PDA

View Full Version : Climate change Fraud further exposed by Lord Munkton


Pages : [1] 2

renstar
Jul 7th, 2011, 04:33 AM
Interesting interview with Lord Munckton exposing the fraud of man made climate change and the lengths the fraudsters will go to to shut him down. All being set up to help force a one world government. Wake up people stand against this fraud which will ultimately lead to a world prison state.

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110707-aj1-lordmonckton.mp3

ampers&
Jul 7th, 2011, 04:46 AM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/G.smh1.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=4627)

You really are a hot mess (much like the planet earth because of man-made climate change). :sobbing:

bulava
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:27 AM
I don't know anything about Lord Munkton's story but whoever thinks that Climate change isn't REAL then they are living in a delusional state :rolleyes:

Beat
Jul 7th, 2011, 08:41 AM
you already have your own trollish climate change thread, so why create another one?
citing lord munkton? great idea, he's such a brilliant mind! why not create another thread about AIDS and cite him, too:

-------
In a 1987 article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View", he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley

Solitaire
Jul 7th, 2011, 08:44 AM
you already have your own trollish climate change thread, so why create another one?
citing lord munkton? great idea, he's such a brilliant mind! why not create another thread about AIDS and cite him, too:

-------
In a 1987 article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View", he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley

My word that sounds like some world prison state!

bulava
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:34 AM
Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/

Time has come to pay for the centuries of damage done to this planet :tape:

Ashi
Jul 7th, 2011, 10:09 AM
Where did the other 'climate change' thread go? :lol:

Uranus
Jul 7th, 2011, 11:45 AM
renstar is DESPERATE.

miffedmax
Jul 7th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Will he falsely claim to win another Nobel prize for this too?

Martian Jeza
Jul 7th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Will he falsely claim to win another Nobel prize for this too?

Obama won the Nobel Price for going on more wars against innocent people.

miffedmax
Jul 7th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Obama won the Nobel Price for going on more wars against innocent people.

Yes. I see where having a Nobel Prize and making the laughable claim that you have one when you don't are much the same. I guess it's the same difference as being the President of the United States and pretending to be a climate scientist when you aren't.

But it's all those guys with actual scientific prizes who are frauds, and the people like Lord Monckton who falsely claim their scientific credentials who are telling the truth.

meyerpl
Jul 7th, 2011, 03:05 PM
I'm confused. I just don't know who to believe, the scientific community of the world or a guy who calls himself Lord Munkton? That is a tough call.

miffedmax
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:35 PM
Fraud Chris Monckton exposed by actual scientist.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Utter dismemberment.

tennis-insomniac
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:44 PM
So this is "Do you beleive in man-made climate change?" vol.2 thread :lol:

Olórin
Jul 7th, 2011, 08:37 PM
Interesting interview with Lord Munckton exposing the fraud of man made climate change and the lengths the fraudsters will go to to shut him down. All being set up to help force a one world government. Wake up people stand against this fraud which will ultimately lead to a world prison state.

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110707-aj1-lordmonckton.mp3

You are SO stupid.

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:19 AM
Monkton, is a big, fat liar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial

Prof. John Abraham catches Monkton in lie after lie. And that's not counting the one about being in the House of Lords.

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 06:18 AM
Monkton, is a big, fat liar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial

Prof. John Abraham catches Monkton in lie after lie. And that's not counting the one about being in the House of Lords.

Bwahaha isn't it funny the greenies and alarmist can't stand being told their little fraudulent carbon dioxide theory is a lie and a hoax. I guess when you've been used by elite organisations and governments to rack in billions of dollars for the UN and create a false world wide fear over that hoax, all in the name of saving the planet, come on lets admit thats preddy embarrassing.

And for everyones information i closed the other thread since it was like trying to talk to a brick wall. Im not anti the well being of the earth but the carbon dioxide fraud does nothing to the earth and is not a pollutant like carbon monoxide, plastic bags in the ocean etc.

All the alarmists can do is attack personally the messenger they have no answer to the expose of their lies.

At the moment our prime minister in Australia is trying to bring in a carbon tax, she has become the most hated and unpopular woman in australia. A current yahoo 7 opinion poll asked who wants a carbon tax, 87% are opposed.

My main aim for reoppeing another thread was because i though damn no way im going to leave a permanent record so the open minded can see what a global fraud this is.

For an exhaustive expose on the fraudulent IPCC go to
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

Beat
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:59 AM
like someone else pointed out before, you seriously are pressed.
what exactly happened when you were a child? you can tell us.


And for everyones information i closed the other thread since it was like trying to talk to a brick wall.

now you know how all other posters feel about you.
it's really ironic you're saing this, because you didn't even take the time to respond to one single argument brought up in this thread.

if only your propaganda was a bit smarter and cleverer and more alluring. oh well ...

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:58 AM
So is Al Gore.

Al Gore accused of 'sexually harassing' massage therapist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/7850976/Al-Gore-accused-of-sexually-harassing-massage-therapist.html....



Red herring.

Bwahaha isn't it funny the greenies and alarmist can't stand being told their little fraudulent carbon dioxide theory is a lie and a hoax. I guess when you've been used by elite organisations and governments to rack in billions of dollars for the UN and create a false world wide fear over that hoax, all in the name of saving the planet, come on lets admit thats preddy embarrassing.

And for everyones information i closed the other thread since it was like trying to talk to a brick wall. Im not anti the well being of the earth but the carbon dioxide fraud does nothing to the earth and is not a pollutant like carbon monoxide, plastic bags in the ocean etc.

All the alarmists can do is attack personally the messenger they have no answer to the expose of their lies.

At the moment our prime minister in Australia is trying to bring in a carbon tax, she has become the most hated and unpopular woman in australia. A current yahoo 7 opinion poll asked who wants a carbon tax, 87% are opposed.

My main aim for reoppeing another thread was because i though damn no way im going to leave a permanent record so the open minded can see what a global fraud this is.

For an exhaustive expose on the fraudulent IPCC go to
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

Yahoo polls are about as scientific as your Lord Monckton. Attacking the messenger is completely in order when the messenger is a proven liar and is caught red-handed misrepresenting data, lying about sources, failing to attribute sources and simply presenting made-up information.

BTW, speaking of attacking the messenger, Monckton's response to Abraham was to say he "looked like an overcooked prawn," claim the professor taught at a "Bible College" and threaten to sue him. The suit never materialized, and another suit Monckton filed against the BBC was dismissed.

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:10 PM
like someone else pointed out before, you seriously are pressed.
what exactly happened when you were a child? you can tell us.



now you know how all other posters feel about you.
it's really ironic you're saing this, because you didn't even take the time to respond to one single argument brought up in this thread.

if only your propaganda was a bit smarter and cleverer and more alluring. oh well ...

Oh thats funny, no one had any valid response to what I bought up about the IPCC having a fraudulent scientific basis and reporting process for their Carbon Dioxide theory, funny that, people believe what they want to believe and discount any evidence that goes against their beliefs, dont they dear

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:18 PM
Red herring.



Yahoo polls are about as scientific as your Lord Monckton. Attacking the messenger is completely in order when the messenger is a proven liar and is caught red-handed misrepresenting data, lying about sources, failing to attribute sources and simply presenting made-up information.

BTW, speaking of attacking the messenger, Monckton's response to Abraham was to say he "looked like an overcooked prawn," claim the professor taught at a "Bible College" and threaten to sue him. The suit never materialized, and another suit Monckton filed against the BBC was dismissed.

Oh puhlease, your so called scientists have as much credibility as your poster girl their had chance of winning a Grand Slam, ie a big fat zero.

Its funny in todays paper we have the Australian greens party senators being chauffered around in huge energy guzzling limousines, its typical of the greeny/ environmentalist, spout on forever about saving the environment, but ohhhh no don't ask me to turn off my computer, stop driving my car etc, they are the biggest hypocrites the world's seen.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php#D

Oh lets have a little look how your little pet project was REALLY started, people take note, it may just open your eyes:

cQJnPAbfIoA

Ashi
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:04 PM
Surely man made climate change can't only be attributed to increase in CO2 levels. Why do you keep pressing only on this point? Haven't we gone through the whole process of explaining the green house effect and other connections as well as other pollutants involved.


Yes, it's like talking to a brick wall. :lol:

Six Feet Under
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:15 PM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/G.smh1.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=4627)

You really are a hot mess (much like the planet earth because of man-made climate change). :sobbing:

Nothing else needs to be said.

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:59 PM
Oh puhlease, your so called scientists have as much credibility as your poster girl their had chance of winning a Grand Slam, ie a big fat zero.

Its funny in todays paper we have the Australian greens party senators being chauffered around in huge energy guzzling limousines, its typical of the greeny/ environmentalist, spout on forever about saving the environment, but ohhhh no don't ask me to turn off my computer, stop driving my car etc, they are the biggest hypocrites the world's seen.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php#D

Oh lets have a little look how your little pet project was REALLY started, people take note, it may just open your eyes:

cQJnPAbfIoA

Prof. Abraham has a B.S. in engineering. An M.S. in Engineering. And a Ph.D. in Engineering. He specializes in heat transfer and has authored more than 80 papers, including several relevant to global warming science and all of them have appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals. He has done work for the Department of Energy, Caterpillar Corp., and other private companies and has received a major research grant from the National Science Foundation.

Please explain how he is less qualified to comment on global warming than your Lord Monckton, who has never published a single scientific paper, lies about his serving in the House of Lords and role in Maggie Thatcher's government, and can't even write a proper citation.

A Magicman
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Blasphemy!

How dare you doubt in the Holy Church of Man Made Global Warming and its teachings???

:mad:

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 08:45 PM
You know, Monckton's initial response to Abraham is so pathetic, so obnoxious, and so inept, I'll go ahead and post it myself, since it actually supports my side of the argument.

http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/

BTW, Abraham also corrected me on my figure of 95% of climate scientists supporting the idea of a human component to global warming.

It's 97%. :wavey:

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:22 PM
Surely man made climate change can't only be attributed to increase in CO2 levels. Why do you keep pressing only on this point? Haven't we gone through the whole process of explaining the green house effect and other connections as well as other pollutants involved.


Yes, it's like talking to a brick wall. :lol:

Ashi your absolutely correct, this made made climate change soley attributable to man made CO2 IS madness but is FRAUD perpetuated by governments, the UN and their CORRUPT agency the IPCC, study it yourself! If your thinking Im just making this up look into it. The basis of ALL this rubbish is the 4 IPCC reports with the last in 2007, and one chapter in that report trying to link man made CO2 to global warming. This has been done to try and tax everyone to raise billions for the UN and governments by taxing all companies, who in turn increase prices for us, and in Australia will mean thousands of job losses in the mining and power generation industries. Thats why their is such an outcry about the pushing of this tax when none of the public wants it. Everyone is just scratching their heads how this has come to being, yet the PM is like on a mission to get it through forsaking every thing else, that in itself makes people think conspiracy.

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:24 PM
Blasphemy!

How dare you doubt in the Holy Church of Man Made Global Warming and its teachings???

:mad:

Bwhahahahh Exactly :lol::lol::lol::lol:

I think Miffedmax is one of the churches Holy Elders, he worships mother earth at the crack of dawn daily I think:lol::lol::lol:

renstar
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:33 PM
You know, Monckton's initial response to Abraham is so pathetic, so obnoxious, and so inept, I'll go ahead and post it myself, since it actually supports my side of the argument.

http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/

BTW, Abraham also corrected me on my figure of 95% of climate scientists supporting the idea of a human component to global warming.

It's 97%. :wavey:

Ohhhhhh you can post all your reports and replies to Lord Monkton you like, the Fact remains oh high priestess of the Green Church that the core reports of the IPCC especially chapter 4 form the basis of all these fraudulent scientists who take millions in bribes, oh Im sorry grants! to forsake science in favour of cash!

But thanks so much for keep bumping up this thread Miffed you really make it easier for others to see for themselves the fraud of global warming, appreciate it man:bounce:

Io-Tb7vTamY

Ryan
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/

By Dan Gainor

Published July 06, 2011

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”

Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N., with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”



Citing a Fox News article on climate change is like asking Casey Anthony if she killed her daughter. You know what they're going to say, and they're going to withhold information. :tape: Good try though.

bulava
Jul 9th, 2011, 06:26 AM
Ashi your absolutely correct, this made made climate change soley attributable to man made CO2 IS madness but is FRAUD perpetuated by governments, the UN and their CORRUPT agency the IPCC, study it yourself! If your thinking Im just making this up look into it.

