Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.

[Sinnerman]

But if you'd like a more sciency explanation as to why NASA has little or no credibility regarding this subject, read the following page of information:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.

Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.


Now that it has become fashionable, as well as lucrative to believe otherwise, NASA has jumped aboard the catastrophic climate change express. While you and I don't fully understand the climate models, people who do say they are badly flawed and that NASA, and other people relying on models, are dumping all sorts of data into computers until after numerous attempts, they get something out that they can pass off to the world that sounds credible. We couldn't possibly have the ability to challenge any of it. We have to rely on skeptics from within to report of improprieties. The bad data collection, the changing of past temperature records to make it seem warmer today, the leaked emails suggesting they colluded to ruin the careers of opposing scientists and to block their research from peer review. They sort of make the IRS look like well behaved non-partisans.


Bloomberg’s made-up climate widget
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/2...limate-widget/

 

[Sinnerman]

Science is ALWAYS subject to debate. There is never any 'settled science'. We still don't have a water tight grasp of what temperature or electricity are, we are just very good at engineering them based on their phenomenology.

The thing that 'proves' claims made about climate change are not science is because people say it is settled. That's the conclusion of a religious enclave, not of a group of scientists.

I watched an episode of American Greed this evening. The show exposes cheats and liars and scammers. I've seen dishonest judges, dishonest politicians, dishonest investment bankers, dishonest religious leaders, dishonest celebrities too. Is it really so far fetched to believe there could be dishonest people who call themselves climate scientists? Should we automatically trust information and pretty graphs made by someone, as long as they say they work for NASA?

I was just viewing some headlines on Drudge and came across this one you might enjoy titled; Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-plummet.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________


I always like to mention this when discussing climate change. I am willing to go along with alarmists and their belief in catastrophic global warming, if they are willing to admit the U.S. shouldn't be spending anything to combat rising CO2 levels as long as China and India are rapidly increasing their levels of CO2 and various pollutants by a factor of perhaps a 100 times that which the U.S. could reduce theirs. They build coal fired power plants by the dozens each week. They build thousands of new cars every day and hundreds of miles of new highways. Just tell us we have long since past the tipping point and we are doomed, so we can stop all the alarmist talk and get on with our lives.

​

 

[Shammy]

Did I really say oodles of money? It doesn't sound like me. My evidence? I like your description of WUWT as a right wing blog. No, not a description, but a dismissal. It is the worlds most viewed climate change site. It allows men of science to view and post articles refuting what alarmists are releasing. Tell me what sites you use and I'll then tell you your skeptical science site is run by a cartoonist. But this is coffee house debate tactics. Dismissing information because you don't approve of a site it is posted on. Don't belittle yourself and go there.

You absolutely do care about the opinions of non-experts. That 97% consensus was the result of mostly non-experts being questioned on the causes of global warming or AGW, whatever you are going to embrace.

OK, lets get past you calling me arrogant and ignorant and uninformed. I get it. Alarmists love dismissing anyone who shares information on this topic if they feel the person posting the information is not qualified to speak on the topic. It's utterly preposterous. Let's do what we can to keep this about the science and the worthiness of research submitted by climate scientists who support AGW. This low brow approach you are going with is demeaning.

I'm not qualified to share the thoughts of Freeman Dyson because I don't know him personally? Are you being serious? Did I misjudge you and give you too much credit based solely on your ability to sit through many years of boring lectures to obtain your degree? Did they give you credit hours for your ability to condescend?



Back to Freeman Dyson. Freeman Dyson and global warming

In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account.

In 2007, Dyson reminded a Salon writer: "I was in the business of studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable." Having seen many faddish notions come and go, Dyson is distressed that many environmentalists now believe "global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet."

