More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
blueovalz said:
...Congressmen would also say "I'm not a doctor, but I don't believe this large growth poking out of my neck is anything to worry about".
Click to expand...

...as opposed to 'warmers' telling us the globe is warming, but, when we check their claim we find the Earth hasn't "warmed" any in the past 18/19 years.

blueovalz said:
If you're not an expert, why dismiss the expert's opinion (the vast vast majority)?
Click to expand...

Because "the experts" have 'fudged their evidence' and were caught at it, for one reason. So, garbage in, garbage out from the get-go. And "the experts" told us we were entering an Ice Age back in the 1970's. 'Didn't happen. And "the experts" told us Arctic ice would disappear...but, it's now 'bigger' than it's been since measurements started 35 years or so ago...and on and on and on.

This one article outlines a lot of reasons why "the experts' opinions" should be "dismissed" IMHO...but, I'm convinced you'll dismiss it instead (scroll down):

CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



From another article:

"There's a real problem with the computer models for climate change," Dr. Pat Michaels, director of The Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, said.
"By last count there were 42 separate explanations in the scientific or public literature on why it hasn't been warming. When there are 42 explanations for one phenomenon, I can tell you what that means: scientists don't know what they're talking about," he added."

Weather Trends Make Mockery of Climate Alarmists - Health & Science - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

(^^^Of course, I'm sure you'll dismiss this one because of the source.^^^)



And this:

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry



Maybe now you can understand why I (and many others) choose to "dismiss the expert's opinion (the vast vast majority)" even though I'm "not an expert".
 
Last edited:
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Bob Putnam said:
Sorry, but cbn.com doesn't constitute a particularly scientific view on reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtPkFBbJLMg
Click to expand...

I believe I stated:

Larry L. said:
^^^Of course, I'm sure you'll dismiss this one because of the source.^^^)
Click to expand...




The past 18/19 years discredits your NASA animation a bit, does it not?

(Edit: And please note; the last COUPLE of years have set record cold temps in many places, too. Besides, as so many "warmers" love to point out: "One year does not indicate a trend." [From what monitoring stations/satellites has NASA gathered its info and how accurate are they? Are some of them like those mentioned in the artlicles 'linked' earlier? How would we know either way?])

(Oh, by-the-way, how many volcanoes blew their stacks over the past year or so...and what level of sunspot activity was there? [As I recall, there were a couple of real dandies early-on.])
 
Last edited:
Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I would sleep too David, If this bollocks wasn't used by our Governments to tax the shit out of us and introduce carbon taxes that cost people their jobs.
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Pete said:
Climate Depot | A project of CFACT
Click to expand...

gtbob said:
Hundredths of a degree, you have to love it.
Click to expand...

AND the article says they're only 38% sure that's even accurate...'that they're "far from certain" 2014 set a record at all! Or, to put it another way, there's a 62% probability it didn't/may not have!

'Interesting that the above factoid wasn't trumpeted AT ALL by 'the faithful'...let alone mentioned in passing by them................huh, Bob P. ;)
 
Last edited:
B

Bob Putnam

I am an engineer with a strong background in chemistry and physics. I tend to believe those who actually do climate research. Someone keeps claiming that scientists have an interest in predicting "an apocalypse". No. They have an interest (and it's not monetary) in being correct. It is an absolutely undeniable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are at a level not seen for 100,000 years, and the temperature follows the CO2 concentration very nicely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Who does have an interest in claiming we are not part of the warming? That would be the fossil fuel industry and those that profit from it. I will always get my information from those who do the research, not from those who profit from one conclusion or another.

NOAA's Ten Signs of a Warming World
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Bob Putnam said:
I will always get my information from those WHO DO THE RESEARCH, not from those who PROFIT from one conclusion or another.
Click to expand...

...and what if those who "do the research" come up with 42 different reasons/causes/explanations for this-and-that (which has happened)? What if their "research" says we're headed into an Ice Age one minute, and into "global warming" the next (which also has been the case)? What if darned near all their "predictions" about this-or-that happening by "year X" haven't happened (which has also been the case)? What if they've been caught fudging their 'data' on more than one occasion (which also has happened)...not to mention destroying their research (the 'evidence', if you will) ) when doing so served their purpose (again, that's also happened)?

...and speaking of who profits being suspect with regard to enviornmental research "conclusions": Who funds the researchers you personally support/back/agree with? On which side of the "profit motive" battlefield have they pitched their tent?

Co2 can't be the villian the "greenies" claim it is if greenhouse operations actually suppliment the amount of Co2 in their greenhouses to get their plants to grow bigger/faster. Given that FACT (and it IS a fact), mebbe what we need to do is plant more trees/shrubs/grass, etc. to scrub Co2 from the air instead of taxing/fining/regulating the crap out of people/industry to 'achieve'(?!) that end.
 