I don't think anyone is correct, forget about absoluteness. Phenomenons such as Global Warming, Earth Quakes, Volcanoes, Tsunami etc are not that easily understood & I believe this is not a place to deliberate either. You know what I'm saying? BTW, IPCC is NOT is the only organization which studies Global warming, and despite all the overblown controversies this core issue can't be over-looked. I'm talking about highly respected groups from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Berkeley, IBM and many more from the Europe & Asia.

If anyone says that they too are rubbish then my response is apt: "Ignore it at your own peril" (lot of species already got screwed up, more awaiting in the endangered zone such as Polar Bear) :)

Note: I'm not talking about Govt. policies, Green economy, Carbon taxes/credits etc so don't get confused. One thing is certain no matter who believes it or not: "Now it's Payback time!" As an Employer, am doing my part.

BTW, Earth is questioning the noble Humanity:

Why my precious Ozone Layer & Arctic zone is being screwed up :help:

Ashi
Jul 9th, 2011, 03:47 PM
Note: I'm not talking about Govt. policies, Green economy, Carbon taxes/credits etc so don't get confused.


+ 1

miffedmax
Jul 9th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Ohhhhhh you can post all your reports and replies to Lord Monkton you like, the Fact remains oh high priestess of the Green Church that the core reports of the IPCC especially chapter 4 form the basis of all these fraudulent scientists who take millions in bribes, oh Im sorry grants! to forsake science in favour of cash!

But thanks so much for keep bumping up this thread Miffed you really make it easier for others to see for themselves the fraud of global warming, appreciate it man:bounce:

Io-Tb7vTamY

Are they getting their grants from Lady Gaga?

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 12:51 AM
Are they getting their grants from Lady Gaga?

Lets put it this way, we have a "climate change" department, with many bureaocrats earning hundreds of thousands each, we have a main adviser whos a ancient bug specialist (Flannery) but somehow hes one of the governments chief advisors, doing 3 days a week earning hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Make no mistake people who are against this fraud are shot down because there is literally trillions of dollars involved in this global warming fraud from raised taxes, government grants, carbon trading etc etc, if you cant see that your either stupid or in denial.

Ive just listened to a new interview by Lord Monkton who attendted the Bilderberger group meeting, where they discussed the impact of global cooling, YES the science is falling so quickly that now we are actually in a cooling period. He also discusses the global scare to force people into a one world government.

But dude hey when it eventually pans out you can apologise to me, but for you, me and others the change in our lifestyle, where this has ruined economies and lives, will be irrevocable. Just wondering also do you have your red flag with a sickle and hammer on it? im sure you display it in your backyard

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9365

Territory
Jul 10th, 2011, 01:56 AM
So what's the ettiquette here? Can we just badrep Renstar for being an imbecile or should I be more compassionate?

miffedmax
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:49 AM
Lets put it this way, we have a "climate change" department, with many bureaocrats earning hundreds of thousands each, we have a main adviser whos a ancient bug specialist (Flannery) but somehow hes one of the governments chief advisors, doing 3 days a week earning hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Make no mistake people who are against this fraud are shot down because there is literally trillions of dollars involved in this global warming fraud from raised taxes, government grants, carbon trading etc etc, if you cant see that your either stupid or in denial.

Ive just listened to a new interview by Lord Monkton who attendted the Bilderberger group meeting, where they discussed the impact of global cooling, YES the science is falling so quickly that now we are actually in a cooling period. He also discusses the global scare to force people into a one world government.

But dude hey when it eventually pans out you can apologise to me, but for you, me and others the change in our lifestyle, where this has ruined economies and lives, will be irrevocable. Just wondering also do you have your red flag with a sickle and hammer on it? im sure you display it in your backyard

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9365

Only after you apologize to Lady Gaga. And Satanists.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're endorsing anyone who'd associate with the Bilderbergers, given that they are practically in bed with the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.

postalblowfish
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:53 AM
So what's the ettiquette here? Can we just badrep Renstar for being an imbecile or should I be more compassionate?

Badrepping's kinda pointless, IMO. If you have something to say to him, then just say it.

Territory
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Badrepping's kinda pointless, IMO. If you have something to say to him, then just say it.

I'd agree with you except that trying to talk to him is kinda pointless too...

Ashi
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:14 AM
So, it all boils down to money and taxes and all that jazz. :rolleyes:

postalblowfish
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:20 AM
I'd agree with you except that trying to talk to him is kinda pointless too...

Perhaps it's better to leave him be? :)

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:15 AM
So what's the ettiquette here? Can we just badrep Renstar for being an imbecile or should I be more compassionate?

seems to me territory you have not had one argument except to call me names, which makes you the clueless moron, at least others make an argument, your brain is so vacuous you have known, go crawl back into the greeny hole you came out of.......

oh yes hope youve turned off your lights, turned off your computer, walk to work tomorrow, don't fly, don't want to upset Julia and leave a carbon imprint do we....... oh no sorry your just another phony useless hypocrit like labour and the greens, ta ta fool

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Only after you apologize to Lady Gaga. And Satanists.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're endorsing anyone who'd associate with the Bilderbergers, given that they are practically in bed with the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.

Who said Im endorsing the bilderbergers, Im saying that even organisations such as these who started all this fraud know that the actual earth temperatures are going down, maybe their formulating their next strategy when even the phony scientists and stupid green advocacy groups cant deny that its cooling?? I mean theres going to be a lot of stupid looking people about.

We had our own chief climate change advisor Flannery tell us a decade ago that around 2010 we would have intensified droughts, sea levels lapping out peoples doors....... but we have had record breaking rains making our damns full and no noticeable change in sea levels........ see sooner or later these alarmists will be proven wrong, its just a matter of time, and miffed im sure I can dig out this thread in a year? decade? hundred years my ancestors can, and prove yours wrong.

Our PM announced today the carbon tax going through, she looked so phony and plastic, and these awful greenies jumping up and down in joy. What fools playing right into the hands of those that masterminded this phony world problem. I feel sorry for people who fall for this shit, and dismiss anyopne that disagrees with them as a conspiracy theorist...... I call people who call for carbon taxes with no proven science conspiracy theorists, believing in the conspiracy that man changes climate.

miffedmax
Jul 10th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Yes. I'm sure Lord Monckton will get the Nobel Prize for real next time.

pov
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:24 PM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/G.smh1.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=4627)

You really are a hot mess (much like the planet earth because of man-made climate change).
:lol: The "hot mess" (whatever that means in this context) are those who are so attached to mainsteam experts that they really believe climate change is man-made. It isn't!

It is possible that climate change is being speeded-up by various things - some of which are man-made.

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:30 PM
:lol: The "hot mess" (whatever that means in this context) are those who are so attached to mainsteam experts that they really believe climate change is man-made. It isn't!

It is possible that climate change is being speeded-up by various things - some of which are man-made.

This!!!

Thankyou there are some people with a brain out there not listening to the green cults

ivanban
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:56 PM
I don't know about other parts of the world, but I remember that in 1980's and beginning of '90s here in Serbia 4 seasons really existed. But after that it kinda changed, autumn (fall) practically doesn't exist at all now, we go straight from summer to winter :help: And before, temps in summer were going max to 32C, but now it regularly goes between 33-40C :tape:

So yeah, climate really did change here in last decade or so

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:35 PM
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face
with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
— -- J. Edgar Hoover

renstar
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:40 PM
I don't know about other parts of the world, but I remember that in 1980's and beginning of '90s here in Serbia 4 seasons really existed. But after that it kinda changed, autumn (fall) practically doesn't exist at all now, we go straight from summer to winter :help: And before, temps in summer were going max to 32C, but now it regularly goes between 33-40C :tape:

So yeah, climate really did change here in last decade or so

Well the US had one of its coldest winters last winter, we have had some very cold winters here in Australia and last summer very mild. The point is you cant read much into it over hundreds of years such variability is normal.

Part of the mass psychology of this mass climate change conditioning makes people think every single weather event is related to global warming, its clearly not

miffedmax
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:56 PM
Well the US had one of its coldest winters last winter

No, it didn't. Lord Monckton would be proud of your ability to make up facts on the fly.

young_gunner913
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:59 PM
No, it didn't. Lord Monckton would be proud of your ability to make up facts on the fly.

Exactly. :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:08 AM
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face
with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
— -- J. Edgar Hoover

No, because I totally believe Lady Gaga is an Illumanti controlled Satanist.

renstar
Jul 11th, 2011, 03:46 AM
No, because I totally believe Lady Gaga is an Illumanti controlled Satanist.

Baby how much time do u have cause a got a lot of evidence to say she is, as well as britney, nicky minaj etc, the monarch butterfly somewhere in their songs or body gives it away.... But hey why steal the thunder from my other forum.

And of course i see what your trying to do, trying to infer i have crazy theories, wellmyes to someone like u whos conditioned to believe everything ur told its crazy, for others whos minds are opened the evidence hits u in the face constantly

renstar
Jul 11th, 2011, 03:51 AM
Speaking of Lord Monkton brilliant interview with him on Australian radio this morning where some moron tried to tell him Nasa website saying temps going up and Lord Monkton put him in his place by saying he looked at RSS the satellite record and Nasa do not. Tsk tsk norty nasa now propping up this fraud!!!

http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/lord-monckton-takes-to-the-openline/20110711-1h9no.html

renstar
Jul 11th, 2011, 04:11 AM
Oh yes nice try with your lie regarding the oregon petition miffed, lord monkton said they were all scientists, 9000 of the 31000 being PHDs

renstar
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:37 AM
No, it didn't. Lord Monckton would be proud of your ability to make up facts on the fly.

Um if you look at the link below you will find Ive caught you out yet again, seems YOU are making things up on the fly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/27/climate-change-extreme-weather-2010

And I quote from the article:

Snowmageddon
The atmospheric circulation in the Arctic took on its most extreme configuration in 145 years of record-keeping. Canada had its warmest and driest winter on record, but the US its coldest winter in 25 years. A series of remarkable snowstorms pounded the eastern US with the "Snowmageddon" blizzard dumping more than two feet of snow on Baltimore and Philadelphia.

miffedmax
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:25 PM
You didn't say the winter of of 2010. You said "last winter," which would be the winter of 2011. And according to the article below, it was "slightly colder than average." Perhaps there was a genuine misinterpretation there, in which case I apologize.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cold-snow-harsh-winter/story?id=13205971

As for your constant references to Lord Monckton, I'll just leave it to others to decide how seriously they want to take the statements of a man whose claims to have won a Nobel Prize, to have sat in the House of Lords, and to have authored scientific papers have all been exposed as shabby lies.

Anyway, for anyone who is interested in the topic, this site does a pretty good job of breaking down the science for curious laypeople. http://www.skepticalscience.com/

renstar
Jul 11th, 2011, 10:03 PM
You didn't say the winter of of 2010. You said "last winter," which would be the winter of 2011. And according to the article below, it was "slightly colder than average." Perhaps there was a genuine misinterpretation there, in which case I apologize.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cold-snow-harsh-winter/story?id=13205971

As for your constant references to Lord Monckton, I'll just leave it to others to decide how seriously they want to take the statements of a man whose claims to have won a Nobel Prize, to have sat in the House of Lords, and to have authored scientific papers have all been exposed as shabby lies.

Anyway, for anyone who is interested in the topic, this site does a pretty good job of breaking down the science for curious laypeople. http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Oh puhhhlease how gullible do you think people are, well i guess they have a lot of people believing this global warming shit! Have a lil look at the bottom of that corrupted oh im sorry skeptikal scientist site, u will see gladly sponsored by the UN, the same UN collecting or going to collect billions from carbon taxes. What next miffed a site by Hersheys espousing the health benefits of chocolates.


I dont care if lord Monkton has proclaimed to be a lesbian the fact is he is a hereditary Lord and is one of many exposing this global hoax and other matters of his past are irrelevant, what you gonna do go dig dirt on all 31,000 who signed the oregon petition?

I know you have ignored this site but everyone else please check the galileo movement website, pages and pages of how the IPCC has de frauded science and the world with this unproven global warming SHIT!

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

Mforensic
Jul 11th, 2011, 11:59 PM
Just because he was born a Lord doesn't make hims F**king Yoda.

miffedmax
Jul 12th, 2011, 02:16 AM
Oh puhhhlease how gullible do you think people are, well i guess they have a lot of people believing this global warming shit! Have a lil look at the bottom of that corrupted oh im sorry skeptikal scientist site, u will see gladly sponsored by the UN, the same UN collecting or going to collect billions from carbon taxes. What next miffed a site by Hersheys espousing the health benefits of chocolates.