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99, align: left"] quotes from Freeman Dyson:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

• In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. [article by, 2008]
• Climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came. [interview with, 2007]
• Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn't mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It's part of the natural cycle of things. [interview with, 2007]
• It makes very little sense to believe the output of the climate models. [YouTube interview Part1]
• Vegetation is really controlling what happens...whereas the emphasis in the climate models has always been on the atmosphere. [YouTube interview Part1]
• There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. [essay by, 2007]
• The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. [interview with, 2007]
• The average ground temperature of the Earth is impossible to measure since most of the Earth is ocean...So this average ground temperature is a fiction. [YouTube interview Part2]
• When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. [essay by, 2007]
• We simply don't know yet what's going to happen to the carbon in the atmosphere. [YouTube interview Part1]
• Computer models of the climate....[are] a very dubious business if you don't have good inputs. [YouTube interview Part1]
• We do not know how much of the environmental change is due to human activities and how much [is due] to long-term natural processes over which we have no control. [essay by, 2007]
• It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts. But beyond the disagreement about facts, there is another deeper disagreement about values. [essay by, 2007]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Clearly you didn't read everything I posted because no where did I say you couldn't quote him because you didn't know him. Yous aid he disagreed with global warming and upon checking his comments I discovered you were either wrong or lying. I listed the specific comments you made that led to my conclusion that you are arrogant and uninformed. You probably know a lot of people are not going to wade through these posts to see what I actually wrote so I consider you misquoting me and your lack of context a deliberate attempt at deception. I don't recall agreeing to a debate with you, nor would I waste my time when there is zero chance of getting anywhere.

You are actually engaging in several logical fallacies and cheap debate tactics that I will outline. The first and foremost your strawmen, cherry picking and quote mined "sources" Second being your assertion that because some website is very popular it must be more correct. This is called argumentum ad populum. I suspected before I looked at it that it would be a denialist website lacking any scientific credibility or research and was not disappointed. Unless someone is posting research and data that can be read and tested I don't give a cats fuzzy butt what anyone's opinion is.

When someone is in school a long time, especially at the post graduate level one gets really good at skimming for content without reading everything. I'm sure you spent tens of minutes looking for comments that agree with your conclusion before copy pasting them here in wave after wave of text. One thing I don't see are links to scientific sources, just blogs and Youtube. You are engaging in another fallacy knows as "spreading" or argumentum ad nauseam, which is the belief that repeating something often enough makes it true. This is also humourously known as the Gish gallop.

The Gish gallop is when a speaker or debater is trying to overwhelm someone with a vast amount of arguments or data in hope that something will stick. It is also designed to wear out the opponent because although it is easy to copy past tons of nonsense as you have done, it is not easy to refute it all without a vast amount of time and effort. The opponent, seeing how tedious and time consuming it would be to respond just goes about their day and you high five yourself as if you have "won".

If driving someone out of a discussion by drowning them in bullpucky is your ideas if a "victory" then knock yourself out dude.

You also for some reason keep inserting evolution in a discussion about climate change, which is amusing because I am vastly more qualified to talk about evolution as my training is a biologist. Piltdown man, Nebraska man blah blah blah... I read the chick tract too. If Jack Chick and Kent Hovind are your best sources then You have already failed.

You've posted no studies, no data and have no scientific training. You accuse NASA and climate scientists of lying and collusion without proof other then debunked E-Mails and your ad nauseam accusations of dishonesty/being "insane" etc...

Really? you think I'm going to waste my time? Debates are not how science is conducted and are only productive when both parties are open minded and reasonable. You aren't qualified, you engage in dishonest tactics and logical fallacies and most of all are not even qualified. if this makes you feel like a "winner" yee haw for you. You won by being not worth anyone's energy to engage.

 

[Shammy]

I've really got to get used to not being able to edit my posts and be more careful about my first drafts. Sheesh my English teacher would smack me in the knuckles.

