So you'll just gloss over the countless incidents of falsified data all around the globe...even from NASA and NOAA.
How do 'your' scientists explain 15 years of flat temps?
You should dig deeper into this 'religion'
Ok hold on now, Maybe we need to increase global warming! Winter Is Coming!
- Thread starter SteelerInLebanon
- Start date
So you'll just gloss over the countless incidents of falsified data all around the globe...even from NASA and NOAA.
How do 'your' scientists explain 15 years of flat temps?
You should dig deeper into this 'religion'
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,675
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Points
- 113
Read this http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and click through the menu points:
Evidence
Causes
Effects
Consensus
Vital Signs
Questions (FAQ)
...and pinpoint the inaccuracies and the falsified data, and tell me how and why it's all not true. If you're convinced it's all a big lie, it shouldn't be too difficult.
Show me how all of the following are corrupt, illegitimate agencies that are being manipulated to reach their conclusions:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Along with this list of nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Last edited:
When you can explain why NASA, NOAA and countless agencies and organizations around the globe have to falsify data (you refused to address or answer my questions), I'll consider your red herring.
If Climate Change (which used to be Global Warming before the weather didn't cooperate with it, which was prior to that the "Impending Ice Age") is real, why are GOVERNMENTAL organizations falsifying data? Hmmm?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...on-sets-new-records-thanks-to-global-warming/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_f raud.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 (the myth about the 97% of scientists...blah blah)
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,675
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Points
- 113
Since you seem to love conspiracies, you'll probably be interested to know where all the blow-back against climate change is coming from...
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
Since you seem to love acting as a lemming and bowing at the corporate altar of the Religion of Climate Change, why don't you similarly point us to the billions of corrupt dollars flowing in from endless corporate sources to fund this Religion and the falsification of data? The amount of money to be made off of The Impending Ice Age/Global Warming/Climate Chage is beyond comprehension and there is a massive global struggle to secure those dollars.
This ought to be interesting.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I'm curious what has to happen for you to believe in climate change as a result of fossil fuel usage? What evidence do you really want? Who could possibly provide it that you wouldn't be skeptical of?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,675
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Points
- 113
Here's the deal Tim. I don't give two ***** you - and others - are climate change deniers. If anything, it's puzzling, mesmerizing, confusing to me that there are people like you out there. There's something tragi-comedic about how you guys are so bellicose about not "buying in" to the realities of climate change and the effect it's having on our environment. It's like you're sitting in a house full of smoke and embers yet keep insisting it's built out of flame-retardant material and can never catch fire. To prove your point, you keep flicking lit matches around...all the while rubbing your belly and laughing uncontrollably. That's how I see the whole lot of climate change deniers. You feed your stance by reading far right sites and buy into the propaganda put out there by narrow interest groups funded by huge petro-oil corporations and far-right billionaire donors.
There's one planet, we all live on it. Maybe you think it's hilarious that we're destroying our forests, water and air. I don't find it at all amusing, for some strange reason.
When I see evidence of a tragedy, I'll acknowledge it. I don't respond well to Chicken Little cries.
ISIS is real. It's a growing tragedy. You can see it. There is evidence.
Yet this evidence you speak of in whatever they call it now changes, shifts, and doesn't hold up under scientific tests. Just 40 years ago, this community told us an Ice Age was coming. Then they told us earth was warming too quickly. Then, when global temps remained flat for 15 years, they instead changed the name to "climate change."
Why is that? If there was really something occurring, how...in the entire history of the world...could in such short order, we go from an impending Ice Age to Global Warming?
Chicken Little.
We've found Governmental agencies falsifying the data. Why?
Why have temperatures remained flat for 15 years despite your "scientists" all hawking that the world is warming?
Why did the polar caps not melt as Al Gore predicted they would have by this very year?
There's no fact yet to convince me and the millions like me that this is and has been anything but speculation. The science so far is anything but.
But this is something I know. Climate Change/AGW/Ice Ages represent unlimited billions in money for the associated governments and corporations. The taxes countries want to levy (if people buy into the religion) are infinite. And lots of governments and politicians and businessmen stand to make unlimited bucketloads. They want AGW badly.
Finally, if it were real, the US trying to do something about it makes no difference to the world. Policies would have to be adopted globally, otherwise, we're just gonna be making a lot of people rich, the poor poorer, all at the expense of the average human being trying to make a living.
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth had we been around as the glaciers retreated from North America?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Faked - but accurate
Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions
A leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.
Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new company Springer Nature.
The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing "reviews from fabricated reviewers"
http://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202
Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions
A leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.
Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new company Springer Nature.
