathy.

Everything you have posted to date has been debunked and shown inaccurate. The beauty of it is, the earth did it all by itself. Empirical evidence shows that all the warming we have seen is from NATURAL VARIATION. CO2 has ZERO to do with it.. Yet you cling to it as if it was the bible. This is odd behavior as real scientist are always questing the norm and asking why or why not...

No, actually, that is not the case. None of these so-called 'debunkings' have come from peer reviewed scientific sources. Clue - Watt is not a scientist (he's a former radio dj), and his blog page is not a peer reviewed scientific forum.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Does anyone here know why there are so few people who actually understand the science of climate change posting here these days? It is because the forum has been taken over by right wing political pundants who don't even understand the very simple fact that weather and climate are not the same thing. Talking to these people is like talking to a creationist with the exception that at least a creationist can justify their ignorance on religious grounds. And at least creationists for the most part don't use foul and/or insulting language when you converse with them. I can accept that even if I think their denial is irrational. I can accept that because their belief in creationism mostly doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. On the other hand, right wing political pundants who are actively denying the science are hurting everyone because every day nothing is done to mitigate CO2 emissions, because every day their activism against science affects all of us and pushes us further and further away from our former leadership role in the sciences, the more at risk is our future and that of our children, and their children. It really does border on criminal behavior, IMHO. But who the hell wants to have a conversation with some one like theowl32, or Flash, people who obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation, or even at least one of the moderators, who apparently feels it to be their place to shut down the conversation of anyone who disagrees with them? I certainly see no point to it. But perhaps that was their aim in the first place: To shut down all reasonable discussion and claim, in their eyes at least, some sort of victory. Sorry, folks. Alienating people doesn't make one superior to anyone. And considering the fact that the only ones who appear to be taken to task on the forum rules are those who support climate change science, such behavior certainly isn't contributing to the conversation. So what's the point? Anyone? Why even have an environment forum at all?

There is no science when data is manipulated to get results. Climategate I and II provided the direct evidence of the manipulation. Did you bother even to read the article posted by the OP about the temperature fudge factors being used? What kind of science is that?

Talk about about children this Left Wing religious like belief in something that has absolutely no credible scientific basis is really comical.

Arguing with these Environmental wacko nutcases about AGW is like discussing Islamic religion with Muslim terrorists. They refuse to believe the facts and they make up shit.

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The Bitch of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

If you believe that science is "left wing propaganda", you are too far gone for any reasonable person to consider having a conversation with you. I cannot say what your chances are of recovering from your condition, but you do have my sympathy.

Everything you have posted to date has been debunked and shown inaccurate. The beauty of it is, the earth did it all by itself. Empirical evidence shows that all the warming we have seen is from NATURAL VARIATION. CO2 has ZERO to do with it.. Yet you cling to it as if it was the bible. This is odd behavior as real scientist are always questing the norm and asking why or why not...

No, actually, that is not the case. None of these so-called 'debunkings' have come from peer reviewed scientific sources. Clue - Watt is not a scientist (he's a former radio dj), and his blog page is not a peer reviewed scientific forum.

What a load of Crap... Character Assassination and NO FACTS... Nice adhom.. When an alarmist is caught with nothing they strike back using Saul Alinsky tactics.

 

[orogenicman]

Does anyone here know why there are so few people who actually understand the science of climate change posting here these days? It is because the forum has been taken over by right wing political pundants who don't even understand the very simple fact that weather and climate are not the same thing. Talking to these people is like talking to a creationist with the exception that at least a creationist can justify their ignorance on religious grounds. And at least creationists for the most part don't use foul and/or insulting language when you converse with them. I can accept that even if I think their denial is irrational. I can accept that because their belief in creationism mostly doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. On the other hand, right wing political pundants who are actively denying the science are hurting everyone because every day nothing is done to mitigate CO2 emissions, because every day their activism against science affects all of us and pushes us further and further away from our former leadership role in the sciences, the more at risk is our future and that of our children, and their children. It really does border on criminal behavior, IMHO. But who the hell wants to have a conversation with some one like theowl32, or Flash, people who obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation, or even at least one of the moderators, who apparently feels it to be their place to shut down the conversation of anyone who disagrees with them? I certainly see no point to it. But perhaps that was their aim in the first place: To shut down all reasonable discussion and claim, in their eyes at least, some sort of victory. Sorry, folks. Alienating people doesn't make one superior to anyone. And considering the fact that the only ones who appear to be taken to task on the forum rules are those who support climate change science, such behavior certainly isn't contributing to the conversation. So what's the point? Anyone? Why even have an environment forum at all?