 

[laura_charlotte]

The number one biggest contributor to global warming is the meat and dairy industry. Everybody needs to watch Earthlings and
Cowspiracy and educate themselves about the vegan lifestyle. Veganism looks after the person, the animals and earth itself. Being on a raw, organic lifestyle, i can speak volumes for its benefits. Further still, we if educated ourselves on what is done to animals, the growth hormones and antibiotics in meat, the disastrous affect this has on animals and in turn the earth and ourselves, everyone would be so much better off.

 

[Sinnerman]

Clearly you didn't read everything I posted because no where did I say you couldn't quote him because you didn't know him. Yous aid he disagreed with global warming and upon checking his comments I discovered you were either wrong or lying. I listed the specific comments you made that led to my conclusion that you are arrogant and uninformed. You probably know a lot of people are not going to wade through these posts to see what I actually wrote so I consider you misquoting me and your lack of context a deliberate attempt at deception. I don't recall agreeing to a debate with you, nor would I waste my time when there is zero chance of getting anywhere.

You are actually engaging in several logical fallacies and cheap debate tactics that I will outline. The first and foremost your strawmen, cherry picking and quote mined "sources" Second being your assertion that because some website is very popular it must be more correct. This is called argumentum ad populum. I suspected before I looked at it that it would be a denialist website lacking any scientific credibility or research and was not disappointed. Unless someone is posting research and data that can be read and tested I don't give a cats fuzzy butt what anyone's opinion is.

When someone is in school a long time, especially at the post graduate level one gets really good at skimming for content without reading everything. I'm sure you spent tens of minutes looking for comments that agree with your conclusion before copy pasting them here in wave after wave of text. One thing I don't see are links to scientific sources, just blogs and Youtube. You are engaging in another fallacy knows as "spreading" or argumentum ad nauseam, which is the belief that repeating something often enough makes it true. This is also humourously known as the Gish gallop.

The Gish gallop is when a speaker or debater is trying to overwhelm someone with a vast amount of arguments or data in hope that something will stick. It is also designed to wear out the opponent because although it is easy to copy past tons of nonsense as you have done, it is not easy to refute it all without a vast amount of time and effort. The opponent, seeing how tedious and time consuming it would be to respond just goes about their day and you high five yourself as if you have "won".

If driving someone out of a discussion by drowning them in bullpucky is your ideas if a "victory" then knock yourself out dude.

You also for some reason keep inserting evolution in a discussion about climate change, which is amusing because I am vastly more qualified to talk about evolution as my training is a biologist. Piltdown man, Nebraska man blah blah blah... I read the chick tract too. If Jack Chick and Kent Hovind are your best sources then You have already failed.

You've posted no studies, no data and have no scientific training. You accuse NASA and climate scientists of lying and collusion without proof other then debunked E-Mails and your ad nauseam accusations of dishonesty/being "insane" etc...

Really? you think I'm going to waste my time? Debates are not how science is conducted and are only productive when both parties are open minded and reasonable. You aren't qualified, you engage in dishonest tactics and logical fallacies and most of all are not even qualified. if this makes you feel like a "winner" yee haw for you. You won by being not worth anyone's energy to engage.

I sincerely doubt you know any scientists and are therefore not qualified to state what their personal beliefs are

I can see where you are going with your remarks. I don't care about what you said or how you said it. I want to hear you defend the alarmist position. It seems clear you aren't going to do it.


In your mind, the science is settled, so why defend it to people who you don't respect and feel are ignorant. So you have little interest in a debate on the subject of catastrophic global warming. You just wanted to jump into a thread about it being a hoax and tell everyone how smart you are and that they are too dumb to know it's not a hoax. Further, you have now made several posts and not written a single sentence supporting your beliefs about the subject. What happens when you know someone who is a skeptic and you want to share your opinions on the subject with them. How do you do it? OK, if you want out of this discussion, that's fine. I felt we could exchange a lot of valuable information on the topic. I still plan to share a lot of valuable information on the topic. You can view it and comment if you like.