I dont care if lord Monkton has proclaimed to be a lesbian the fact is he is a hereditary Lord and is one of many exposing this global hoax and other matters of his past are irrelevant, what you gonna do go dig dirt on all 31,000 who signed the oregon petition?

I know you have ignored this site but everyone else please check the galileo movement website, pages and pages of how the IPCC has de frauded science and the world with this unproven global warming SHIT!

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/

The skeptics site is not sponsored by the UN. It says "There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."

The Galileo Movement--surprise surprise--ties right back into your old buddy Lord Munckton. You know, out of all those thousands and thousands of scientists your buddy claims have signed the Oregon petition, I'd think you could come up with one or two to support your position. But we keep coming back to the same old suspect.

renstar
Jul 12th, 2011, 03:36 AM
The skeptics site is not sponsored by the UN. It says "There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."

The Galileo Movement--surprise surprise--ties right back into your old buddy Lord Munckton. You know, out of all those thousands and thousands of scientists your buddy claims have signed the Oregon petition, I'd think you could come up with one or two to support your position. But we keep coming back to the same old suspect.

Well then lets look at the real reason for this global warming HOAX, that being its a tool used to herald in a socialist one world government. Ive been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist but my my my what do we have in the last day or so, none other than the leader of our greens party, Bob Brown, whose party holds the balance of power, and who has forced a carbon tax, espouse his deep desire for a one world government.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html

Make no mistake this UN propagated hoax is purely and simply to bring about a one world government controlled by the elite and we all will suffer.

You are just one of the fools to support this bullshit

ivanban
Jul 12th, 2011, 10:18 AM
Well then lets look at the real reason for this global warming HOAX, that being its a tool used to herald in a socialist one world government. Ive been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist but my my my what do we have in the last day or so, none other than the leader of our greens party, Bob Brown, whose party holds the balance of power, and who has forced a carbon tax, espouse his deep desire for a one world government.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html

Make no mistake this UN propagated hoax is purely and simply to bring about a one world government controlled by the elite and we all will suffer.

You are just one of the fools to support this bullshit

:unsure: It's ok, help is on the way :help:

renstar
Jul 12th, 2011, 10:30 AM
:unsure: It's ok, help is on the way :help:

well its in black and white, if your too much of a moron to understand english and dismiss anything that is out of ur limited intellect as needing help, then maybe u need the help

miffedmax
Jul 12th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Oh noes! The Illumanti have gottent to Lady JaJa too!

renstar
Jul 12th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Oh noes! The Illumanti have gottent to Lady JaJa too!

Nooo they don' exist miffed, i made them up.... Don't exist at all

Bwahaha go on believing that fool

renstar
Jul 12th, 2011, 09:40 PM
More glooooooorious Lord Monkton for Miffed to listen to while he rolls around naked in petroleum jelly looking at old Lena matches ( strange for a gay man but anyway)

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110712-aj2-lordmonckton.mp3

ivanban
Jul 14th, 2011, 07:29 PM
well its in black and white, if your too much of a moron to understand english and dismiss anything that is out of ur limited intellect as needing help, then maybe u need the help

Javi se kad budes znao srpski kao sto ja znam engleski :wavey:

renstar
Jul 15th, 2011, 12:52 AM
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-scam.jpg

renstar
Jul 15th, 2011, 12:53 AM
http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/cartoon-cop15_prayer.jpg

renstar
Jul 15th, 2011, 12:54 AM
http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hacked-climate-emails.jpg

Albireo
Jul 15th, 2011, 01:50 AM
well its in black and white, if your too much of a moron to understand english and dismiss anything that is out of ur limited intellect as needing help, then maybe u need the help

Bravo. Just... bravo.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 02:51 AM
http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/illuminati_game1.jpg

Albireo
Jul 15th, 2011, 03:03 AM
http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/illuminati_game1.jpg

Never play as The Network. They're too easy to thwart.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 03:42 AM
You know, a couple of friends of mine used to play this one all the time. I was more into
http://www.worthpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cosmic-encounter1.jpg

fantic
Jul 15th, 2011, 03:55 AM
I was such a fan of Michael Crichton, before

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

:sad:

renstar
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:31 AM
Bravo. Just... bravo.

Oh i missed a ' here and there, I also write "ur" in place of your in email texts to save time, this is the internet, I'm not writing an english essay. It's, you're........ happy now? Yes billions of dollars are being wasted on a fictional problem, lets pick on spelling shall we.

renstar
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:38 AM
http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/250/draft_lens4037402module72253551photo_1277735217Com plete_Idiots_GlobalWar

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 11:54 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lxF_kAI6kIE/Rg7ndU42niI/AAAAAAAAABg/A6S6iOVu2Ms/s200/tinfoilhat1.jpg

Oh noes! The Illumanti are coming!

Albireo
Jul 15th, 2011, 04:02 PM
Oh i missed a ' here and there, I also write "ur" in place of your in email texts to save time, this is the internet, I'm not writing an english essay. It's, you're........ happy now? Yes billions of dollars are being wasted on a fictional problem, lets pick on spelling shall we.

Don't criticize someone's English while displaying ignorance of your own.

Then again, you'd have to stop posting to rectify that problem entirely.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 04:20 PM
Give him some credit, though. By posting cartoons instead of Lord Monckton he's certainly increased the intellectual heft of his arguments. I mean, at least you're supposed to laugh at cartoons.

Territory
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:13 PM
If Lord Renstankton is right and climate change isn't happening, then there's at least one saving grace:

Honey badgers will be able to live on and eat whatever they want. Honey badger don't care. They're just craaazy. They'll just eat renstar and Lord Monckton right up! Nasty!

Albireo
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Give him some credit, though. By posting cartoons instead of Lord Monckton he's certainly increased the intellectual heft of his arguments. I mean, at least you're supposed to laugh at cartoons.

Ah, I just put him on my ignore list. (Population: 1.) His sort isn't worth the time.

Car Key Boi was equally annoying, but at least he was funny.

Ayumilove
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:41 PM
I've been reading through this read and it really surprises me how overwhelmingly in agreement of global warming there is.
First of all, even if there was global warming, I've heard from various scientist that humans would feel any difference.
Second of all, I think its really strange that there's all these people claiming we need to fear global warming when at the same time, many places are actually experiencing snow for the first time in a very long time, and record low temperatures.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Actually, increased snowfall is an argument FOR global warming, not against it. And the last decade was the warmest in history, not one of the coldest. The El Nina effect made the winders 2010 and 2011 slightly cooler than average, and some of the coldest in the last 25 years. But that's not saying much when you're looking at a 24-year warming trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:05 PM
Don't criticize someone's English while displaying ignorance of your own.

Then again, you'd have to stop posting to rectify that problem entirely.

Oh puhlease, your as big a nutcase as all these green headcases. I was commenting on on him not reading the articles I had posted clearly putting ahead my point, it had to do with comprehension of English, not to do with a one word typo. If you have no arguments at all towards the issue and all you can come up with is a spelling mistake and some contrite, arrogant point your trying to make, then you sir are a stupid arrogant piece of nothing.

Must be time for your next socialist meeting, better hurry fool.

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:11 PM
Actually, increased snowfall is an argument FOR global warming, not against it. And the last decade was the warmest in history, not one of the coldest. The El Nina effect made the winders 2010 and 2011 slightly cooler than average, and some of the coldest in the last 25 years. But that's not saying much when you're looking at a 24-year warming trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

God your a fool, the skeptical scientist via the UN who gets the billions of dollars from taxes, really unbiased information that, bwhahahaha, go to your next communist/greens meeting Miffed, the more you write the more you make a fool of yourself and this ludicrous man made warming HOAX.

Why dont we look at how the IPCC made up their hoax reports by not taking any other factors into account other than so called man made climate change, how they hush up any dissenting views, how their thousands of consensus scientists include reviews from funded green political organisations, hikers, activists etc. forget the corruptscientist, read the truth at:

www.galileomovement.com.au

Also Aussies please go to the anti carbon tax RALLY at Parliament House 13th August.

Gotta stop this utter garbage before it ruins jobs and our economy. Otherwise we will have green fools like miffed turning our great country into a new Socialist state

www.stopcarbonlies.com

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:12 PM
just a few of the audio links of experts debunking this LIE and HOAX of man made global warming:

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9391
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9304
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9277
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9196
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9116
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9105

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:14 PM
I've been reading through this read and it really surprises me how overwhelmingly in agreement of global warming there is.
First of all, even if there was global warming, I've heard from various scientist that humans would feel any difference.
Second of all, I think its really strange that there's all these people claiming we need to fear global warming when at the same time, many places are actually experiencing snow for the first time in a very long time, and record low temperatures.

Thank you Nadeshiko:) I didnt expect nothing from the forum on this site, I expected all the deluded greenies and left idiots who believe this garbage, glad some have free thought, well done:lick:

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:18 PM
http://savethehumans.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55131fbec88340120a6fd943a970b-pi

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:22 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mkuywmXBYaE/S3j7Val9KtI/AAAAAAAAAyA/NOXOAeKBlQE/s400/Al_Gore.jpg

miffedmax
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:33 PM
The same gang of debunked liars. Munckton. Franks, that expert in the nonexistent field of "hydro-climatology." McLean. I could go on, but why bother. You've already admitted you don't care that Lord Munckton is a proven liar, so I don't suppose it matters to you that his stooges are, too.

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 12:38 PM
OH how interesting, this so called man made global warming was created by the club of Rome in the late 60s, and these green fools are buying it hook,line and sinker...fools

7daXxefC3S4

Fantasy Hero
Jul 16th, 2011, 03:30 PM
i really dunno what to say as things are much bigger and more complicated than we think...as a matter of fact in the past 10 years the sea level which was expected to rise has instead descreased of a few, while global temperature has grown of something artic is bigger than ever before.
Alpine most famouse glaciers are all getting smaller, but the southest glacier of europe (the one on the Gran Sasso D'Italia) is growing and the same is happening with the lowest glacier of alps the one on Montasio (1800m) :shrug:

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 11:46 PM
The same gang of debunked liars. Munckton. Franks, that expert in the nonexistent field of "hydro-climatology." McLean. I could go on, but why bother. You've already admitted you don't care that Lord Munckton is a proven liar, so I don't suppose it matters to you that his stooges are, too.

What i said is I don't care about your pathetic muck racking over Lord Monkton, I said its irrelevant if hes been in the house of Lords or not hes a hereditary Lord. I also said what he says makes a hell of a lot more sense the these fraudulent paid off corrupt scientists which Ive exposed many times.

If Lord Monkton is such a dismissed liar as you say isn't it really funny the green cult is trying so hard to shut him down and keep him quiet, heckling him here in Australia, leftist radio announcers trying to bait him then hanging up before he replies, pressure on venues to cancel events. Extraordinary isn't it. What exactly are the trying to hide? The truth perhaps that man made climare change is a con, a fraud, a hoax? Certainly most in Australia are seeing at that way with the polls saying a sweeping majority don't want a carbon tax to combat this made up FRAUD!!!

Www.stopcarbonlies.com

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 11:50 PM
Furthermore after billions of dollars there is still no proof, they just use their propaganda of so called "consensus" of scientists, thats funny now science is boiled down to consensus. Maybe a consensus of cash funding?

Consensus my arse:lol:

renstar
Jul 16th, 2011, 11:57 PM
The same gang of debunked liars. Munckton. Franks, that expert in the nonexistent field of "hydro-climatology." McLean. I could go on, but why bother. You've already admitted you don't care that Lord Munckton is a proven liar, so I don't suppose it matters to you that his stooges are, too.

According to you everyone that dares to go against the consensus of lies is debunked, in the wrong field of science blah blah blah.

Bit like computer modellers dictating the carbon debate with a predertimed outcome. Stop the lies and bullshit this is a scam and u know it

Oh yeah our chief climate change govt advisors one is a economist, the other a bug expert. And if u listened to the hydrologist u would know their university studies more than equip them to understand and comment on this issue

The so called scientific papers of the corrupt IPCC included green activist notes and hiker reports
Www.galileomovement.com.au

Hurley
Jul 17th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Sorry, I've been working a lot and have been out of the loop. What is a renstar and why won't it stop posting?

renstar
Jul 17th, 2011, 02:48 AM
Sorry, I've been working a lot and have been out of the loop. What is a renstar and why won't it stop posting?