There is no science when data is manipulated to get results. Climategate I and II provided the direct evidence of the manipulation. Did you bother even to read the article posted by the OP about the temperature fudge factors being used? What kind of science is that?

Talk about about children this Left Wing religious like belief in something that has absolutely no credible scientific basis is really comical.

Arguing with these Environmental wacko nutcases about AGW is like discussing Islamic religion with Muslim terrorists. They refuse to believe the facts and they make up shit.

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.

Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, none of that is true.

Ever here of proxies?

According to who?

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

If you believe that science is "left wing propaganda", you are too far gone for any reasonable person to consider having a conversation with you. I cannot say what your chances are of recovering from your condition, but you do have my sympathy.

Everything you have posted to date has been debunked and shown inaccurate. The beauty of it is, the earth did it all by itself. Empirical evidence shows that all the warming we have seen is from NATURAL VARIATION. CO2 has ZERO to do with it.. Yet you cling to it as if it was the bible. This is odd behavior as real scientist are always questing the norm and asking why or why not...

No, actually, that is not the case. None of these so-called 'debunkings' have come from peer reviewed scientific sources. Clue - Watt is not a scientist (he's a former radio dj), and his blog page is not a peer reviewed scientific forum.

What a load of Crap... Character Assassination and NO FACTS... Nice adhom.. When an alarmist is caught with nothing they strike back using Saul Alinsky tactics.

It is not possible to assassinate the character of someone who has none. The fact is that Watt is not a scientist. He never was and never will be. And yet you people follow his ever utterance like lemmings. Poor dears.

 

[beagle9]

Because these people are socialists and their main goal is attacking capitalism.

Like all leftists, they have to hide their true motives behind a "cause."...

Not at all. Enjoy your capitalism to your heart's content. Go to Congress, talk to your buddies about monopolizing green energy just as you got monopolies on the smudgy power industry back in the last century. Enjoy higher profits while the sun shines by building tandem solar thermal steam generators next to your coal and oil ones.

Nobody says capitalism should go away. Quite the contrary. There's money to be made on green energy! Do it and quit whining.

Meanwhile if you like to make money, it should interest you to know that a destablized world from climate change is one where there's not a lot of people with money and resources to consume the product you're selling. Chaos is a terrible time to be a capitalist. Therefore, your long term investment portfolio should include serious endeavors to help 1. Recognize what happens when ice caps begin melting (the specific heat of water drawing in huge heat energy as it phase changes from solid ice to liquid ocean waters) and the weird warm/cold snaps resulting and 2. Take steps to try to correct the problem; assuming we aren't already beyond a crucial tipping point.

I had made suggestions to this effect. Some are here: Trees in the Desert I Have a Dream.. Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Imagine if as a capitalist, you got involved in a project reclaiming desert regions as habitable? Crops could be profited off of, real estate, other types of commerce. Here's a projection tip: as the population swells, food is going to be the next gold; food and fresh water and a place to live. Get busy capitalists! Fix the planet you wrecked last century and secure your future!

Gonna be lots of green in your future and in your wallet too.. Unless you think horse and buggy is still the way to go come hell or high water?...(literally)...

How about maybe controlling the rates of population growth, and then doing it in an humanitarian manor ? Now wouldn't that help more than anything ? Right now we have a government who creates wide spread population growth within the population, and they do this by creating incentives for dependency afterwards. Hey more and more people right, so just build more and more apartment complexes, and create more and more free programs for them until everything is broken or flat broke in the process. What is with the idea behind population booms that are irresponsible in nature, and then are being promoted by a government that should have better sense than this ? It's the democrats and the slave masters steady fighting for either voters or slave laborers to either vote or to work for nothing is what it is all about. No one cares what happens o the ones who don't make it (die in poverty or aborted by the hundreds of thousands), because there will be plenty more soon to take the place of those who got grounded up in the meat grinder. If a nation would institute policies that made growth incentives more responsible in nature, than more irresponsible in nature, then we wouldn't be having the problems that we are having in all of this. Other nations do ridiculous growth for standing armies and such, but we have seen that such concepts are also idiotic in today's times or in times gone by (just more people to die quickly is all). The nuclear age changed a lot of concepts, but why do people ignore what has been learned in all of these years ?