The only thing you left out of your post is peer review. You forgot to tell me you will ignore anything anybody says on the topic if it's not peer reviewed. I guess you could also have said I must work for the petroleum industry and have some connection to the Koch Brothers. Believe me, alarmists can sling mud with the best skeptics.

Some things about WUWT. You tried to say that Freeman Dyson supports catastrophic global warming. That would make him an alarmists. He has stated that WUWT is one of his favorite sites. In the comment section under each essay, it is clear that many people who use the site are also alarmists. The site give them a fair amount of credit. Also, the essays include a lot of research data. Their opinions are quite valuable because they specifically discuss the research data and show, for instance, how the researcher deleted past warming periods from their data.

I have plenty of proof regarding NASA and will be posting it. I have spent not minutes but hundreds of hours pouring over information on this subject. You yourself have now repeated the leaked emails are some sort of hoax and offered no proof of that. I will be posting the emails as well as comments made by people who investigated the leaked emails. And yes, they were leaked by someone inside, not stolen. Had the alarmists not been so dismissive of others they worked with who did not agree with their assertions, they would not have been exposed as frauds.


You're not the first young guy with a degree who walked, away from a debate because he wasn't up to the task of defending his belief in catastrophic global warming. Trust me, the internet is littered with alarmists who drink the kool-aid but walk away from ever defending their position. Let it be said you left without once stating why you think the alarmist position is accurate. You can take a seat in the bleachers with the peanut gallery and view this thread from a safe position. Perhaps you will learn something.

 

[Mitspa]

Global warming is just another left-wing con game...anyone that thinks these people can be trusted? Im sure they soon have a certain mark to give you as well.

 

[crossnote]

The number one biggest contributor to global warming is the meat and dairy industry. Everybody needs to watch Earthlings and
Cowspiracy and educate themselves about the vegan lifestyle. Veganism looks after the person, the animals and earth itself. Being on a raw, organic lifestyle, i can speak volumes for its benefits. Further still, we if educated ourselves on what is done to animals, the growth hormones and antibiotics in meat, the disastrous affect this has on animals and in turn the earth and ourselves, everyone would be so much better off.

We're into soul saving not sole saving
This earth is on a collision course with a catalysmic catstrophe. Try to save it if you wish...

2 Peter 3:10-13 KJVS
[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. [11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, [12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[kedge]

Apologies if this has been discussed already?, had a quick browse through here on geoengineering but couldn't find anything. What do you think?, any engineers here?

[h=2]High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie[/h]The greatest lie ever perpetrated and propagated is the lie of the "persistent condensation trail". Without knowing any of the related science facts on this issue, anyone with a sense of reason should be able to determine the fact that our skies are being sprayed.

High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie » High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie | Geoengineering Watch





Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earths climate systems through two primary ideologies, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)





Have you looked at the sky lately?

Our skies today are simply not normal. Upon examination this cannot be denied. They are filled with nanoparticulates of heavy metals. But the skies have been filled with grid patterns for so long now that we are used to them and do not see them anymore. Sadly, the fact is that people do not look up.



The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs. This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.

Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization » Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization | Geoengineering Watch

 

[Shammy]

I can see where you are going with your remarks. I don't care about what you said or how you said it. I want to hear you defend the alarmist position. It seems clear you aren't going to do it.


In your mind, the science is settled, so why defend it to people who you don't respect and feel are ignorant. So you have little interest in a debate on the subject of catastrophic global warming. You just wanted to jump into a thread about it being a hoax and tell everyone how smart you are and that they are too dumb to know it's not a hoax. Further, you have now made several posts and not written a single sentence supporting your beliefs about the subject. What happens when you know someone who is a skeptic and you want to share your opinions on the subject with them. How do you do it? OK, if you want out of this discussion, that's fine. I felt we could exchange a lot of valuable information on the topic. I still plan to share a lot of valuable information on the topic. You can view it and comment if you like.