Um I'm me I'm not an "it" and who are you? Im an individual with nothing to do or no work interest in one side or the other of the argument.

I suppose I got swept up with the anti carbon tax sentiment growing here in Australia with the needless, pointless carbon tax being introduced by a green influenced parliament.

I post in response to green nut cases posting their socialist garbage, its called free speach

NoppaNoppa
Jul 17th, 2011, 09:26 PM
How is ManMadeGlobalWarming not a fraud? First Gore won Osc.. Nobel for it. That should settle it! As AL says, science is settled. Period!!!

Is there more to it? Can´t think of anything. Gore is settled and thats about it. Worldwide temperatures remain steady despite great effors on Gores part. Science is settled.

Wigglytuff
Jul 17th, 2011, 10:35 PM
One world prison government????? What the fuck is wrong with yall? Has nontennis lost the little mind it had.

renstar
Jul 18th, 2011, 12:23 AM
One world prison government????? What the fuck is wrong with yall? Has nontennis lost the little mind it had.

Thats only my opinion where its leading to, a lot who don't believe in man made climate change may simply believe the science is not settled ( which it isn't, thats why they have to use the word 'consensus') or they may believe its an instrument used by a socialist government to redistribute wealth.

In any case its caused a huge stir in Australia since our economy is dependant on natural resources and mining so the introduction of a carbon tax would kill off jobs and increase prices.

Tackle real pollution like carbon monoxide or toxic chemicals in food or waterways, man made global warming due to carbon dioxide is a scam, pure and simple

miffedmax
Jul 18th, 2011, 02:18 AM
The scientific definition of "consensus" is not the same as the general one (just like "theory").

Maybe you should spend less time fantasizing about me in pools of vaseline and more time learning junior high school level science.

bulava
Jul 18th, 2011, 09:35 AM
Maybe you should spend less time fantasizing about me in pools of vaseline and more time learning junior high school level science.
:lol::tape:

duhcity
Jul 18th, 2011, 09:43 AM
Thats only my opinion where its leading to, a lot who don't believe in man made climate change may simply believe the science is not settled ( which it isn't, thats why they have to use the word 'consensus') or they may believe its an instrument used by a socialist government to redistribute wealth.

In any case its caused a huge stir in Australia since our economy is dependant on natural resources and mining so the introduction of a carbon tax would kill off jobs and increase prices.

Tackle real pollution like carbon monoxide or toxic chemicals in food or waterways, man made global warming due to carbon dioxide is a scam, pure and simple

Climate change is not man-made is technically a true statement.
But that does not mean man does not contribute to climate change in a way that produces negative results.

renstar
Jul 18th, 2011, 12:40 PM
The scientific definition of "consensus" is not the same as the general one (just like "theory").

Maybe you should spend less time fantasizing about me in pools of vaseline and more time learning junior high school level science.

Maybe you should spend less time listening to propaganda and think for yourself, and fantasize about you in vaseline, puhlease, just noting your obsession with Lena and Jerri Haliwell, sad!

As for the scientific consenus issue I was just echoing sentiment by a number of scientists I have heard interviewed and their dismay at the farce of science being reduced to "consensus" for such a complex issue of global warming, which I totally agree.

The greens party here in Australia have already been exposed as having as one of their policies a One World Government, Ive already shown materials from the UNs Agenda 21 and other socialist propaganda propagating a man made climate change FRAUD, maybe some people are too dumb, too indulged in their socialist or green propaganda land to realise what a crock this is. At least people are entitled to know the other side of the coin, after being brainwashed through school and university with this garbage.

http://real-agenda.com/2010/06/19/ipcc-climate-scientist-global-warming-consensus-a-fraud/

National Post

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man-made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8627-deconstructing-the-global-warming-fraud

Example 2: Global Warming Consensus Fraud

Global warming is hardly a subject of science. It is one of the most complex subjects science has ever studied, which allowed the propagandists to separate themselves from the objective realities very early on. The supposed scientific basis for the propaganda is computer models, which show anything someone wants them to show.

A large part of the fraud in this subject is in how it is presented to the public.

Scientific Consensus Survey

Here’s an example which supposedly shows a consensus of scientists but in fact shows the opposite. It shows how the subject has been railroaded at the starting point—the issuing of grants. It shows that bureaucrats only fund research which supports their agenda.

The public is told that nearly all scientists now agree that humans cause global warming by producing carbon dioxide. An example of what this claim is based upon is found in Wikipedia under Global Warming, Scientific Consensus or Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. Here's the Oreskes survey which is often referred to:

"In December 2004, Science published an essay [8] by geologist and science historian Naomi Oreskes [9] that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003..."

In the results of the supposed survey, 75% agreed with the claim that humans are the cause; 25% took no position; and none disagreed. What it really means is anyone who disagreed would not be getting a grant to study the subject. (How the Firing Works)

The peer reviewed literature is limited to grants which are almost entirely issued by bureaucrats of the federal government, and they do not fund research which opposes their warped agenda. Therefore, this type of survey tells nothing of scientific consensus.

bulava
Jul 18th, 2011, 02:59 PM
^You're trying very hard, but what's the point?

Surveys may or may not tell everything/anything but our simple human common sense should able to observe and difference the 'changes' happening to the Earth and its climate. Still if you insist that all those changes have no connection with Global Warming then why the people should care about the entire issue in the first place? Enjoy, have fun, and consume all the resources mindlessly. :)

BTW, if Humans are not the cause (be it good or bad for Earth) then on whom are we trying to pass the buck on? Animals? Birds? Endangered Species? Or, maybe Aliens :p

renstar
Jul 18th, 2011, 11:45 PM
^You're trying very hard, but what's the point?

Surveys may or may not tell everything/anything but our simple human common sense should able to observe and difference the 'changes' happening to the Earth and its climate. Still if you insist that all those changes have no connection with Global Warming then why the people should care about the entire issue in the first place? Enjoy, have fun, and consume all the resources mindlessly. :)

BTW, if Humans are not the cause (be it good or bad for Earth) then on whom are we trying to pass the buck on? Animals? Birds? Endangered Species? Or, maybe Aliens :p

Cause of what??? Climate is completely normal, the best the alrmists can come up with is a 0.5 percent temperature increase or some ridiculous number, anything else is rubbish projected computer figures if their bogus theory happened to be correct.

People should care about the issue due to the green socialist agenda and ideology behind the idea. New zealand and Australia are the testing ground for this new socialist agenda, new zealand has laready had a carbon tax pushed through, now in Australia they are trying to push one through amongst overwhelming public resistance. If their successful ripping us off for billions for this phony problem, guess what, your country is next!!!

Territory
Jul 19th, 2011, 01:15 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750

The British House of Lords has taken the extraordinary step of publishing an open letter reiterating that high-profile climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton is not a member of the UK's Upper House.

The House of Lords published a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the Upper House.

It comes after Lord Monckton told ABC Radio's Adam Spencer that he is a member of the House of Lords, but that he does not have the right to sit or vote.

The author of the letter, Clerk of the Parliaments David Beamish, writes to Lord Monckton: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

The letter says Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords.

It says that no-one denies Lord Monckton is a peer, but that is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House.

Lord Monckton will address the National Press Club in Canberra later today.

renstar
Jul 19th, 2011, 08:55 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750

The British House of Lords has taken the extraordinary step of publishing an open letter reiterating that high-profile climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton is not a member of the UK's Upper House.

The House of Lords published a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the Upper House.

It comes after Lord Monckton told ABC Radio's Adam Spencer that he is a member of the House of Lords, but that he does not have the right to sit or vote.

The author of the letter, Clerk of the Parliaments David Beamish, writes to Lord Monckton: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

The letter says Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords.

It says that no-one denies Lord Monckton is a peer, but that is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House.

Lord Monckton will address the National Press Club in Canberra later today.

Oh puhlease territory its so obvioua you have paid up membership to the fruit loop extremist one world order believing Greens party.

If you cared to listen to the National Press Club debate today Lord Monkton was asked about this muck raking by the greens funded Getup, needless to say he shut them up, he is a Lord.

In any case he blasted his opponent off the debating forum, economist Dr Richard Denniss. Funny they couldn't find a scientist with balls enough to go head to head with him in a debate. Needless to say his knowledge of the science was enough to expose the fools who are trying to make us believe this global warming hoax.

When the left cant win an argument on its own merit they have to stoop to personal attacks on the messenger.

Lord Monkton was far superior in all facts and science even citing how the IPCC itself in its own 2005 report stated many times that the climate was too complex to predict. Are facts such as these dependant on wheteher hes a lord or not? And there are many scientists questioning this hoax consensus so picking on Lord Monkton alone is ridiculous. I sugfest you listen to the debate and have an educated opinion rather than this crap.

In any case your precious greens and labour will be finished next election and good riddance!

Territory
Jul 19th, 2011, 02:03 PM
I was just reporting the news :rolleyes:

bulava
Jul 19th, 2011, 04:57 PM
Cause of what??? Climate is completely normal, the best the alrmists can come up with is a 0.5 percent temperature increase or some ridiculous number, anything else is rubbish projected computer figures if their bogus theory happened to be correct.
Climate change is completely normal? Rubbish projected computer figures? You have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't know who brain washed you with such nonsense :eek: Refer to this once:

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/climate

If their successful ripping us off for billions for this phony problem, guess what, your country is next!!!
I'm not waiting for the lawmakers here (they are slower than Snails!). Since last year we are in the process of reducing the Carbon emissions, mostly importantly to reduce the dependency on Conventional Energy (Thermal, Hydro Electric etc). So far at my manufacturing premises we've increased the Green cover, business/residential lights switched to 'CFL', roped in Moserbaer for deploying Solar Energy solutions at business/residential locations (so far 120 kW power output; projected 250 kW by 2012), phased out CRT monitors in favor of low power LCDs (~50 screens), Car pooling, and a few more. Point is, as an Employer am doing my part to this planet because I do believe in Global Warming in very much. So, am bearing the extra costs. IMO, every concerned citizen should do their part too :)

wta_zuperfann
Jul 19th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Climate change?? It's god awful hot in the Midwest and Texas. Too d@mn hot.

renstar
Jul 19th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Climate change is completely normal? Rubbish projected computer figures? You have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't know who brain washed you with such nonsense :eek: Refer to this once:

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/climate


I'm not waiting for the lawmakers here (they are slower than Snails!). Since last year we are in the process of reducing the Carbon emissions, mostly importantly to reduce the dependency on Conventional Energy (Thermal, Hydro Electric etc). So far at my manufacturing premises we've increased the Green cover, business/residential lights switched to 'CFL', roped in Moserbaer for deploying Solar Energy solutions at business/residential locations (so far 120 kW power output; projected 250 kW by 2012), phased out CRT monitors in favor of low power LCDs (~50 screens), Car pooling, and a few more. Point is, as an Employer am doing my part to this planet because I do believe in Global Warming in very much. So, am bearing the extra costs. IMO, every concerned citizen should do their part too :)

Well not wishing to entirely go over what I have in this forever thread lol but links you have given are are related to the core UN IPCC reports given over the past decade which have been called into question since they have virtually thrown science out of the window due to the UN having a set socialist agenda.

For more on the fraudulent IPCC reports go to

Www.galileomovement.com.au. And as well I have previously posted many links in this thread. Needless to say the science is not settled and very dubious at best.

Its all a greens / UN policy amongst others of a one world socialist government. Why would't the UN propagate such lies, the have billions to gain from countries carbon taxes etc

Super Dave
Jul 20th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Climate change?? It's god awful hot in the Midwest and Texas. Too d@mn hot.

Heat index of 110 F (43 C) here tomorrow. :help:

ivanban
Jul 20th, 2011, 04:44 PM
Cause of what??? Climate is completely normal, the best the alrmists can come up with is a 0.5 percent temperature increase or some ridiculous number, anything else is rubbish projected computer figures if their bogus theory happened to be correct.

Ermmm, no it's NOT NORMAL! :rolleyes: In this part of Europe summer is much much hotter in last decade or so, and winters are much much colder and longer than before

Territory
Jul 20th, 2011, 05:35 PM
Darwin, Northern Territory had its wettest wet season on record (http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/nt/20110304.shtml) this year. Then they had the coldest June on record (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nt/summary.shtml), as did many other places in the Northern Territory that are 100s of miles apart. A lot of them broke the record by 2-3 degrees.

miffedmax
Jul 20th, 2011, 06:12 PM
Ermmm, no it's NOT NORMAL! :rolleyes: In this part of Europe summer is much much hotter in last decade or so, and winters are much much colder and longer than before

Watch out. If you post too often renstar is going to start having fantasies about you, too. It's already happened to Territory and me.