The problem with your claim is that the population growth of the U.S. is actually rather low compared to many other nations.

Regardless, do we have a responsible growth culture or do we have an out of control growth policy and culture in America ? Do we have a federal government that is promoting it for all the wrong reasons ? Look in the areas where it is way out of control now, so could it be that the people would look at this, and then think to themselves all sorts of end of world scenarios, and then concoct con-jobs by the boat loads in order to make money off of these things before the end ? I mean hey all one has to do is to take a camera, and then make a bogus documentory using some areas that would be perfect for this film (create a manufactured crisis), or maybe even go elsewhere to do the same, and this they would probably do where such things can't be so easily checked behind or investigated right ? Now is it all in order to get their lying done, and to get this where they can get the set up for the extortion of the American treasury as being based upon those bogus findings and/or lies in which were done by those who fudged the numbers possibly for that reasoning, and that reasoning alone maybe ?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no science when data is manipulated to get results. Climategate I and II provided the direct evidence of the manipulation. Did you bother even to read the article posted by the OP about the temperature fudge factors being used? What kind of science is that?

Talk about about children this Left Wing religious like belief in something that has absolutely no credible scientific basis is really comical.

Arguing with these Environmental wacko nutcases about AGW is like discussing Islamic religion with Muslim terrorists. They refuse to believe the facts and they make up shit.

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.

Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.

Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.

gawd.... left wits are so gullible...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because these people are socialists and their main goal is attacking capitalism.

Like all leftists, they have to hide their true motives behind a "cause."...

Not at all. Enjoy your capitalism to your heart's content. Go to Congress, talk to your buddies about monopolizing green energy just as you got monopolies on the smudgy power industry back in the last century. Enjoy higher profits while the sun shines by building tandem solar thermal steam generators next to your coal and oil ones.

Nobody says capitalism should go away. Quite the contrary. There's money to be made on green energy! Do it and quit whining.

Meanwhile if you like to make money, it should interest you to know that a destablized world from climate change is one where there's not a lot of people with money and resources to consume the product you're selling. Chaos is a terrible time to be a capitalist. Therefore, your long term investment portfolio should include serious endeavors to help 1. Recognize what happens when ice caps begin melting (the specific heat of water drawing in huge heat energy as it phase changes from solid ice to liquid ocean waters) and the weird warm/cold snaps resulting and 2. Take steps to try to correct the problem; assuming we aren't already beyond a crucial tipping point.

I had made suggestions to this effect. Some are here: Trees in the Desert I Have a Dream.. Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Imagine if as a capitalist, you got involved in a project reclaiming desert regions as habitable? Crops could be profited off of, real estate, other types of commerce. Here's a projection tip: as the population swells, food is going to be the next gold; food and fresh water and a place to live. Get busy capitalists! Fix the planet you wrecked last century and secure your future!

Gonna be lots of green in your future and in your wallet too.. Unless you think horse and buggy is still the way to go come hell or high water?...(literally)...

How about maybe controlling the rates of population growth, and then doing it in an humanitarian manor ? Now wouldn't that help more than anything ? Right now we have a government who creates wide spread population growth within the population, and they do this by creating incentives for dependency afterwards. Hey more and more people right, so just build more and more apartment complexes, and create more and more free programs for them until everything is broken or flat broke in the process. What is with the idea behind population booms that are irresponsible in nature, and then are being promoted by a government that should have better sense than this ? It's the democrats and the slave masters steady fighting for either voters or slave laborers to either vote or to work for nothing is what it is all about. No one cares what happens o the ones who don't make it (die in poverty or aborted by the hundreds of thousands), because there will be plenty more soon to take the place of those who got grounded up in the meat grinder. If a nation would institute policies that made growth incentives more responsible in nature, than more irresponsible in nature, then we wouldn't be having the problems that we are having in all of this. Other nations do ridiculous growth for standing armies and such, but we have seen that such concepts are also idiotic in today's times or in times gone by (just more people to die quickly is all). The nuclear age changed a lot of concepts, but why do people ignore what has been learned in all of these years ?