Last edited:
B

Brian Stewart
Supporter
As I’ve said on more than one occasion before, what we get fed by Fox News, or the Daily Mail, or any number of other contrarian web sites as being what “scientists said” is not necessarily what the scientists actually said at all. You have to go back and check the original scource.

As for the “...and speaking of who profits being suspect with regard to environmental research "conclusions": Who funds the researchers you personally support/back/agree with? On which side of the "profit motive" battlefield have they pitched their tent?” argument, I don’t buy that at all. Having been an academic I know from first hand experience that the vast majority of funding does not work like that. Sure, in this day and age most funding is “outcome” driven, but that outcome is not predetermined. In other words, while the days of doing ‘blue skies” science are largely over and the research that will attract the majority of the funding is that which will likely have some “use” down the line, whether or not that “use” follows a particular dogma is irrelevant. The null hypothesis remains the driver of research and peer review ensures that research is robust and transparent. If a researcher fudges their results they know that they will eventually be caught out.

I do not know of a single scientific journal editor who would not leap at the chance to publish research that showed conclusively that AGW is a hoax, nor any climate scientist who would not pursue research that showed as much. Imagine the fame if you were the one to irrefutably and conclusively bring it all crashing down.
 
Pete

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
The globe hasn't warmed for more than a decade, the ice caps haven't melted , no islands have sunk and the freaking polar bears have not drowned. The warmists have got it wrong.

Accept it and piss off. Global warming has as much credence as the Millenium bug.
 
B

Bob Putnam

Pete said:
The globe hasn't warmed for more than a decade, the ice caps haven't melted , no islands have sunk and the freaking polar bears have not drowned. The warmists have got it wrong.

Accept it and piss off. Global warming has as much credence as the Millenium bug.
Click to expand...

It's true that the Antarctic ice has grown slightly, but not nearly as much as the Arctic ice has shrunk. Changing climate doesn't effect the entire earth uniformly, and we don't expect that it will. Air and water currents are differentially effected by increased solar insolation.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
 
B

Bob Putnam

I prefer to look at the long term trend, not taking short periods out of context. But - we're really losing the big picture of the long-term temperature trends and their causes. In the scientific community, there is basically no debate. You can special-plead on the basis of some anomalies all you want, but reality is hard to deny.
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Bob Putnam said:
I prefer to look at the long term trend, not taking short periods out of context. But - we're really losing the big picture of the long-term temperature trends and their causes. In the scientific community, there is basically no debate. You can special-plead on the basis of some anomalies all you want, but reality is hard to deny.
Click to expand...

What you're really saying, Bob, is that you've bought into the "warming"/"climate change" fraud 100%...despite all the evidence that clearly 'suggests' it's a con. And that's fine. You have that right.

I would simply remind you that "science" was postulating that the Earth was "warming" early in the 20th Century...'then postulated that we were entering an Ice Age back in about 1970...and NOW "science" is back to telling us the Earth is doing the 'warming" thing again (based on proven garbage temp info from both ground temp stations and satellites)...even though the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the past 18/19 years (how/why did it/COULD IT suddenly stop?). But, I'm not going to hash and rehash further. 'Waste of time after all, innit! :D
:chug:
 
G

Robert May Eng.

Bob Putnam said:
I prefer to look at the long term trend, not taking short periods out of context. But - we're really losing the big picture of the long-term temperature trends and their causes. In the scientific community, there is basically no debate. You can special-plead on the basis of some anomalies all you want, but reality is hard to deny.
Click to expand...

Could you have a squint at this Bob ? Its still based on scientific data but arrives at a different conclusion. Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

Bob
 
blueovalz

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Larry L. said:
I would simply remind you that "science" was postulating that the Earth was "warming" early in the 20th Century...'then postulated that we were entering an Ice Age back in about 1970...and NOW "science" is back to telling us the Earth is doing the 'warming" thing again (based on proven garbage temp info from both ground temp stations and satellites)...even though the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the past 18/19 years (how/why did it/COULD IT suddenly stop?). But, I'm not going to hash and rehash further. 'Waste of time after all, innit! :D
:chug:
Click to expand...

Questions that come to mind are:

Do you believe the science (in general or specific to this discussion) is more accurate now than it was 40 or 100 years ago? yes or no.

Do you believe that 3% of scientific community's opinion outweight the opposite opinions of 90% of the same community? yes or no

Seriously, no deflecting of the question to restate your beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pete
Is the Carbon Emissions /Global warming thing B.S.
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
bannedleader
B
Back
Top