More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Doug S.]

Thanks, Jack! I can say with 100% certainty that I have never read any of those reports.

Regarding my comment about redistribution of wealth...those reports are 30+ pages of VERY technical content. Does anyone have any idea of which section I should read to learn more about Pete's claim that global climate change is being used to redistribute wealth? I am interested, not that I have any motivation to take what belongs to anyone else, but like most of us I am not in favor of redistributing our U.S. wealth out of our country any more than we ALREADY do...and I certainly have my opinions regarding the advisability of providing any form of financial assistance to many of the countries we're trying to "buy" as allies (my term, my claim, not based on anything other than MY opinion).

Any help narrowing down the read would be appreciated.

Thanks, again, Jack...I'm sure it will be a good read!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Website for you Doug:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

and the 2014 report here:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Readers might want to Google the IPCC with regard to its honesty/impartiality/'creds', etc.

You'll find many sites/articles such as these:

Brutally Honest: Who are the IPCC scientists?

IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent | Watts Up With That?

...of course, the C.C./G.W. faithful will immediately marginalize/denigrate any site/article espousing views such as ^these^. I would suggest that those folks consider Googling "List of failed global warming predictions" (or similar) before doing so though.

:chug:

 

[Doug S.]

One small comment from the site you posted, Larry:

"I read a little on the US GCCR program's site and i guess I'm not understanding the point because its comparing apples to oranges:
- GCCR is an organization to study the possible consequences of global warming
- IPCC is an org to study the cause of it and set policy to prevent the determined causes of it."

So...governmental organizations are a dime a dozen...we even have (or soon will) an organization to try to figure out why Hillary Clinton used her own email account rather than a governmental email account (and the final determination, after years of discussion and governmental testimony, will be that there was no requirement that she use a governmental account at that time, although there is now). Governmental organizations are a creation of government to justify their existence, IMHO. If you think scientists are "self-serving", take a look at governmental organizations, who by the very virtue of their existence are biased in their outlook. We elect our government, so if we don't like their actions, the answer is easy, elect a different government.

I believe that mankind has survived for so long (although, really, mankind hasn't compared to the length of time that dinosaurs populated the earth and look at what happened to them) because we are the only species who has managed to figure out how to modify our local "environment"...we build structures that we can climatize as we please with heating and air conditioning. Because of our technological expertise, we are in a position to adapt to future changes in global climate rather than try to adapt the global climate. We'll probably be here for some time...IMHO, of course.

That's some good reading....but not the blistering indictment of the scientists that I expected, and certainly not proof that CC/GW does not exist.

The questions remain...1, 2, and 3....as posted by Keith. Let the discussion continue!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Did you by any chance also Google, "List of failed global warming predictions"?

 

[Bob Fechter]

'scuse me while I adjust the data in the sky.
More Evidence Of Climate Data Tampering By NOAA? | The Daily Caller

 

[Larry L.]

'scuse me while I adjust the data in the sky.
More Evidence Of Climate Data Tampering By NOAA? | The Daily Caller

"When Dr. Roy Spencer looked up summer temperature data for the U.S. Corn Belt, it showed no warming trend for over a century. But that was before temperatures were “adjusted” by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientists. Now the same data shows a significant warming trend."

When the facts don't mirror one's G.W./C.C. agenda/mantra - change the "facts" until they DO.

'Simple.

So, shuddup, bob...

 

[Doug S.]

I'd bet y'all really do believe that the U.S. landing on the moon was a hoax filmed in a movie studio, too :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

Did you by any chance also Google, "List of failed global warming predictions"?

Nope, Larry.

When new fields of study or service are developing, people make predictions that are eventually determined to be wrong...a splendid example would be your favorite, Obama's prediction that if you like your medical provider/plan you can keep it. These inaccurate predictions do not NECESSARILY rise to the level of deceit, in fact most are just simple mistakes.

So...it is to be expected that just like the field of medicine had its "mistaken predictions" during its infancy (like the improvements to be expected of electroshock therapy and lobotomies), global warming is going to have its share of missed predictions, too. Doesn't make it an intentional effort to deceive. I have always said that if you're not making mistakes, you're not trying...nothing is to be gained by continuing with the knowledge you already have in any field of study, and anything new is fraught with opportunities for erroneous predictions.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

"When new fields of study or service are developing, people make pr edictions that are eventually determined to be wrong...a splendid example would be your favorite, Obama's prediction that if you like your medical provider/plan you can keep it." These inaccurate predictions do not NECESSARILY rise to the level of deceit, in fact most are just simple mistakes.(!!! :stunned


Puleeeeeeeze...in both the case of global warming, AND Obama's "PREDICTIONS"(!!!!! :evil regarding Obamacare (sorry...let's be 100% HONEST here - his repetitive L-I-E-S)...the general public was presented those "predictions" in the form of scientific/legislative F-A-C-T-S, sir. F-A-C-T-S.

Seriously, am I going to have to provide LINKS to various vids/articles that prove the above beyond any shadow of a doubt (to anyone who has a brain that functions NORMALLY, that is)??? AM I??? Seriously? AM I??? You hafta KNOW 'zackly what I'm gunna post in that event...right?

Man...I think 'I be gunna' take a brief 'sabbatical' from this thread for a short-short for whole HOST of reasons... :sad:

 

[Doug S.]