The problem with your claim is that the population growth of the U.S. is actually rather low compared to many other nations.

Regardless, do we have a responsible growth culture or do we have an out of control growth policy and culture in America ? Do we have a federal government that is promoting it for all the wrong reasons ? Look in the areas where it is way out of control now, so could it be that the people would look at this, and then think to themselves all sorts of end of world scenarios, and then concoct con-jobs by the boat loads in order to make money off of these things before the end ? I mean hey all one has to do is to take a camera, and then make a bogus documentory using some areas that would be perfect for this film (create a manufactured crisis), or maybe even go elsewhere to do the same, and this they would probably do where such things can't be so easily checked behind or investigated right ? Now is it all in order to get their lying done, and to get this where they can get the set up for the extortion of the American treasury as being based upon those bogus findings and/or lies in which were done by those who fudged the numbers possibly for that reasoning, and that reasoning alone maybe ?

We are just finding out how badly adulterated the global records have been manipulated. It is a massive fraud. Those who are doing should be jailed! Those doing it are not scientists, they are political whores.

 

[orogenicman]

"Climategate I and II were farces played out by people who don't have the public interest at heart, and are doing everything they can do to discredit science and the people who conduct it. No one was charged with any wrongdoing. In fact, the only people who should have been charged with wrongdoing (the individuals who violated national and international law by hacking into a secure government server and disseminating confidential communications over the internet without the authority to do so) have never been identified. But we do know who used that stolen information, and why. And it had nothing to do with protecting the public.

By the way, taking a page from the creationist play book by calling climate science a religion doesn't actually help your argument. It only makes you look desperate.

And finally, as I've already pointed out, Christopher Booker is not a scientist (he is a creationist who happens to also be a journalist - and not a very good one), and has no credibility whatsoever within the scientific community. Next.

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.

Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.

Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.

gawd.... left wits are so gullible...

And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.

 

[orogenicman]

Because these people are socialists and their main goal is attacking capitalism.

Like all leftists, they have to hide their true motives behind a "cause."...

Not at all. Enjoy your capitalism to your heart's content. Go to Congress, talk to your buddies about monopolizing green energy just as you got monopolies on the smudgy power industry back in the last century. Enjoy higher profits while the sun shines by building tandem solar thermal steam generators next to your coal and oil ones.

Nobody says capitalism should go away. Quite the contrary. There's money to be made on green energy! Do it and quit whining.

Meanwhile if you like to make money, it should interest you to know that a destablized world from climate change is one where there's not a lot of people with money and resources to consume the product you're selling. Chaos is a terrible time to be a capitalist. Therefore, your long term investment portfolio should include serious endeavors to help 1. Recognize what happens when ice caps begin melting (the specific heat of water drawing in huge heat energy as it phase changes from solid ice to liquid ocean waters) and the weird warm/cold snaps resulting and 2. Take steps to try to correct the problem; assuming we aren't already beyond a crucial tipping point.

I had made suggestions to this effect. Some are here: Trees in the Desert I Have a Dream.. Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Imagine if as a capitalist, you got involved in a project reclaiming desert regions as habitable? Crops could be profited off of, real estate, other types of commerce. Here's a projection tip: as the population swells, food is going to be the next gold; food and fresh water and a place to live. Get busy capitalists! Fix the planet you wrecked last century and secure your future!

Gonna be lots of green in your future and in your wallet too.. Unless you think horse and buggy is still the way to go come hell or high water?...(literally)...

How about maybe controlling the rates of population growth, and then doing it in an humanitarian manor ? Now wouldn't that help more than anything ? Right now we have a government who creates wide spread population growth within the population, and they do this by creating incentives for dependency afterwards. Hey more and more people right, so just build more and more apartment complexes, and create more and more free programs for them until everything is broken or flat broke in the process. What is with the idea behind population booms that are irresponsible in nature, and then are being promoted by a government that should have better sense than this ? It's the democrats and the slave masters steady fighting for either voters or slave laborers to either vote or to work for nothing is what it is all about. No one cares what happens o the ones who don't make it (die in poverty or aborted by the hundreds of thousands), because there will be plenty more soon to take the place of those who got grounded up in the meat grinder. If a nation would institute policies that made growth incentives more responsible in nature, than more irresponsible in nature, then we wouldn't be having the problems that we are having in all of this. Other nations do ridiculous growth for standing armies and such, but we have seen that such concepts are also idiotic in today's times or in times gone by (just more people to die quickly is all). The nuclear age changed a lot of concepts, but why do people ignore what has been learned in all of these years ?

