Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Wondering if we'll see this covered by the major media or mentioned by this administration:
[h=1]MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms[/h][h=2]'Could explain recent disagreements'[/h]
500
85
30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page
[h=3]Lewis Page[/h] Get email alert when this author posts [h=5]Common Topics[/h]
[h=5]Recent Articles[/h]
As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.
A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
[h=1]MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms[/h][h=2]'Could explain recent disagreements'[/h]
30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page
[h=5]Recent Articles[/h]
- THESE ARE THE VOYAGES of the space probe Discovery
- FATTIES have most SUCCESS with opposite SEX! Have some pies and SCORE
- MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.
A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
Carbon dioxide is a net good:
[h=1]Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson[/h]Published October 14, 2015 FoxNews.com
Facebook832 Twitter269 livefyre1270 Email Print
File photo. (REUTERS/Peter Andrews/Files)
Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson has expressed his disappointment with President Obama’s stance on climate change.
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Related: Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.
[h=1]Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson[/h]Published October 14, 2015 FoxNews.com
Facebook832 Twitter269 livefyre1270 Email Print
Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson has expressed his disappointment with President Obama’s stance on climate change.
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Related: Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.
Carbon dioxide is a net good:
Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson
Published October 14, 2015 FoxNews.com
Facebook832 Twitter269 livefyre1270 Email Print
File photo. (REUTERS/Peter Andrews/Files)
Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson has expressed his disappointment with President Obama’s stance on climate change.
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Related: Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.
Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson
Published October 14, 2015 FoxNews.com
Facebook832 Twitter269 livefyre1270 Email Print
Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson has expressed his disappointment with President Obama’s stance on climate change.
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Related: Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.
I don't know why I didn't see this earlier. But here goes.
I believe in climate change. Last year, when my poor husband was packing all our worldly goods into a trailer, it was -40 C/F for a week. This is the same temperature as it was in the late 60s and early 70s when I lived in Edmonton. It is horrible.
So we arrived in BC after a long, hard drive and it was 5C or 41 F. An increase of 45 C or 81 degrees F. So, the climate changed!
OK a bad joke! And that is weather, not climate. I know, as my undergrad degree was in geography!
In 1971, I hitchhiked across BC. It was on fire from the drought. Fast forward to the summer of 2015 - forest fires from hell.
So weather or climate change?
I used to be a big believer in alternative energy sources. My son, who worked in the energy industry explained to me that in Alberta, there has been a huge investment in wind power in particular. But it is incredibly expensive. So the market reverts to cheap oil, esp. in Alberta where it is abundant. He also said if oil gets up to $150 a barrel, suddenly, people will be investing in alternative energy because it will be profitable. No need for political interventions or chastizing those who don't believe in global warming.
What I see is that people who believe global warming is caused by human activities are trying to impose their will on the market, but the market will not change because of a few tables and photographs. In Canada, Harper has left the Kyoto Accord, because it is impossible to enforce in our country. But we still have lots of ice breakers, just so you are warned!
I really think we need to look more closely at other factors than carbon, if it is true that the climate is warming up. And the other thing is, it only takes one volcano to put so much ash in the air, that the mean temperature of the world is lowered 2C. (See Krakatoa 1883)
It sure would be a shame to wake up one day and find the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park had erupted and the entire world was covered in ash, after people worked so hard to bring the temperature of the world down, when it would have been better a bit higher.
Of course, it is all speculation at this point. And on the other side of the coin, our visit to Glacier National Park in Montana last year showed both receding and disappearing glaciers. I imagine that place was unbelievable when all the glaciers were intact. Glaciers receding is a sign of the world heating up. But that could be a temporary trend, too! Who knows? I am sure it will all come out in the wash in a few centuries or so. That is when you really can see clearly climate change, as opposed to annual weather differences.
I believe in climate change. Last year, when my poor husband was packing all our worldly goods into a trailer, it was -40 C/F for a week. This is the same temperature as it was in the late 60s and early 70s when I lived in Edmonton. It is horrible.