Lena's bangs, btw.

Territory
Jul 20th, 2011, 06:24 PM
I've blocked renstar now. It makes this thread much more civilised. Highly recommended...

miffedmax
Jul 20th, 2011, 08:41 PM
Looks like some mighty cherry-picked data from the get go, since natural gas is relative (to coal and oil) low carbon, and hydropower even less so. Bentek is also a far from neutral source as it largely serves the natural gas industry, and that study was commissioned by the oil and gas industry. I wouldn't trust it's figures any more than I would the wind companies (and for the record, I've been skeptical of theirs for some time).

renstar
Jul 20th, 2011, 11:57 PM
Ermmm, no it's NOT NORMAL! :rolleyes: In this part of Europe summer is much much hotter in last decade or so, and winters are much much colder and longer than before

Well hullo but its winter here in Australia and its freezing, daily temps 5-6 degrees below daily normals and I already in a past post bought up a newspaper article showin the winter of 2010 In the US was the coldest in 25 years.

But thanks Ivan you've proved a classic point of the mass psychology they use so that people look for any evidence in tneir day to day life to prove this nonsense. The right question would be is this summer any different from those experienced by your father, your grandfather, your great grandfather. You see even alarmists would not base their fraudulent theories on 1 year or even 10, scientifically this is irrelevant. Lets talk about the medieval warming period or the mini ice age in London, then we can start talking about how climates changed by itself, without our help, for thousands of years.

Thinking our 3% contribution of CO2 to natures 97 % yearly makes a difference is laughable

renstar
Jul 21st, 2011, 02:35 AM
Looks like some mighty cherry-picked data from the get go, since natural gas is relative (to coal and oil) low carbon, and hydropower even less so. Bentek is also a far from neutral source as it largely serves the natural gas industry, and that study was commissioned by the oil and gas industry. I wouldn't trust it's figures any more than I would the wind companies (and for the record, I've been skeptical of theirs for some time).

Its funny anyone that opposes this hoax is supposedly funded by some energy industry or any scientist who does is bogus according to you.

Bit like the Corrupt UN trying to hold the world hostage for their socialist agendas and their imposition of carbon regimes while creaming billions off the top for their so called climate action. Funny they are also at the core of the fraudulent IPCC reports and the rancid grants given to computer modellers, oh im sorry scientists, to drop their scientific morals to become new advocates of this putrid new green religion.

There is no evidence of man made global warming, deal with it!

renstar
Jul 21st, 2011, 05:03 AM
ma6cnPLcrtA

bulava
Jul 21st, 2011, 03:22 PM
Well not wishing to entirely go over what I have in this forever thread lol but links you have given are are related to the core UN IPCC reports given over the past decade which have been called into question since they have virtually thrown science out of the window due to the UN having a set socialist agenda.
I caught you now! :) That link I referred to was my former Employer where I employed for more than a decade as an Engineer and a Scientist. Also, because I know enough about a lot of institutes/organizations where genuine research is being carried out to tackle this challenge. In fact, IPCC was born only in early 90s I guess, whereas I'm very well aware of that company's history, responsibility & commitment on contribution to the climate.

For more on the fraudulent IPCC reports go to

Www.galileomovement.com.au. And as well I have previously posted many links in this thread. Needless to say the science is not settled and very dubious at best.

Apparently, I don't need IPCC reports to deliberate on this issue at all. Why? A simple case of "Deforestation" issue proves that there is certainly a grave threat to this planet in the decades to come. BTW, you tell me, on what basis should I believe Galileo Movement when you've plainly dismissed the reputation of 100 year old :eek:

miffedmax
Jul 21st, 2011, 04:16 PM
You know, for all his admonitions to "think for ourselves" you'd think he could google the Bentek web site like I did. Or might come to some conclusions about why two winters that were "slightly below average" according the the ABC News story cited earlier in this thread were the coldest in the last 25 years. But his definition of thinking for yourself is to believe everything a proven liar like Lord Munckton says simply because he's a contrarian. Oh, and apparently because it's all part of a secret plan the UN and Lady Gaga have to take over the world.

renstar
Jul 21st, 2011, 08:57 PM
You know, for all his admonitions to "think for ourselves" you'd think he could google the Bentek web site like I did. Or might come to some conclusions about why two winters that were "slightly below average" according the the ABC News story cited earlier in this thread were the coldest in the last 25 years. But his definition of thinking for yourself is to believe everything a proven liar like Lord Munckton says simply because he's a contrarian. Oh, and apparently because it's all part of a secret plan the UN and Lady Gaga have to take over the world.

Oh dear oh deary me what do we have here in todays paper yet another new peer reviewed paper debunking one of the core lies of the green global warming religion. Haven't they gone on years and years about seas rising ( yes im swimming in my living room as we speak) well new peer reviewed paper shows oceans decelerating:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-e6frg6nf-1226099350056

renstar
Jul 21st, 2011, 09:09 PM
I caught you now! :) That link I referred to was my former Employer where I employed for more than a decade as an Engineer and a Scientist. Also, because I know enough about a lot of institutes/organizations where genuine research is being carried out to tackle this challenge. In fact, IPCC was born only in early 90s I guess, whereas I'm very well aware of that company's history, responsibility & commitment on contribution to the climate.


Apparently, I don't need IPCC reports to deliberate on this issue at all. Why? A simple case of "Deforestation" issue proves that there is certainly a grave threat to this planet in the decades to come. BTW, you tell me, on what basis should I believe Galileo Movement when you've plainly dismissed the reputation of 100 year old :eek:

Of course you may know a lot of institutes where research is done to tackle this "problem" because its a well funded area, hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into this fraud, and yet their is no proof, and there will never be, the climate is too complex. Which exact peer review papers before the IPCC linked a warming of the planet to man made CO2? I can show you as far back as the late 60s the powers that be formulating a fake worls problem as a tool for socialism and a one world government.


Im not sure what defforestation has to do with man made climate change? You believe galileomovement like an o the other scientists and experts ive provided links for you see the evidence for yourself and make up your own mind. The author of that site had a lot to do with the IPCC reports and saw the fraud and lies involved

miffedmax
Jul 21st, 2011, 10:27 PM
Had you bothered to read the article you cite, you would notice it says that rate of seal level rise is slowing, not that they are not rising. And the actual scientist said more research was needed to determine what these new figures actually mean as his figures measure only a small area of Australia. Unlike you, he's not jumping to any conclusions, and concedes sea levels may well begin rising soon in the near future.

Even a Murdoch rag can't spin this one into a debunking of global warming, though of course you're trying to.

renstar
Jul 22nd, 2011, 01:13 AM
Had you bothered to read the article you cite, you would notice it says that rate of seal level rise is slowing, not that they are not rising. And the actual scientist said more research was needed to determine what these new figures actually mean as his figures measure only a small area of Australia. Unlike you, he's not jumping to any conclusions, and concedes sea levels may well begin rising soon in the near future.

Even a Murdoch rag can't spin this one into a debunking of global warming, though of course you're trying to.

Ok lets quote from the article shall we:

Dr Brady said the divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends from the tide gauge records was now so great "it is clear there is a serious problem with the models".

"In a nutshell, this factual information means the high sea-level rises used as precautionary guidelines by the CSIRO in recent years are in essence ridiculous," he said. During the 20th century, there was a measurable global average rise in mean sea level of about 17cm (plus or minus 5cm).

But scientific projections, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have suggested climate change will deliver a much greater global tide rise in mean sea level this century of 80-100cm.

There is a seriuos problem with the models!!! Intersting!!!! In essence guidelines used by our scientific body (CSIRO) in essence are ridiculous!!!!

Thats funny miffed are my eyes and ears decieving me???

Id say you and the green religion are the queens of spin. First its global warming, then no we are not warming so next the spin is climate change, but hold on the climate has always changed, now its the gore termen "price on carbon" being the new propaganda. We have scientists telling us sea levels aren't rising, the poles aren't melting, we were told here in Australia we would wither in drought (we have had huge volumes of rain), oceans would lap at our doors, they haven't.

You see my dear miffed this fraud is falling apart and the more they try to prove it the more mother nature laughs in their face.

Regarding sea levels my opinion is the same as warming, not enough evidence or historical records to prove its other than normal, and certainly not enough evidence based data to prove its causitive from any other factors, end of story.

Oh Im sorry i forgot the dont take other causative factors into account and have pre determined results:lol:

miffedmax
Jul 22nd, 2011, 01:53 AM
Let's quote the rest of the article then:

Mr Watson cautioned in his research and again yesterday that studies of a small number of northern hemisphere records spanning two or three centuries had found a small acceleration in sea-level rises. He said it was possible the rises could be subject to "climate-induced impacts projected to occur over this century".

Mr Watson's research finds that in the 1990s, when sea levels were attracting international attention, although the decadal rates of ocean rise were high, "they are not remarkable or unusual in the context of the historical record at each site over the 20th century".

"What we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates of sea-level rise evident post-1990, but those sorts of rates of rise have been witnessed at other times in the historical record," he said.

"What remains unknown is whether or not these rates are going to persist into the future and indeed increase."

He said further research was required, "to rationalise the difference between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level time-series reconstructions (models) and the relatively consistent deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge records".

The bottom line is that you are working from a predetermined conclusion--that global warming is part of conspiracy--and you cherry pick your quotes and try to use one study to refute the whole idea of global warming, a claim not even the author of the study makes.

On the other hand, Watson is the first credible researcher you've ever cited, so I'll give you partial credit on that one.

NoppaNoppa
Jul 22nd, 2011, 12:55 PM
Big OIL

That is one that believers keep mensioning. Well, they are in on it too.

Last week Ban Ki-Moon wisited here. He met president and him.
Chairman of Shell, Jorma Ollila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila#The_challenge_of_Shell) Quote Ollila "Climate Change needs to be dealt with faster" (http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/ollila+quotilmastonmuutos+vaatii+nopeampia+toimiaq uot/a655316) (source in finnish) Same article. Moon says that UN has declared climate change as number one priority.

Little flashback. Ethiopia 1985. Live-Aid. It worked. Population of Ethiopia then was about 42 million (http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/43.htm). Now it is 82.000.000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) (14th most in the world), 46% of those are 14 or younger. UN estimate for 2050 is 150.000.000.

In 1985 their land was about 40% forest (http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/43.htm). Now 4%. Expected to be 0% by 2020 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1766717.stm)

Draw your own conclutions. Two choises. More aid! Wait what?

renstar
Jul 22nd, 2011, 01:32 PM
Let's quote the rest of the article then:

Mr Watson cautioned in his research and again yesterday that studies of a small number of northern hemisphere records spanning two or three centuries had found a small acceleration in sea-level rises. He said it was possible the rises could be subject to "climate-induced impacts projected to occur over this century".

Mr Watson's research finds that in the 1990s, when sea levels were attracting international attention, although the decadal rates of ocean rise were high, "they are not remarkable or unusual in the context of the historical record at each site over the 20th century".

"What we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates of sea-level rise evident post-1990, but those sorts of rates of rise have been witnessed at other times in the historical record," he said.

"What remains unknown is whether or not these rates are going to persist into the future and indeed increase."

He said further research was required, "to rationalise the difference between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level time-series reconstructions (models) and the relatively consistent deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge records".

The bottom line is that you are working from a predetermined conclusion--that global warming is part of conspiracy--and you cherry pick your quotes and try to use one study to refute the whole idea of global warming, a claim not even the author of the study makes.

On the other hand, Watson is the first credible researcher you've ever cited, so I'll give you partial credit on that one.

The bottom line is he is saying rates are decelerating and as far as im concerned how can sea level rates be decelerating when their previous models said they would keep increasing. Im no scientist, and Im guessing you have at least a science degree from the way you have approached this thread? I'm not a scientist but I believe I have a gift in knowing whats really happening compared to the superficial, and this issue just literally keeps smacking me in the face.

People are not cherry picking, people around the world are challenging this so called science of consensus because of a lot of independent research and exposes of fraudulent activity in how this so called science was collected.