Puleeeeeeeze...in both the case of global warming, AND Obama's "PREDICTIONS"(!!!!! :evil regarding Obamacare (sorry...let's be 100% HONEST here - his repetitive L-I-E-S)...the general public was presented those "predictions" in the form of scientific/legislative F-A-C-T-S, sir. F-A-C-T-S

Our memories differ on that issue, Larry.

What I recall is that B.O. made that "prediction" while the Affordable Care Act was still in the legislative process. I have some idea that you can credit the conservatives, who fought tooth and toenail against the act in general, for the changes that voided that prediction by B.O. that you could keep your plan or provider if you like them. The Conservatives would (and DID) do ANYTHING they could to make B.O. look bad and this would be just one of the nasty tricks perpetrated by Boehner and his partners in crime.

As for the issue of climate change...it would be hard to really say that anything that is said is fact, sir, because there is still so much to learn before the scientists can state anything with certainty. At this point I view most of what is said as opinion, other than the undeniable facts, such as photos of the glaciers in Iceland melting or long-standing temperature records (which are suspect if you believe those temperature records have been recently altered as was stated in one of the links I read), but I do know that my area of S.W. Kansas has become much more desert-like during my lifetime and the weather patterns have changed significantly. That cannot be denied, all of us who have lived there for most of our lives have commented on it. Summers are more mild with fewer rainstorms and less rain in those storms, but so are winters. We don't get the amount of rain we use to and snow (which is one of only three ways that nitrogen is fixed into the soil, which is critical for the wheat crop) storms are much milder. I can recall as a teenager that we would have 3 foot deep snow-drifts. Nowadays three inches is the general rule for a snowfall, I haven't seen a large one in probably 10 years. Things ARE changing...for the better or worse is up to discussion...but I see cacti growing in the area that before were limited to the desert regions of NE New Mexico, which is about 100 miles away. That has to mean something.

Hope you're enjoying your rest....keep that blood pressure under control, these discussions are just that, nothing to get a stroke over!

Cheers, Larry....I really do enjoy our discussions....don't have any hope of changing any of your views, but do enjoy hearing how "...the dark side..." thinks on a regular basis. You're one of my favorites!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

So, shuddup, bob...

You probably ought to give up on that one, Larry.

We've been trying to get LB to shut up for years now...hasn't worked to any large degree...every now and then he gives it a rest, but he always comes back, like a hurricane after the passing of the eye :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Bob Fechter]

Do a word count on this page of a thread I started and
tell me who needs to shut up. Yes the libs have gone as far as posting my home address and my wife's name on these boards. But that is par for the course when dealing with fundamental changers.

You probably ought to give up on that one, Larry.

We've been trying to get LB to shut up for years now...hasn't worked to any large degree...every now and then he gives it a rest, but he always comes back, like a hurricane after the passing of the eye :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Bob Fechter]

"One UCLA science researcher, a 34-year veteran of the school, found himself out of a job in 2011 after examining the data underlying diesel regulations proposed by a California regulator and exposing the shoddy credentials of a lead author of that regulator’s report."

VINDICATED: Researcher punished for exposing climate fraud beats UCLA

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Yet another case where a title is created, including the word "climate", that gets some on the right in a frenzy, only to realized the word "climate" is not even used a single time, nor any inference of climate change, climate impact, climate anything, in the document. Climate Fraud...how about "Pollution fraud" or "UCLA study fraud", or something that actually describes the article.

So the author was vindicated for his firing, which was not necessarily his contrasting view (this has been so for quite a while), but more related toward the exposing fraudulent practices and credentials (embarrassing the employer).

So how does this article fit into the never-ending climate change debate?

 

[Bob Fechter]

The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics | Cato Institute

 

[Bob Fechter]

Yet another case where a title is created, including the word "climate", that gets some on the right in a frenzy, only to realized the word "climate" is not even used a single time, nor any inference of climate change, climate impact, climate anything, in the document. Climate Fraud...how about pollution fraud or something that actually describes the article.

So the author was vindicated for his firing, which was not necessarily his contrasting view (this has been so for quite a while), but more related toward the exposing fraudulent practices and credentials (embarrassing the employer).

So how does this article fit into the never-ending climate change debate?

Just one more example of how this whole issue (I'll let you rename it anything you want terry) relies on data being adjusted to meet the needs of those who wish to fundamentaly change America and the world.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Don't forget silly titles to articles that appear to support one thing (or ideology), yet is inconsistent with the content of the information in the article. Can you imagine how many disappointed folks there are out there thinking this was yet another slam against climate change, only to find it had nothing to do with it?

Does the CARB (or UCLA) intend to "fundamentally change America and the world", or just improve the air quality of California?

 

[Bob Fechter]

They're a team terry. You know, they work in concert to do their part in crippling capitalism. I won't pop a cork and toast the day our collector cars get confiscated, but I now think you will.

Don't forget silly titles to articles that appear to support one thing (or ideology), yet is inconsistent with the content of the information in the article. Can you imagine how many disappointed folks there are out there thinking this was yet another slam against climate change, only to find it had nothing to do with it?

Does the CARB (or UCLA) intend to "fundamentally change America and the world", or just improve the air quality of California?

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I won't pop a cork and toast the day our collector cars get confiscated, but I now think you will.

Now, now, no reason to get ugly on me. :laugh:

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Just saying.