So we arrived in BC after a long, hard drive and it was 5C or 41 F. An increase of 45 C or 81 degrees F. So, the climate changed!
OK a bad joke! And that is weather, not climate. I know, as my undergrad degree was in geography!
In 1971, I hitchhiked across BC. It was on fire from the drought. Fast forward to the summer of 2015 - forest fires from hell.
So weather or climate change?
I used to be a big believer in alternative energy sources. My son, who worked in the energy industry explained to me that in Alberta, there has been a huge investment in wind power in particular. But it is incredibly expensive. So the market reverts to cheap oil, esp. in Alberta where it is abundant. He also said if oil gets up to $150 a barrel, suddenly, people will be investing in alternative energy because it will be profitable. No need for political interventions or chastizing those who don't believe in global warming.
What I see is that people who believe global warming is caused by human activities are trying to impose their will on the market, but the market will not change because of a few tables and photographs. In Canada, Harper has left the Kyoto Accord, because it is impossible to enforce in our country. But we still have lots of ice breakers, just so you are warned!
I really think we need to look more closely at other factors than carbon, if it is true that the climate is warming up. And the other thing is, it only takes one volcano to put so much ash in the air, that the mean temperature of the world is lowered 2C. (See Krakatoa 1883)
It sure would be a shame to wake up one day and find the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park had erupted and the entire world was covered in ash, after people worked so hard to bring the temperature of the world down, when it would have been better a bit higher.
Of course, it is all speculation at this point. And on the other side of the coin, our visit to Glacier National Park in Montana last year showed both receding and disappearing glaciers. I imagine that place was unbelievable when all the glaciers were intact. Glaciers receding is a sign of the world heating up. But that could be a temporary trend, too! Who knows? I am sure it will all come out in the wash in a few centuries or so. That is when you really can see clearly climate change, as opposed to annual weather differences.
God controls the weather
for punishment or for blessings
22Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
3The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked:
the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
7And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months
to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city:
one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
14That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain,
that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.
for punishment or for blessings
22Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
3The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked:
the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
7And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months
to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city:
one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
14That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain,
that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.
Last edited:
Well since so many politicians and billionaires think global warming is a bigger threat than islamic terrorism, I thought it might be helpful to those confused on this issue to read how NASA fiddled with the numbers to try and push global warming.
German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale
Share on facebook
Share on email
Share on google_plusone_share37
Share on twitter
CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images
by James Delingpole24 Nov 2015480
A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.
According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:
The most commonly used ones were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.
Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.
Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.
For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.
Truly, these people have no shame
German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale
Share on facebook
Share on email
Share on google_plusone_share37
Share on twitter
by James Delingpole24 Nov 2015480
A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.
According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.
Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.
But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.
The most commonly used ones were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.
Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.
Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.
For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.
Truly, these people have no shame
97% of all scientists have stated global warming is real and have posted the evidence. There are 30 years of studies one has access to if one has the ability to read and the patience go through them.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The only people disputing global warming/climate change are those with a vested financial interest in continuing the status quo. If people are the type to believe all these thousands of scientists, scientific organizations worldwide and NASA are in on some gigantic conspiracy to gain...it's never been made clear what they'd get out of it... then they are beyond reasoning.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The only people disputing global warming/climate change are those with a vested financial interest in continuing the status quo. If people are the type to believe all these thousands of scientists, scientific organizations worldwide and NASA are in on some gigantic conspiracy to gain...it's never been made clear what they'd get out of it... then they are beyond reasoning.
E
Right now myself I do not believe in global warming because if it were true that would mean the whole planet is at risk of becoming nothing but a mass of water. If that ever happened, it would mean god would break his promise to mankind by no longer ending it by a great flood such as that in noah's time.
Where do you want to start? First, how about telling me how much you personally know about Global Warming / Climate Change, other than headlines you read and then tried to repeat but forgot exactly what they had said?