I have previously explained that out of non believers of this my view of why is probably seen as the most controversial or I may be seen as a "conspiracy theorist". Well hey I can live with that, I don't care. But most of the points I have made can and have been made by scientists who happen not to agree with the science of this. I applaud those scientists because the green industry has made it that you are derided as a scientist if you go against it, you are not funded etc.

Is it a conspiracy?

con·spir·a·cy
–noun, plural -cies.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

evil? yes, unlawful, probably. treacherous, most definately. surreptitious, yes. forumalated in secret by two or more persons, yes.

tP7JPH8lpSg

renstar
Jul 22nd, 2011, 01:45 PM
YaTJJCPYhlk

NoppaNoppa
Jul 22nd, 2011, 02:01 PM
Don’t know the cost, don’t know if it works (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/)

March 2011 interview

Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action.

AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.
AB: Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know.

miffedmax
Jul 22nd, 2011, 02:03 PM
I am not a scientists, but I have some training in analysis.

I wouldn't want to intentionally mislead anyone.

The conspiracy is going badly if two peer-reviewed journals are refusing to toe the line.

(Although the American study cited in the article you linked is already had its methodology questioned. We'll see how that one turns out).

Six Feet Under
Jul 22nd, 2011, 02:25 PM
This is getting epic :sobbing;
Renstar, at least edit the title :sobbing:
Max you go girl :hearts:

ivanban
Jul 22nd, 2011, 02:48 PM
Don’t know the cost, don’t know if it works (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/)

March 2011 interview

Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action.

AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.
AB: Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know.

And you have problems with clean sustainable energy and less pollutants because...?! :unsure:

NoppaNoppa
Jul 22nd, 2011, 03:04 PM
An you have problems with clean sustainable energy and less pollutants because...?!

No problem. Clean energy is run by socialist governments by pumping billions and billions into that. That is a problem. When it is again made free for competition I´m all for it!

renstar
Jul 23rd, 2011, 07:43 AM
This is getting epic :sobbing;
Renstar, at least edit the title :sobbing:
Max you go girl :hearts:

Not sure how to edit it yet:confused:

renstar
Jul 23rd, 2011, 07:47 AM
Germany’s solar plans have weeds on it

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/Loeschke_PVSolar_Markranstaedt_201106_thumb.jpg

http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/

Weed-Covered, Neglected Solar Park: 20 Acres, $11 Million, Only One And Half Years Old!

German solar skeptic website SOLARKRITIK.DE here provides the background on the rundown, weed-covered solar facility in former communist (and now “green”) East Germany, which I presented in my last post here.

It’s much worse than we thought. The story behind the above photo and the project itself appears here at the online Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper. The facility is sprawled over an area of 20 acres. The Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper wrote just before the facility went into operation:

‘The park is finally realized,’ beams mayor Carina Radon (CDU) nowadays, and praised the 7.5 million Euro investment. 36,300 modules will be installed in the weeks ahead. It will generate an annual amount of 2.7 million kilowatt-hours. The facility will produce a peak amount of 2722 kilowatts.

Wow! With that kind of performance, you’d think the facility would be well-maintained so that it could continue to generate cash – and so save the planet. Letting such investments go to hell is usually the last thing one does with a money making machine like that. The Leipziger Volkszeitung article writes:

The solar park saves the environment an emission of 34,500 tons of CO2 and one expects it will be in operation 20 years.”

20 years? As the date of the article shows, the park was set up in December, 2009 – much less than two years ago. Now it is already overgrown with weeds and on the verge of being useless. Your subsidies at work, folks. The green economy - Germany’s job engine!

Solarkritik.de writes:

This photo also shows that the solar park in no way delivers electricity maintenance-free, as the green lobby likes to claim.

The author of the photo provided the following information along with the photo:
‘A rather large, obviously run down facility, which as one sees is overgrown everywhere. I took this photo on June 25, 2011 shortly before 6 pm as I happened to be driving by (and concerning our ‘renewable’ energy world, it certainly opened my eyes). Exect location: Markranstädt, intersection of Schkeuditzer Str. / Nordstraße.’

It goes to show you that nature cannot be controlled by man. They can’t even get weeds under control, yet they would have us believe they can regulate the climate? In my view, the above facility borders on criminal neglect.


Hahahah exactly this shows the absolute joke this alternative energy industry is. Here in Australia we had a solar scheme whereby the government paid those with solar panels on their roof a per kilowat rate of money for extra power they generated for the grid. The scheme was nearly withdrawn (only saved after protests of those who paid thousands to install these useless things), needless to say the project is hundreds of millions of dollars in the red and providing very little of the states power requirements.

The matter of the fact is that solar, wind etc, provides a fraction of the base load power required for obscene amounts of money required to set up and operate them. Its a joke!

bulava
Jul 24th, 2011, 08:18 AM
Im not sure what defforestation has to do with man made climate change?
Take a break from the forum(s) for a day or two and think about it properly.

EDIT: Due to multi tab mix-up I posted below response here :lol:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=20237788&postcount=262

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 10:18 AM
Take a break from the forum(s) for a day or two and think about it properly.

oh how about YOU take a break from your smug patronising comments and don't be so lazy to not look back at all my past posts.

I have not heard once in any argument on CO2 man made global warming arguments about deforestation, so unless you can pull up some links to references about this, then put up, or SHUT UP, fool

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 10:20 AM
Take a break from the forum(s) for a day or two and think about it properly.

And people with chainsaws cut down trees, not global warming, you trully are a nutcase.......... one would think an increase in temperature, and CO2 which is essential to photosynthesis would enhance the growth of trees....

how bout U think about THAT, dumbarse

Ashi
Jul 24th, 2011, 10:27 AM
And people with chainsaws cut down trees
There you go, you said it yourself.

Timariot
Jul 24th, 2011, 10:43 AM
Great Global Warming Swindle

You do realize that that film is almost completely baloney, right? It gots tons of errors, misrepresentations and misquotes: some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:00 AM
You do realize that that film is almost completely baloney, right? It gots tons of errors, misrepresentations and misquotes: some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

yes have to admit I havent looked at that as much as some of my other material, but it does cover things like the medieval warming period and min ice age......

Im sure that someone who has a film with a set agenda can make a lot of editing choices to make their point.I just came across it in my musings on youtube....

maybe its a lot of baloney like the IPCC reports perhaps;)

www.galileomovement.com.au

-predetermined results
-computer modellers not scientists
-no other causative factors taken into account
-2005 report said you could not attribute man made factors to environmental change, too complex, then all of a sudden 2007 they did

be fair to the argument, the global warming alarmists have enough baloney to make a foot long sandwich

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:06 AM
You do realize that that film is almost completely baloney, right? It gots tons of errors, misrepresentations and misquotes: some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

bwhahaaha, OMG im watching it now and thinking, no the scientists who are talking are saying what their saying, no amount of editing would make them appear to be saying it any other way......... hmmmmm Timariot, your a classic alarmist nut, have to discredit anyone or anything that discredits your religion, what a sad case

get a life, and stop the brainwashing

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:14 AM
You do realize that that film is almost completely baloney, right? It gots tons of errors, misrepresentations and misquotes: some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

Lets have a little case in point look at how your global green religion alarmists try to change the past, nasty little truth called the global warming period, one of these alarmist nutters tried to erase the history to fit their made up hoax lies:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=119745

A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.

Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon reports.

The warming period is said to have improved agriculture and increased life spans, but scientists at the center of the Climategate e-mail scandal believed the era undermined their goal of spreading concern about global warming as it pertains to today's climate.

Solomon noted the warming period presented a dilemma long before the Climategate e-mail scandal.

A 1995 e-mail predating the recent Climate Research Unit scandal was sent to geophysicist David Deming. A major climate-change researcher told Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Some scientists later expressed concern about erasing the period.

Get "Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change" at the WND Superstore.

One chief practitioner identified as Keith Briffa, said in a Sept. 22, 1999, e-mail, "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the ***** data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."

Briffa and other scientists, with the help of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published a well-known symbol of their movement: the hockey stick chart, an illustration reproduced in textbooks, media reports and the pages of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, report.

Read more: History of climate gets 'erased' online http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=119745#ixzz1T1Jr5wwr

Timariot
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:21 AM
bwhahaaha, OMG im watching it now and thinking, no the scientists who are talking are saying what their saying, no amount of editing would make them appear to be saying it any other way......... hmmmmm Timariot, your a classic alarmist nut, have to discredit anyone or anything that discredits your religion, what a sad case

get a life, and stop the brainwashing

Let me give couple of quotes which illustrate your point even better:

"
Carl Wunsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch), professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4) version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Wunsch_letter-6)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Lean1-29) He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two",[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-duped-30) and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom). He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:
In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Wunsch_letter-6)"

And

"Eigil Friis-Christensen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen)'s research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Friis-Christensen-7)"

There you go.

ys
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:23 AM
And you have problems with clean sustainable energy [,,]...?! :unsure:

Yeah, because at the moment there is no such thing.

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 11:44 AM
Let me give couple of quotes which illustrate your point even better:

"
Carl Wunsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch), professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4) version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Wunsch_letter-6)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Lean1-29) He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two",[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-duped-30) and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom). He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:
In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Wunsch_letter-6)"

And

"Eigil Friis-Christensen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen)'s research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-Friis-Christensen-7)"

There you go.

again, sorry I must say BWAHAHAHAH. You see you are a case in point in how the green hoax religion tries to discredit anyone that tries to go against their socialist brainwashed agenda.

To use a term that another poster constantly uses, you cherry pick a couple of obviously pro man made climate change scientists interviewed on the program, who, being horified that their precious funding would be in limbo being seen on an anti AGW film had to disparage it as much as possible.

You failed to mention the many other experts interviewed on there such as

- Professor Ian Clarke
-Professor Tim Ball
- Professor Nir Shaviv
- Professor Linzen

Nice try, but your selective use of propaganda won't work with me, or others who have a brain.

Im actually liking the great global warming swindle, I have seen it before a few years ago..... perhaps one or two of their facts could be disputed but on the whole what they say is good. Such as:

-medieval global warming period
-mini ice age
-ice cap records showing CO2 follows Global warming and NOT the other way around
- weather balloons not showing increased temperatures in the upper atmosphere, debunking their theories
-this hoax being a political exercise, nothing to do with science

Adios!

Timariot
Jul 24th, 2011, 12:10 PM
again, sorry I must say BWAHAHAHAH. You see you are a case in point in how the green hoax religion tries to discredit anyone that tries to go against their socialist brainwashed agenda.

To use a term that another poster constantly uses, you cherry pick a couple of obviously pro man made climate change scientists interviewed on the program, who, being horified that their precious funding would be in limbo being seen on an anti AGW film had to disparage it as much as possible.


Let me quote myself:

some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

You did not believe me, I proved this was the case. Simple as that.


-ice cap records showing CO2 follows Global warming and NOT the other way around


Not really, and even if it did, it as such means nothing: because without man-made CO2 sources, most natural CO2 sources react to warming. The whole issue is the ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 emissions, which obviously don't show up in ice cores, because they did not exist back then. The whole idea behind AGW is that humans are releasing CO2 into atmosphere OUTSIDE natural cycles.


- weather balloons not showing increased temperatures in the upper atmosphere, debunking their theories


I don't know if you misrepresent what was said or whether there was an error in the program, but troposphere has COOLED over the last few decades. This is pretty much exactly as predicted by AGW hypothesis, and contrary to what one would expect if the Sun was driving the climate change.

I might also mention that the program faked the graph which was supposed to show relationship between solar activity and temperature, but it seems pointless...

renstar
Jul 24th, 2011, 10:27 PM
[QUOTE=Timariot;19928268]Let me quote myself:

some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

You did not believe me, I proved this was the case. Simple as that.

No, you are either lying or not reading what I said prperly. At first I said i was not totally sure of this clip since i hadn't at that time watched it all. I the said after watching significant parts realised you were selectively mentioning a small minority interviewed in the doco and implying that the whole show was bogus. I countered this argument by saying you had only mentioned 2 whom I guessed as being pro AGW and to protect their reputation and funding distanced themselves from this doco. You again selectively ignored the other experts I mentioned to further your own arguments. And are you going to tell Gore of his gross misrepresentations of the hockey stick also


Not really, and even if it did, it as such means nothing: because without man-made CO2 sources, most natural CO2 sources react to warming. The whole issue is the ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 emissions, which obviously don't show up in ice cores, because they did not exist back then. The whole idea behind AGW is that humans are
releasing CO2 into atmosphere OUTSIDE natural cycles.