The only thing you left out of your post is peer review. You forgot to tell me you will ignore anything anybody says on the topic if it's not peer reviewed. I guess you could also have said I must work for the petroleum industry and have some connection to the Koch Brothers. Believe me, alarmists can sling mud with the best skeptics.

Some things about WUWT. You tried to say that Freeman Dyson supports catastrophic global warming. That would make him an alarmists. He has stated that WUWT is one of his favorite sites. In the comment section under each essay, it is clear that many people who use the site are also alarmists. The site give them a fair amount of credit. Also, the essays include a lot of research data. Their opinions are quite valuable because they specifically discuss the research data and show, for instance, how the researcher deleted past warming periods from their data.

I have plenty of proof regarding NASA and will be posting it. I have spent not minutes but hundreds of hours pouring over information on this subject. You yourself have now repeated the leaked emails are some sort of hoax and offered no proof of that. I will be posting the emails as well as comments made by people who investigated the leaked emails. And yes, they were leaked by someone inside, not stolen. Had the alarmists not been so dismissive of others they worked with who did not agree with their assertions, they would not have been exposed as frauds.


You're not the first young guy with a degree who walked, away from a debate because he wasn't up to the task of defending his belief in catastrophic global warming. Trust me, the internet is littered with alarmists who drink the kool-aid but walk away from ever defending their position. Let it be said you left without once stating why you think the alarmist position is accurate. You can take a seat in the bleachers with the peanut gallery and view this thread from a safe position. Perhaps you will learn something.

I'm a girl, not a guy. Perhaps you should learn the difference before tackling more complex sciences.

Once again you dishonestly mis-frame my statements and attribute comments I did not make. I never called anyone dumb or attributed motives, because I'm not that petty and I don't care what your motives are. When you can't even quote someone without lying why on earth should anyone take you seriously in any discussion?

People engage in denialism for a large variety of reasons and not always because they are stupid, although stupid people easily buy into their nonsense. People usually deny science or history because of ideological and religious motives, or they are just conspiracy nuts. In the case of climate change it is usually because they see it as a "liberal" cause and since they hate all things liberal they oppose it.

Regardless when you start a discussion by stating you think all reputable sources are rubbish/fabricated/stupid then you are trying to get someone to engage on your grade school level.

"Prove to me climate change is real! Oh by the way I dismiss all findings by NASA, universities and mainstream science. Now get to it!"

It's like challenging a Shaolin monk to a fight and then telling him he cannot use Kung-Fu. When he refuses you declare him the loser and pat yourself on the back. I'm not dumb enough to play your games nor nice enough to prop up your ego by engaging in a useless debate.

You're attempts to goad me with your sneering and barbs won't work. You're not interested in learning anything, you are trying to inflate yourself to the other forum users who see your endless quote mined links and misinterpret that as intelligence. You constantly mock higher education, use logical fallacies such as appealing to popularity, appealing to false authority and liberal (zing!) doses of ad hominem. You have cited no research and still cling to this website like it is another gospel. Also you have a terrible grasp of how the rules of evidence work, since you are making the positive claim the burden is on you to prove your assertions. You can start by posting your research for all to read and peer review, and then I'll exert the effort to refute it. I'll be happy to send you some links to buy some portable science kits for your initial field work.

 

[Shamrocker]

all I hear with is post now is [video=youtube;ss2hULhXf04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04[/video]

 

[Sinnerman]

I'm a girl, not a guy. Perhaps you should learn the difference before tackling more complex sciences.

Once again you dishonestly mis-frame my statements and attribute comments I did not make. I never called anyone dumb or attributed motives, because I'm not that petty and I don't care what your motives are. When you can't even quote someone without lying why on earth should anyone take you seriously in any discussion?

People engage in denialism for a large variety of reasons and not always because they are stupid, although stupid people easily buy into their nonsense. People usually deny science or history because of ideological and religious motives, or they are just conspiracy nuts. In the case of climate change it is usually because they see it as a "liberal" cause and since they hate all things liberal they oppose it.