The problem with your claim is that the population growth of the U.S. is actually rather low compared to many other nations.

Regardless, do we have a responsible growth culture or do we have an out of control growth policy and culture in America ? Do we have a federal government that is promoting it for all the wrong reasons ? Look in the areas where it is way out of control now, so could it be that the people would look at this, and then think to themselves all sorts of end of world scenarios, and then concoct con-jobs by the boat loads in order to make money off of these things before the end ? I mean hey all one has to do is to take a camera, and then make a bogus documentory using some areas that would be perfect for this film (create a manufactured crisis), or maybe even go elsewhere to do the same, and this they would probably do where such things can't be so easily checked behind or investigated right ? Now is it all in order to get their lying done, and to get this where they can get the set up for the extortion of the American treasury as being based upon those bogus findings and/or lies in which were done by those who fudged the numbers possibly for that reasoning, and that reasoning alone maybe ?

We are just finding out how badly adulterated the global records have been manipulated. It is a massive fraud. Those who are doing should be jailed! Those doing it are not scientists, they are political whores.

Wow, your evidence is so overwhelming. I'm convinced.

 

[Flash]

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? .

If the scammers can make assumptions about the temperature of the earth then so can anybody else. That is a two way sword.

The chart I showed came from the Greenland ice core data. That data has been used by everyone. Even Al Gore misrepresented it in his stupid movie.

The problem with the scammers is they refuse to look at the long term data, as sketchy as it is.

Are you denying the Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming period and the Minoan Warming period??? Talk about science deniers but you take the cake.

Either you accept the historical data and come to the undeniable concussion that there is no evidence of man made interference or you do what the scammers have been caught doing and make up data. Take your choice.

The discrepancies in the stupid references you made are too numerous to mention and I am not going to spend an hour debunking each one only to have it ignored by a AGW religious fanatic like you that has no intentions of learning anything. However, I will just briefly mention a couple of points..

The problem with the Harvard/Oregon study is that it uses the same ice core data for historical references but then changes to using scammer manipulated data for later data points. That study has been debunked several times.

Then you had the gall to post the article about the hockey stick graft which has been debunked so many times that it is comical.

A couple of your charts only reference a few years.

You may have book marked a bunch of scammer articles but your charts really say nothing to substantiate the scammer conclusion that man is causing a rise in temperature. Neither the historical data or the actual climate during the last 15 years have proven it.

You are typical of confused Libtards. You have this uneducated religious fervor about you to prove the Ted Kaczynsk craziness that technology is destroying mankind. You deny science and you are hell bent on destroying the economy of the US based upon nothing but false and misleading data that has been debunked many times.

You are an idiot for believing this scammer bullshit but don't despair. Mankind will most likely destroy itself without climate change. Regardless of the climate the biosphere cannot maintain a population of ten billion humans and there will be a major adjustment along the way.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science later on this year. I will spend a couple of classes discussing the scam. You really should sign up for the class because you will learn a lot more than the education you think you are getting from The University of Google. Everything will be put into the proper context.

For instance, you will learn that there is really no consensus on this AGW scam.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..

If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.

I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..

That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.

Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.

Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.

Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.

gawd.... left wits are so gullible...

And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.

You are aware that the CRU (Climate Research Unit) is one of three climate repositories that are tasked with maintaining the unadulterated data from monitoring stations? Those places where real scientists, like myself, go to obtain unaltered data to conduct research.

What is simply laughable is your lack of knowledge on the subject and the pure conjecture/assumptions formulated on your own.... well, the crap you've been feed, and you are unwilling to be objective.

It is my personal opinion that all science done with public funds should be open sourced to include all correspondences. The Obama Executive Order makes all these private and gives executive privilege to all of the folks in the EPA.. The same people who can take any lands they want or kill your business in one lick..