The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing "reviews from fabricated reviewers"
http://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202
The Republican party didn't exist in 1789.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Part of the problem I have with the whole hysteria is that, when something happens that doesn't fit the models results or predictions, they don't look at the models to see what is missing, they try to find something, anything, regardless of how weak, to pass it off.
So, even IF you do that, seems like your models should have accounted for it and shown it.
I can't believe that all of the variables which could affect the global climate could possibly be accounted for, much less the various reactions and feedbacks for minor changes in one variable.
Models are only as good as their input. When you have as many variables you must have (again, I don't think they could have them all, or even all of the most important ones) you are using some models to come up with the variables related to each variable. Estimates are used to estimate something else. Adds more potential for error.
You can take any number of points and come up with a formula to match those points, exactly. That formula is, likely, meaningless for projections of any other points.
So, even IF you do that, seems like your models should have accounted for it and shown it.
I can't believe that all of the variables which could affect the global climate could possibly be accounted for, much less the various reactions and feedbacks for minor changes in one variable.
Models are only as good as their input. When you have as many variables you must have (again, I don't think they could have them all, or even all of the most important ones) you are using some models to come up with the variables related to each variable. Estimates are used to estimate something else. Adds more potential for error.
You can take any number of points and come up with a formula to match those points, exactly. That formula is, likely, meaningless for projections of any other points.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,675
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Points
- 113
Theodeore Roosevelt. A leader of the Republican Party, he was a leading force of the Progressive Era. October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919
You are correct, the date of those quotes would be around the early 1900's, my bad.
Last edited:
By today's standards TR would have to run as a Democrat. Which is fine.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,763
- Reaction score
- 14,743
- Points
- 113
Was that the period when the Dems stopped supporting slavery in the south and the Repubs began to keep them down?
Tibs, you conflate pollution - which literally no sentient being approves - with "climate change" due to CO2 emissions. Those two are as different as apples and lunar rocks.
Specifically, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural byproduct of respiration, vegetation processes, ocean processes, and the release of economic, efficient stored energy in fossil fuels. The VAST majority of CO2 emissions are natural, and only a very small percentage of man-made emissions come from oil use:
Specifically, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural byproduct of respiration, vegetation processes, ocean processes, and the release of economic, efficient stored energy in fossil fuels. The VAST majority of CO2 emissions are natural, and only a very small percentage of man-made emissions come from oil use:
http://universalfreepress.com/nobel...-wrong-on-climate-change-just-leave-it-alone/
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Tells Obama – “You’re Wrong On Climate Change, Just Leave It Alone”
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Tells Obama – “You’re Wrong On Climate Change, Just Leave It Alone”
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Global Cooling Alert!
Obama calls for more icebreakers
President Obama’s urgent call to construct a new fleet of heavy Coast Guard icebreakers to monitor the contested Arctic is belied by his recent budgets that slashed funding for even one new ship
Officials say the U.S. needs to keep pace in the face of an increasingly serious challenge by Russia, which is making new territorial claims on the Arctic.
But even by the White House’s own internal projections, one new ship would not enter service for another decade, not in time to take over for the nation’s only remaining heavy ice breaker now in its last years of use.
By next decade the U.S. will have no heavy ice breaker, while expansion-minded Russia, with a considerably larger Arctic border, owns six nuclear-powered ice breakers — four of which are operational and 40 overall.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS
---------------------
B b b but it's all supposed to be ice-free now, AlGore said so....
'The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,' he said. 'It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.' Al Gore (2007)
Obama calls for more icebreakers
President Obama’s urgent call to construct a new fleet of heavy Coast Guard icebreakers to monitor the contested Arctic is belied by his recent budgets that slashed funding for even one new ship
Officials say the U.S. needs to keep pace in the face of an increasingly serious challenge by Russia, which is making new territorial claims on the Arctic.
But even by the White House’s own internal projections, one new ship would not enter service for another decade, not in time to take over for the nation’s only remaining heavy ice breaker now in its last years of use.
By next decade the U.S. will have no heavy ice breaker, while expansion-minded Russia, with a considerably larger Arctic border, owns six nuclear-powered ice breakers — four of which are operational and 40 overall.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS
---------------------
B b b but it's all supposed to be ice-free now, AlGore said so....
'The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,' he said. 'It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.' Al Gore (2007)
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Bomma knows He just has to say He's going to do something and everyone will believe Him.
Actual, real data (facts) I find more interesting than the denial of denial article:
Look, I understand that beginning the trend line in 1998 is going to skew the results since 1998 was so freaking hot, but could we please just goddamn acknowledge that since 1998, a span of 17 years, temperatures have actually declined?? The global warmers lose credibility by denying facts.