Regardless when you start a discussion by stating you think all reputable sources are rubbish/fabricated/stupid then you are trying to get someone to engage on your grade school level.

"Prove to me climate change is real! Oh by the way I dismiss all findings by NASA, universities and mainstream science. Now get to it!"

It's like challenging a Shaolin monk to a fight and then telling him he cannot use Kung-Fu. When he refuses you declare him the loser and pat yourself on the back. I'm not dumb enough to play your games nor nice enough to prop up your ego by engaging in a useless debate.

You're attempts to goad me with your sneering and barbs won't work. You're not interested in learning anything, you are trying to inflate yourself to the other forum users who see your endless quote mined links and misinterpret that as intelligence. You constantly mock higher education, use logical fallacies such as appealing to popularity, appealing to false authority and liberal (zing!) doses of ad hominem. You have cited no research and still cling to this website like it is another gospel. Also you have a terrible grasp of how the rules of evidence work, since you are making the positive claim the burden is on you to prove your assertions. You can start by posting your research for all to read and peer review, and then I'll exert the effort to refute it. I'll be happy to send you some links to buy some portable science kits for your initial field work.

I have no way of knowing what gender you are. You have decided to make this about me and have so far not made any argument for why anyone should believe the alarmist claims.

Recently, a poll showed that 93% of Americans do not care about climate change. It doesn't mean they don't believe there are changes in our climate, they just don't think it's important to do anything about it. That's astonishing. After Al Gores bogus movie about catastrophic climate change, people were frightened. My former employer made it mandatory for hundreds of staff and volunteers at our international conservation corps to watch the movie. Alarmists had the initiative. They won over left-wing politicians who blindly accepted what they were selling. Gore positioned himself to make billions selling carbon offsets. Congress might have taken actions and forced all of us taxpayers to pony up for whatever crazy scheme the scientists would have recommended.

Then came the push back. Then came the skeptics. Then came the whistle-blowers and the leaked emails. Then we were told it doesn't matter what actions the U.S. takes because they are too small and India and China and Russia are polluting and releasing CO2 at levels that make any actions taken by all other countries totally pointless. So regular people, people who vote, decided they didn't want to finance fear generated projects that scientists themselves stated would accomplish nothing. Essentially, the alarmists were right about something. The debate is over. Nobody cares anymore. Nothing will change whatever is going on with the worlds climate. All that is left is for angry liberals to call everyone idiots for not listening to their doomsday predictions.

You are a perfect example of an alarmist who can't even be bothered to discuss the science any more. You have been beaten badly and all you have left is to make occasional appearances on climate related threads and tell others how smart you are and how dumb they are. Meanwhile, another year goes by when the temps didn't rise, bringing the total to what? 18 straight years. Do what you like. Comment or don't comment. I'm just getting started.

 

[Sinnerman]

Climategate

Links to everything about Climategate here. Relevant links posted in comments will be added.
Climategate | Watts Up With That?



WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:
[HR][/HR]When Results Go Bad …U-CRU
Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal
“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google
Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review
Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video
The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…
How “The Trick” was pulled off
The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation
Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”
IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick
Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed”
Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”
Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures
Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News
Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen
Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society
Climategate: hide the decline – codified
Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…
Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate
CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS
The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy
Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation
The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.
CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story
Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails
Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard
Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues
Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine
CRU Emails – search engine now online
Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction
Mike’s Nature Trick
and the post that started it all…
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

 

[Sinnerman]

Re: Climategate

A copy of a comment taken from a Harvard Magazine article

The assumption that CO2 somehow drives climate change is unproven. While political players and "climatologists" tout a "97% consensus", the methods used to estimate that degree of agreement would fail the most basic tests of statistical
sampling. The actual consensus seems more like 3%.