Ohhhhhhhhh so man made CO2 is somehow magically different from nature produced CO2????? Really???? Maybe you should write a paper on this ive never heard that in the debate, though I could be wrong im not a scientist but i have heard quite a few debates and i do know one of the head guys here working for the AGW side here resigned when they sent up hundreds of weather balloons which
failed to prove their theories.

I don't know if you misrepresent what was said or whether there was an error in the program, but troposphere has COOLED over the last few decades. This is pretty much exactly as predicted by AGW
hypothesis, and contrary
to what one would expect if the Sun was driving the climate change.

I might also mention that the program faked the graph which was supposed to show relationship
between solar activity and temperature, but it seems pointless...


No i said troposhere had cooled but they had said AGW THEORY said it would heat, now im no climate scientist but im sure ive heard one argue that this was not part of AGW


Yes you can have your smug little " it seems pointless comment" but the fact is many climate and other scientists disagree with this unproven theory and I have shown the corruption and lies and politisisation of this bogus theory.

The climate is too complex to point one fnger at one factor when thousands of complex factors could be at work. The fact that this AGW green religion predetermines its results, takes no other causative factors into account and has the gall to call its work true by consensus I find not only disgusting but criminal.

Welcome to the new socialist green world state!

Timariot
Jul 25th, 2011, 09:28 AM
[quote=Timariot;19928268]Let me quote myself:

some of the scientists he interviewed disowned the film, as their comments were taken so totally out of context.

You did not believe me, I proved this was the case. Simple as that.

No, you are either lying or not reading what I said prperly. At first I said i was not totally sure of this clip since i hadn't at that time watched it all. I the said after watching significant parts realised you were selectively mentioning a small minority interviewed in the doco and implying that the whole show was bogus.


Whole show IS a bogus. Scientists I mentioned were just one part of it.


Ohhhhhhhhh so man made CO2 is somehow magically different from nature produced CO2????? Really????


That's not it. But atmospheric CO2 is part of an ongoing cycle, where various (natural) sources produce CO2, which is then used by the plant life, and by decay and other factors returns to the atmosphere again. (Here program had another major error btw, claiming that volcanoes CO2 emissions dwarf the anthropogenic sources - it is actually other way around).

But humans burn up fossilized plants (oil, coal), releasing more CO2 into atmosphere. Present natural carbon cycle is not able to deal with this extra CO2, so it builds up in the system.

This is very basic stuff, and anyone who wants to be engaged in a climate change debate must be aware of this.


No i said troposhere had cooled but they had said AGW THEORY said it would heat, now im no climate scientist but im sure ive heard one argue that this was not part of AGW


No, you have it completely bass-ackwards. Greenhouse gas models call for tropospheric cooling.


The climate is too complex to point one fnger at one factor when thousands of complex factors could be at work. The fact that this AGW green religion predetermines its results, takes no other causative factors into account and has the gall to call its work true by consensus I find not only disgusting but criminal.


So the "climate is too complex to point one finger at one factor", but at the sime time, you accept Durkin's claim it is all because of the sun? Anyone see a problem here?

And how accurate was Durkin's little graph anyway? Hmmm...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

renstar
Jul 26th, 2011, 01:49 AM
[quote=renstar;19930105]

Whole show IS a bogus. Scientists I mentioned were just one part of it.



That's not it. But atmospheric CO2 is part of an ongoing cycle, where various (natural) sources produce CO2, which is then used by the plant life, and by decay and other factors returns to the atmosphere again. (Here program had another major error btw, claiming that volcanoes CO2 emissions dwarf the anthropogenic sources - it is actually other way around).

But humans burn up fossilized plants (oil, coal), releasing more CO2 into atmosphere. Present natural carbon cycle is not able to deal with this extra CO2, so it builds up in the system.

This is very basic stuff, and anyone who wants to be engaged in a climate change debate must be aware of this.


No, you have it completely bass-ackwards. Greenhouse gas models call for tropospheric cooling.

So the "climate is too complex to point one finger at one factor", but at the sime time, you accept Durkin's claim it is all because of the sun? Anyone see a problem here?

And how accurate was Durkin's little graph anyway? Hmmm...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

People can listen to this debate and make up their own mind, it adresses some of the issues you have raised

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/chrissmith/20110523-cs1-climate.mp3

No im not a climate scientist nor even a scientist, so no Im not a walking encyclopedia on climate change so don't profess to know all,

But I shall be adressing all your points soon. I must say your like a politiician, ignore all evidence and references i have put up, disparage cherry picked info then spin your own agenda

I still contend this is a lie and hoax, a consensus of lies and distortion

bulava
Jul 26th, 2011, 11:44 AM
oh how about YOU take a break from your smug patronising comments and don't be so lazy to not look back at all my past posts.

I have not heard once in any argument on CO2 man made global warming arguments about deforestation, so unless you can pull up some links to references about this, then put up, or SHUT UP, fool
Unfortunately, I don't have enough time in my hands. First of all, any good enough member could easily mark you as an arrogant Snob, ignorant and quite uneducated too! Next, learn how to engage constructively in a debate because that's going to help you positively in your life. So, there goes a free tip for you. Always remember, it's not a big deal to take up swearing, behave rudely etc. Then there won't be any difference left between you and me! :tape:

Well, I hardly lean on the pulling links activity. I believe in observing, experimenting so on and so forth. Anyone applying a little thought process will help them to understand at least a *little* about this problem. Think on these four words in order to establish a positive connection to the rising CO2 problem:

Water, Fuels, Trees, and Population

Oh, one more thing! Since you are an Australian, try to ask a question to Cadel Evans or a fellow Aussie rider such as Mark Renshaw or anyone you know from France:

"Why France alarmingly losing its world famous Oysters?!"

Then, you'll have a little proof!

Sammo
Jul 26th, 2011, 04:32 PM
:oh::oh::lol::happy::haha:

renstar
Jul 26th, 2011, 09:27 PM
[quote=renstar;19930105]

Whole show IS a bogus. Scientists I mentioned were just one part of it.



That's not it. But atmospheric CO2 is part of an ongoing cycle, where various (natural) sources produce CO2, which is then used by the plant life, and by decay and other factors returns to the atmosphere again. (Here program had another major error btw, claiming that volcanoes CO2 emissions dwarf the anthropogenic sources - it is actually other way around).

But humans burn up fossilized plants (oil, coal), releasing more CO2 into atmosphere. Present natural carbon cycle is not able to deal with this extra CO2, so it builds up in the system.

This is very basic stuff, and anyone who wants to be engaged in a climate change debate must be aware of this.


No, you have it completely bass-ackwards. Greenhouse gas models call for tropospheric cooling.

So the "climate is too complex to point one finger at one factor", but at the sime time, you accept Durkin's claim it is all because of the sun? Anyone see a problem here?

And how accurate was Durkin's little graph anyway? Hmmm...



Well let me tell you some "very basic stuff' you pathetic left wing greeny tree hugging scurge to society:

* climate scientist professor Bob Carter has exposed the green religion 'scientists' who claim a 'consensus' of AGW. True science sets a hypothesis, ie increased CO2 from man causes global warming. Well the figures to test that hypothesis are in, in the past ten years are that CO2 are UP 5% and temperatures PLATEAUED or DOWN past ten years, in other words Tim you can go on with all the garbage in the world this is the basic scientific evidence. You can pull all the comouter modelling out of ur ... But this is not hypothesis tested science. And if you start talking about long term trends ill start to laugh!!! In fact since 1990 global warming has been up 20% and yet no warming in the past ten years!!!!!
KINDA BASIC STUFF hey Timariot

* Professor Timothy Ball, climate scientist, states that even if CO2 were to double or triple warmth would be less than 1% celcius because the atmosphere would already be saturated, much like rhe effect of putting a black coat of paint on your window, further coats are not going to cause much further heat blocking effect.

* Prof Timothy Ball affirms, which the alarmists on here always seem to duck when I mention it, that in every record in any time in history temperature increases ****BEFORE***** CO2 levels, KINDA BASIC STUFF hey Timariot


* Prof Ball also talks about the mass manipulation of the 90,000 CO2 meausurements taken in the past 180 years

* the corrupt IPCC which i have previously exposed add to a corrupt, tainted scientific industry who, to any opposing scientist:

- withdraw funding
- brand the as right wing - a lot of scientists from socialist ideologues have told Dr Ball the kniw the truth but cant publically say it due to this fear and funding
-branded as working for oil companies

* the IPCC appoints their own scientists who follow their agenda, predetermines results before science is even done and set up computer models to only take man made CO2 into account

Preddy BASIC stuff isnt it commasant timariot eh

renstar
Jul 26th, 2011, 09:59 PM
BgQX3ndQQg4

renstar
Jul 26th, 2011, 10:00 PM
R01fQD5syyo

Timariot
Jul 26th, 2011, 10:19 PM
No im not a climate scientist nor even a scientist, so no Im not a walking encyclopedia on climate change...

But I am. You are unwise to challenge me at my place of power, young grasshopper.


* climate scientist professor Bob Carter has exposed the green religion 'scientists' who claim a 'consensus' of AGW. True science sets a hypothesis, ie increased CO2 from man causes global warming. Well the figures to test that hypothesis are in, in the past ten years are that CO2 are UP 5% and temperatures PLATEAUED or DOWN past ten years, in other words Tim you can go on with all the garbage in the world this is the basic scientific evidence. You can pull all the comouter modelling out of ur ... But this is not hypothesis tested science. And if you start talking about long term trends ill start to laugh!!! In fact since 1990 global warming has been up 20% and yet no warming in the past ten years!!!!!


I don't even understand what the hell that means. Yes, if you cherry-pick the individual years for your liking, it is possible to find a ten-year period with "no global warming" or "plateauing temperatures". Guess what? You can pick similar ten-year period from the '90s. Or the '80s. Yet on average, globe has clearly warmer in 2000's than it was in the '90s, and the '90s were clearly warmer on average than the '80s.

Decadal warming trend of the last 20 years is pretty close to what IPCC projected in its first Assessment Report in 1990. Of course, that's just two decades; but still, it's probably too remarkable coincidence to be a coincidence. Especially given how the solar irradiation has receded since the 1950s, so if the man isn't causing the warming, Sun surely isn't either.


* Professor Timothy Ball, climate scientist, states that even if CO2 were to double or triple warmth would be less than 1% celcius because the atmosphere would already be saturated, much like rhe effect of putting a black coat of paint on your window, further coats are not going to cause much further heat blocking effect.


I assume that means one Degrees Celsius. Most of the scientific community disagrees with him, but here's the kicker: even 1 degree rise would be pretty signifant. Rise over the last 100 years was only like 0.7 degrees Celsius and it resulted to noticeable changes.


* Prof Timothy Ball affirms, which the alarmists on here always seem to duck when I mention it, that in every record in any time in history temperature increases ****BEFORE***** CO2 levels, KINDA BASIC STUFF hey Timariot


And I've explained why it doesn't matter - even it if was true, which it btw isn't.

Your "professor" can't even hold a candle against me. And I'm a layman.


* Prof Ball also talks about the mass manipulation of the 90,000 CO2 meausurements taken in the past 180 years


Really. Given how many different parties have taken these measurements, that would be pretty amazing conspiracy. And they began 180 years ago! Wow, it goes way back!


* the IPCC appoints their own scientists who follow their agenda, predetermines results before science is even done and set up computer models to only take man made CO2 into account


You don't even know first thing about IPCC. Lets make one thing clear: IPCC does very little research. What they do is compile research results from the field of science.

IPCC could not control the climate science, even if they wanted. By the way, greenhouse gas hypothesis precedes IPCC some 140 years, and first concerns about manmade global warming surfaced in the 1950's.

miffedmax
Jul 27th, 2011, 02:17 AM
Tim Ball's degree is in historical geography, not climate science, and his "Friends of Science" organization receives significant funding from the energy industry. More important, it has deliberately tried to obscure the source of its funding. Reputable scientists do not misrepresent their credentials or the sources of their funding.
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball

Bob Carter's background is in marine geology, not climatology.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

Every time renstar cites an "expert" it takes about two seconds on google to discover they're no more experts than Elena Dementieva's bangs are.