97% of "all" scientists did not state global warming is real. You should be careful what you type. 97% of a total of 79 climate scientists stated something in a poll taken about global warming, but that poll was vague and only asked them if man had something to do with climate change. If that is the standard, then it probably should be 100% of us agree, because at some minute level we do have an effect on the climate. But we also change the level of the ocean by spitting into it. Just not enough to measure or change anything.
How many of the leaked emails have you read from the climate scientists (climategate)? I'm guessing zero. Yet those climate scientists themselves admit they manipulated data and refused to pier review any scientists research that did not share their views. They went further, attempting to destroy the careers of climate scientists who questioned their alarmists findings.
Spend an hour or two reading at Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change and you will begin learning what most skeptics already know. Then maybe you'll begin to disregard the nonsense coming out of NASA.
What is my vested financial interest in being a skeptic? According to you, I have one. How do I profit from being a skeptic? Sorry, I just seek the truth and to find it, I did a whole lot more reading than you seem to have done. Suppose Albert Einstein was alive and told you he studied global warming for years and he is certain the alarmist scientist have it wrong. What would you say then? Well, Freeman Dyson is today's Albert Einstein, and that is what he is saying. Why aren't you listening?
It is crystal clear what climate scientists get out of fabricating data. Money. Lots and lots of money. They get funded for years and years, as long as they only produce results saying we are experiencing catastrophic global warming.
Perhaps you recall Piltdown Man, a missing link between prehistoric man and modern man. Scientists from all over the world looked at the fossil evidence and concluded Piltdown man was an ancestor to modern man and that he was part of our evolutionary ancestry. Scientists went along for decades. After all, what other choice did they have, intelligent design? But Piltdown Man was a hoax. Numerous bones were planted at the site in hopes of fooling people. Scientists should have discovered the hoax but they refused to look because they rather liked what Piltdown man represented.
I once posted over 200 detailed messages exposing the hoax of catastrophic global warming, on secular sites. I'd be willing to repost many of them and many more new ones if you care to get a bit deeper into the weeds on the topic.
97% of "all" scientists did not state global warming is real. You should be careful what you type. 97% of a total of 79 climate scientists stated something in a poll taken about global warming, but that poll was vague and only asked them if man had something to do with climate change. If that is the standard, then it probably should be 100% of us agree, because at some minute level we do have an effect on the climate. But we also change the level of the ocean by spitting into it. Just not enough to measure or change anything.
How many of the leaked emails have you read from the climate scientists (climategate)? I'm guessing zero. Yet those climate scientists themselves admit they manipulated data and refused to pier review any scientists research that did not share their views. They went further, attempting to destroy the careers of climate scientists who questioned their alarmists findings.
Spend an hour or two reading at Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change and you will begin learning what most skeptics already know. Then maybe you'll begin to disregard the nonsense coming out of NASA.
What is my vested financial interest in being a skeptic? According to you, I have one. How do I profit from being a skeptic? Sorry, I just seek the truth and to find it, I did a whole lot more reading than you seem to have done. Suppose Albert Einstein was alive and told you he studied global warming for years and he is certain the alarmist scientist have it wrong. What would you say then? Well, Freeman Dyson is today's Albert Einstein, and that is what he is saying. Why aren't you listening?
It is crystal clear what climate scientists get out of fabricating data. Money. Lots and lots of money. They get funded for years and years, as long as they only produce results saying we are experiencing catastrophic global warming.
Perhaps you recall Piltdown Man, a missing link between prehistoric man and modern man. Scientists from all over the world looked at the fossil evidence and concluded Piltdown man was an ancestor to modern man and that he was part of our evolutionary ancestry. Scientists went along for decades. After all, what other choice did they have, intelligent design? But Piltdown Man was a hoax. Numerous bones were planted at the site in hopes of fooling people. Scientists should have discovered the hoax but they refused to look because they rather liked what Piltdown man represented.
I once posted over 200 detailed messages exposing the hoax of catastrophic global warming, on secular sites. I'd be willing to repost many of them and many more new ones if you care to get a bit deeper into the weeds on the topic.