We have serious problems with our current crop of liars... And you defend their actions....

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? .

If the scammers can make assumptions about the temperature of the earth then so can anybody else. That is a two way sword.

Dodging the issue, are you?

he chart I showed came from the Greenland ice core data. That data has been used by everyone. Even Al Gore misrepresented it in his stupid movie.

No sir, it came from an unknown google + account. You assume it came from the Greenland Ice Core data (of which there are several), but you don't know where the graph actually came from, so don't say that you do.

The problem with the scammers is they refuse to look at the long term data, as sketchy as it is.

The problem with deniers is that they don't look at ANY data. All they do is read their right wing blogs and trust in 'Rush almighty'.

Are you denying the Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming period and the Minoan Warming period??? Talk about science deniers but you take the cake.

None of which is relevant to the current situation.

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Myth No. 4: There have been big climate changes in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, so why can’t recent climate changes just be explained by natural variability?

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Either you accept the historical data and come to the undeniable concussion that there is no evidence of man made interference or you do what the scammers have been caught doing and make up data. Take your choice.

You are confused as to what the historical data is saying. Perhaps you should read from peer reviewed studies and stop relying on people with a vested interest in the petroleum industry, like "Friends of Science", and Watt Inc.

The discrepancies in the stupid references you made are too numerous to mention and I am not going to spend an hour debunking each one only to have it ignored by a AGW religious fanatic like you that has no intentions of learning anything.

Of course you won't. Actually having to work for your conclusion is too much trouble for you, isn't it?

However, I will just briefly mention a couple of points..

The problem with the Harvard/Oregon study is that it uses the same ice core data for historical references but then changes to using scammer manipulated data for later data points. That study has been debunked several times.

Here's what you need to do. You need to produce this so called "scammer manipulated data", and then point out where it was manipulated, and why the manipulation invalidates it. Why? Because you appear to not understand (like so many other deniers) that scientific data is manipulated all the friggin time, in every scientific field. Such manipulation doesn't invalidate it. In fact, such manipulation is often critical for validation. So, bubba, simply claiming that data was manipulated doesn't hold much weight.

Then you had the gall to post the article about the hockey stick graft which has been debunked so many times that it is comical.

The only people who believe that the so-called "hockey stick" has been debunked is people like you who don't understand the science. Scientists understand that it is real, and have validated it using multiple proxies.

A couple of your charts only reference a few years.

Your point?

You may have book marked a bunch of scammer articles but your charts really say nothing to substantiate the scammer conclusion that man is causing a rise in temperature. Neither the historical data or the actual climate during the last 15 years have proven it.

Non-sequitur. Let me ask you some questions, and I do expect a reasonable answer to this. What do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 and billions of tons of other ghgs into the atmosphere each year does to the climate system? Anything at all? Do you honestly believe that nothing happens?

You are typical of confused Libtards. You have this uneducated religious fervor about you to prove the Ted Kaczynsk craziness that technology is destroying mankind. You deny science and you are hell bent on destroying the economy of the US based upon nothing but false and misleading data that has been debunked many times.

Wow, you really ran out of talking points quickly. Oh my. I never said that technology was destroying mankind. Not once. On the contrary, it's the energy source that is the problem. But you already knew that, right?

You are an idiot for believing this scammer bullshit but don't despair. Mankind will most likely destroy itself without climate change. Regardless of the climate the biosphere cannot maintain a population of ten billion humans and there will be a major adjustment along the way.

You sound like you are anxious for that to happen. If that is the case, I am certainly glad you aren't in charge.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science later on this year. I will spend a couple of classes discussing the scam. You really should sign up for the class because you will learn a lot more than the education you think you are getting from The University of Google. Everything will be put into the proper context.

And no doubt your students will all have to go back out and get a real education somewhere else after they realize the scam you have pulled on them. I hate that for them.

For instance, you will learn that there is really no consensus on this AGW scam.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Yeah, a group of Canadian petroleum geologists and petroleum engineers who have published no real work on climate change in peer reviewed journals is really where I want to get my climate science information. What an unbiased source. Not.

 

[Freewill]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.

 

[orogenicman]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.

Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.

And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?

As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?