Historical temperature measurements (actual & proxy) have been adjusted and homogenized beyond recognition. many original source documents relating to temperature have been destroyed and replaced with "adjusted" values. See "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" by Dr. Tim Ball.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It has many benefits. It is in equilibrium in the earth's ecosystem. Many scientists believe that changes in temperature drive changes in CO2, not vice-versa. Human activities emit less than 5% of all CO2 emissions. This hypothesis conforms much better to observed data than theories of anthropogenic global warming driven by human CO2 emissions.

The hypothesis that CO2 as a greenhouse gas drives global warming has never been proven. While CO2 molecules may, in theory act as a weak greenhouse gas, this has never been proven in a laboratory setting, especially at concentrations of 0.04%. Some experiments have indicated greenhouse effects, but when inert gases such as argon or helium are substituted for CO2, the "warming effects" are equal or greater than CO2.


​

 

[Sinnerman]

What is the Truth About the 97% Consensus?

That 97% number is actually 79 scientists answering several vague questions

.

Came across this comment on WUWT. This person was explaining how alarmist got their 97% figure they embrace when all else fails. To find the comment, you'd need to scroll down below the article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/1...arm-from-josh/

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________


As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth).

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey

“
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing.

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to (climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
Questions –

“
Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
2a./2b How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
How sure are you? –Extremely –Very sure –Somewhat sure –Not at all sure -Don’t know –Not at all sure –Somewhat not sure – Very not sure – Extremely not sure

So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?

Answers and questions use generalized words of; most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?

Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?​

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Summit in Paris

150 world leaders are gathering in Paris to craft an agreement to fight global warming. The President of the United States is convinced that fighting climate change is more important than fighting terrorism. He said this meeting is a rebuke to terrorists. In the past, these meetings ended with poor countries saying they can't do anything and that the U.S. should pay billions and even trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions. India and China usually say they are concerned but will not agree to do anything in the coming decades. Then, after they all go home, some politicians will try to discuss the topic and politicize it in a way that alienates people. For instance, John Kerry stated skeptics of global warming should be silenced. The editor of my local newspaper stated he will no longer allow skeptics of catastrophic climate change to be heard.

The question asked here was what do climate scientists have to gain by falsifying data. What could possibly motivate them to make claims of catastrophic climate scenarios?

Well, how about a Nobel Prize. How about rock 'n roll status, celebrity status. Being invited to all the big social events, maybe even the academy awards, if you happen to make a documentary. How about money. Do we ever see people motivated by money? Continued funding for research. How big of a prize were scientist fighting over when they were trying to create cold fusion? Did it cause some of them to lie? Yup. Falsify research results? Yup. We can begin looking at specific ring leaders who have captured the headlines. Climate scientists who seek fame and make statements that are obviously untrue in the eyes of other climate scientists but not to politicians and the general public. Michael Mann and his now famously debunked hockey stick graph come to mind. James Hansen at NASA also makes statements intended to frighten people. He claims the U.S. is headed for "climate disaster".

Here is a great article showing how James Hansen and NASA and NOAA altered historical temperature records that first showed temperatures peaked in 1934 and then declined the rest of the century. Dr. Hansen made changes to the historical US temperature record. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

97% Of Data Says NOAA/NASA Are Lying About Record Heat

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/why-nasa-and-noaa-made-greenland-disappear/

 

[Sinnerman]

The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/2...inst-the-mann/


Quote of the Week: facts against the Mann

Michael Mann says:


“overall warmth of the globe and northern hemisphere today is substantially greater than during Medieval time”




Except, there’s that pesky ice core proxy temperature data (proxy temperature data is something Mann embraces for his own Hockey Stick) that says otherwise:

 

[Shammy]

I have no way of knowing what gender you are.

What, the drawing of me in a dress and the pink lettering in my name didn't tip you off?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

What, the drawing of me in a dress and the pink lettering in my name didn't tip you off?

Not to be a prude but I think your skirt is a bit too short in that picture.

 

[Shammy]

Not to be a prude but I think your skirt is a bit too short in that picture.

Well my mother was always after me for my immodest attire.