 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 593/600) |
|
RandomTask
|
FEB 12, 03:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
And the fact that they have deticated their lives and careers to their study does not justify the deliberate manipulation of data to avoid an inconvenient truth..... |
|
There was no manipulation. However, lies travel at break neck speeds in the deniosphere. The *whistleblower himself* said this. He was just unhappy an internal protocol wasn't followed. However, the study has been verified by multiple other organizations...
http://www.eenews.net/clima...7/stories/1060049630
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 12, 04:02 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by E.Furgal:
Bahahahaha.. you didn't even touch it..
Tell me.. if the poles that are covered in ice. where jungles before the ice age.. how did the ice melt the time before now.. to cause the poles to get to the point of hot enough to become jungles, with no industry to be the scapegoat cause??
all we are seeing is the last part of the ice age going Melting.. it be doing this even if humans were still living in the stone age.. with no industry or emissions to blame..
BAHAHAHA.... stay stupid you are good at it..
The same science that claims the jungles were there ,is the same ones claiming the human made ice melt.. AGAIN you and many others can't put 1 and 1 together to see they are pushing the agenda of those paying the bills and not the truth.. and they don't even try to hide the facts that would show they are wrong. as people like you can't put 1 and 1 together.. |
|
Unlike you, scientists can actually do math.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.
Massive population increase of humans and livestock.
Massive deforestation.
Massive mining.
Massive amounts of manufacturing.
The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct.
|
|
|
|
Mickey_Moose
|
FEB 17, 11:13 AM
|
|
http://business.financialpo...science-to-speak-out
| quote |
Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.
Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?
Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation.
Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data.
Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet.
None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud.
Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals.
The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down.
Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.
In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced.
One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account.
The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
FEB 17, 11:37 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
Unlike you, scientists can actually do math.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.
Massive population increase of humans and livestock.
Massive deforestation.
Massive mining.
Massive amounts of manufacturing.
The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct. |
|
AGAIN THE POLES WHERE JUNGLES BEFORE THE ICE AGE< NO INDUSTRY< NO HUMANS IN ANY NUMBER >>
One could say that the cleaner we make the air the more it helps global warming. as the dirt was blocking the sun rays.. just like a metor hitting or a volcano ..
FAct that the poles where hot steamy jungles.. without all the evil man made reasons for the fraud climate change.. blows your b/s to shame
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 17, 11:46 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by E.Furgal:
AGAIN THE POLES WHERE JUNGLES BEFORE THE ICE AGE< NO INDUSTRY< NO HUMANS IN ANY NUMBER >>
One could say that the cleaner we make the air the more it helps global warming. as the dirt was blocking the sun rays.. just like a metor hitting or a volcano ..
FAct that the poles where hot steamy jungles.. without all the evil man made reasons for the fraud climate change.. blows your b/s to shame |
|
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed.
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
FEB 17, 12:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed. |
|
The fact that the animals found under the poles is FACT...
unlike your libals climate fraud
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
FEB 17, 10:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by E.Furgal:
The fact that the animals found under the poles is FACT...
unlike your libals climate fraud |
|
found on the land in the dirt
but the land was not at the pole when the animals were alive
as continents drift------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
FEB 20, 09:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Mickey_Moose
|
FEB 21, 01:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed. |
|
What do you mean *if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole*???
http://news.nationalpost.co...d-in-canadian-arctic
http://www.livescience.com/...-ancient-forest.html
http://discovermagazine.com...5/april/16-cold-case[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-21-2017).]
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 21, 02:44 PM
|
|
I mean, the land mass currently at the North Pole was not always at the North Pole. Nor was the North Pole always the North Pole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superocean
Also, comparing CO2 levels and temperature in the age of dinosaurs to claim humans are having no effect on the environment, is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources. They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years. They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species.
|
|
|
|