The larger issue is that they all tend to have a record of consistently misrepresenting the extent of their expertise, the source of their funding, and the state of research on the topic at hand. They are what Oracene would call "dubious people."

miffedmax
Jul 28th, 2011, 04:00 PM
The Heartland Institute is a highly biased source for information--note they keep using the phrase "alarmist computer models." That's because, of course, there are a number of global models out there and the fact is that some of the posit lower amounts of CO2 accumulation, but still with the same result--global temperatures increase, albeit more slowly and to a lesser, but still highly unpleasant degree. The error of focusing solely on C02 has also already been discussed.

Spencer is, at least, a legitimate scientist, albeit one who disagrees with most of his colleagues. It will be interesting to see how well his findings stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists--unlike the infamous medieval warming period.

spencercarlos
Jul 28th, 2011, 07:39 PM
The Heartland Institute is a highly biased source for information--note they keep using the phrase "alarmist computer models." That's because, of course, there are a number of global models out there and the fact is that some of the posit lower amounts of CO2 accumulation, but still with the same result--global temperatures increase, albeit more slowly and to a lesser, but still highly unpleasant degree. The error of focusing solely on C02 has also already been discussed.

Spencer is, at least, a legitimate scientist, albeit one who disagrees with most of his colleagues. It will be interesting to see how well his findings stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists--unlike the infamous medieval warming period.
I am a legitimate one indeed..
Still i believe that LD Bangs can produce more global warming now that she is married. Don´t rule out the child effects coming in the next months :p

Timariot
Jul 28th, 2011, 10:29 PM
Fans of man-made global warming frequently tell us seas are rising, but somehow forget to mention the rise started 200 years ago, long before our coal-fired electricity plants cranked up, and long before anyone had an electric shaver, or a 6 cylinder fossil-fuel-spewing engine. Something else was driving that warming trend.


If you bother to look actual temperature graph (which I posted earlier) - you would notice that during 20th century, CO2 levels PREDATE the warming - and solar activity LAGS the warming.

CO2 levels also began to rise before 1800, so it is incorrect to state that "CO2 didn't do it" on the grounds that sea level rise began before 1850.

http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide_2.gif

edit.
What's wrong with software? Won't let me type "p.r.o.x.y". Is that word censored for some reason?

renstar
Jul 29th, 2011, 01:29 AM
Unfortunately, I don't have enough time in my hands. First of all, any good enough member could easily mark you as an arrogant Snob, ignorant and quite uneducated too! Next, learn how to engage constructively in a debate because that's going to help you positively in your life. So, there goes a free tip for you. Always remember, it's not a big deal to take up swearing, behave rudely etc. Then there won't be any difference left between you and me! :tape:

Well, I hardly lean on the pulling links activity. I believe in observing, experimenting so on and so forth. Anyone applying a little thought process will help them to understand at least a *little* about this problem. Think on these four words in order to establish a positive connection to the rising CO2 problem:

Water, Fuels, Trees, and Population

Oh, one more thing! Since you are an Australian, try to ask a question to Cadel Evans or a fellow Aussie rider such as Mark Renshaw or anyone you know from France:

"Why France alarmingly losing its world famous Oysters?!"

Then, you'll have a little proof!

The last time I looked the word "fool" was not a swear word, perhaps you should go the movies lately, they even use the F and C word occassionally. In any case I consider you telling me to have a break from forums and thinking about things very rude, so practice what you preach.

You are bringing up a lot of red hearings that have nothing to do with the harmless plant food CO2. An increase in CO2 surely would be good for trees and green the planet sinc it is a plant food. Water is not even related to CO2, it is related to completely normal weather cycles such as La Nina and El nino. Population I suspect is due to people in third world countries not wearing condoms and wanting many children as a hedge against poverty and hunger. If you debate such things please stay on topic.

Yes Cadel Evans is a great ambasador for Australia but Im not sure he is an expert on global warming, so Id more get advice on riding a bike!

renstar
Jul 29th, 2011, 01:54 AM
But I am. You are unwise to challenge me at my place of power, young grasshopper.



I don't even understand what the hell that means. Yes, if you cherry-pick the individual years for your liking, it is possible to find a ten-year period with "no global warming" or "plateauing temperatures". Guess what? You can pick similar ten-year period from the '90s. Or the '80s. Yet on average, globe has clearly warmer in 2000's than it was in the '90s, and the '90s were clearly warmer on average than the '80s.

Your place of power...... bwahahaha...... are you a head trying to perpetuate this scam, to force billions of dollars into the hands of the Corrupt UN, as part of their tools to force a One World Order....... What should I call you "One World Tim"

The point is Tim you can cherry Pick decades, the FACT is science has NOT proved a direct link between man made CO2 and global warming, thus the term consensus. The FACT is changes in global temperature could be linked to hundreds of factors such as weather patterns, solar factors of the sun to name but two, yet the corrupt IPCC and other bodies have only taken CO2 into account in their pre determined results. Your observation some decades were a fraction of a temperature higher in temperature is laughable, really?? what a revelation. The period they are measuring should be hundreds or thousands of years not 100-150 years, and as seen by the climate gate scandal, its open to much manipulation and error by this left wing controlled corrupt organisations.

Decadal warming trend of the last 20 years is pretty close to what IPCC projected in its first Assessment Report in 1990. Of course, that's just two decades; but still, it's probably too remarkable coincidence to be a coincidence. Especially given how the solar irradiation has receded since the 1950s, so if the man isn't causing the warming, Sun surely isn't either.



I assume that means one Degrees Celsius. Most of the scientific community disagrees with him, but here's the kicker: even 1 degree rise would be pretty signifant. Rise over the last 100 years was only like 0.7 degrees Celsius and it resulted to noticeable changes.

Solar irradiation has receded since the 1950s?? references please........ and of course most of the scientific community disagrees, as I have already said this is a political not a science debate. If scientists are to disagree they are branded right wing and fund is withdrawn from them and they are derided in the scientific community.

I just know me and many others when presented with the facts know its a con and a scam, pure and simple.



And I've explained why it doesn't matter - even it if was true, which it btw isn't.

Your "professor" can't even hold a candle against me. And I'm a layman.

personally I think Professor Ball and Lord Monkton would blow you to oblivion in any debate, your arguments are floored.



Really. Given how many different parties have taken these measurements, that would be pretty amazing conspiracy. And they began 180 years ago! Wow, it goes way back!

Measurements have been taken for 180 years, not the tampering for that period!! Tampering has been evident since the political spin has been put on this issue, science has been thrown out the window and scientists have been reduced to the embarassing level of green advocates.


You don't even know first thing about IPCC. Lets make one thing clear: IPCC does very little research. What they do is compile research results from the field of science.

IPCC could not control the climate science, even if they wanted. By the way, greenhouse gas hypothesis precedes IPCC some 140 years, and first concerns about manmade global warming surfaced in the 1950's.

And you do, let me give you a little education about this corrupt political organisation, please educate yourself:

c/o www.galileomovement.com.au:

Scientific Untruths - In A Nutshell
Did you know that reports by the UN's climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC are the basis of the Rudd-Gillard and Greens climate policies?

4,000 scientists did not claim human production of CO2 caused global warming. Only 5 IPCC reviewers endorsed its core claim - and there's doubt they were even scientists;
For its 1995 report, UN IPCC scientists advised five times there was no evidence of humans causing warming. Yet IPCC politicians' reported to national governments and media: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate";
UN IPCC data on the air's carbon dioxide (CO2) levels show carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. This is true for every period in Earth's history and over every duration;
The 2007 report's sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to humans contains no specific scientifically measured real-world evidence (AR4, chapter 9) for its claim. It relies on computer models programmed to predict warming. Yet cooling has occurred;
The UN IPCC chairman repeatedly publicly claims the IPCC uses 100% scientifically peer-reviewed literature. Yet its 2007 report cites and relies on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed - including hikers' stories, newspaper articles and political activists' campaign material;
UN IPCC figures reveal scientific peer-review is corrupted, often bypassed and even prevented. In the real world these reports would be rejected. In business, the writers would be prosecuted;
UN IPCC guidelines force scientists to change their report to be consistent with the political Summary for Policy Makers released months earlier;
The UN IPCC does no scientific research and is not accountable to any national governments.

miffedmax
Jul 29th, 2011, 01:07 PM
Williamser, Prof. Spencer's findings have already been questioned by other scientists.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html

Timariot
Jul 29th, 2011, 11:16 PM
The point is Tim you can cherry Pick decades, the FACT is science has NOT proved a direct link between man made CO2 and global warming, thus the term consensus. The FACT is changes in global temperature could be linked to hundreds of factors such as weather patterns, solar factors of the sun to name but two, yet the corrupt IPCC and other bodies have only taken CO2 into account in their pre determined results.


I'm sorry, but all of the above is complete baloney and not backed up by any of the facts. Climate models are incredibly complicated (we're talking about gigabytes of source code and weeks to months of CPU time on a supercomputer). There are plenty of factors which are calculated in.

Greenhouse gas effect is basic radiative physics. It was figured out about 150 years ago.


Your observation some decades were a fraction of a temperature higher in temperature is laughable, really?? what a revelation. The period they are measuring should be hundreds or thousands of years not 100-150 years,

Tobacco industry argument: "Not enough data that cigarettes REALLY cause lung cancer".


Solar irradiation has receded since the 1950s?? references please........ and of course most of the scientific community disagrees,


Really? Can you point out ANY sources which disagree with that assessment from "scientific community"?

I already gave you a reference, but here's another:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Carbon14-sunspot-1000px.png


personally I think Professor Ball and Lord Monkton would blow you to oblivion in any debate, your arguments are floored.


I've seen several Monckton articles. I'm afraid the good Lord Monckton is no match for my mighty climate powers. :)


Measurements have been taken for 180 years, not the tampering for that period!! Tampering has been evident since the political spin has been put on this issue, science has been thrown out the window and scientists have been reduced to the embarassing level of green advocates.


Again, you got any proof about such a dastardly behaviour?


The UN IPCC does no scientific research and is not accountable to any national governments.

Nobody has ever said otherwise, except you.

But you know WHO does climate research? National weather agencies and climate science institutes. And you know what they're saying about the issue?

I'm afraid your claim about "global warming" being invented by "five IPCC scientists" is grossly misstated.

renstar
Jul 30th, 2011, 02:43 AM
I'm sorry, but all of the above is complete baloney and not backed up by any of the facts. Climate models are incredibly complicated (we're talking about gigabytes of source code and weeks to months of CPU time on a supercomputer). There are plenty of factors which are calculated in.

Greenhouse gas effect is basic radiative physics. It was figured out about 150 years ago.



Tobacco industry argument: "Not enough data that cigarettes REALLY cause lung cancer".



Really? Can you point out ANY sources which disagree with that assessment from "scientific community"?

I already gave you a reference, but here's another:

I've seen several Monckton articles. I'm afraid the good Lord Monckton is no match for my mighty climate powers. :)



Again, you got any proof about such a dastardly behaviour?



Nobody has ever said otherwise, except you.

But you know WHO does climate research? National weather agencies and climate science institutes. And you know what they're saying about the issue?

I'm afraid your claim about "global warming" being invented by "five IPCC scientists" is grossly misstated.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0911/climategate-climategate-global-warming-hoax-demotivational-poster-1259249382.jpg

renstar
Jul 30th, 2011, 06:00 AM
I'm sorry, but all of the above is complete baloney and not backed up by any of the facts. Climate models are incredibly complicated (we're talking about gigabytes of source code and weeks to months of CPU time on a supercomputer). There are plenty of factors which are calculated in.

Greenhouse gas effect is basic radiative physics. It was figured out about 150 years ago.



Tobacco industry argument: "Not enough data that cigarettes REALLY cause lung cancer".



Really? Can you point out ANY sources which disagree with that assessment from "scientific community"?

I already gave you a reference, but here's another:

I've seen several Monckton articles. I'm afraid the good Lord Monckton is no match for my mighty climate powers. :)

Again, you got any proof about such a dastardly behaviour?

Nobody has ever said otherwise, except you.

But you know WHO does climate research? National weather agencies and climate science institutes. And you know what they're saying about the issue?

I'm afraid your claim about "global warming" being invented by "five IPCC scientists" is grossly misstated.


Timariot I don't need all your silly graphs, its a mute point, you try to imbed people into graphs and figures blah blah blah blah, the point is you can have any false premis and put some graphs up and put up some rubbish argument to make your point, the main issues here is GARBAGE in GARBAGE out.

Let me quote from:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom_exposing.pdf

UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray has around 60 years real-world
experience as a research scientist, with 21 years in climate. He has reviewed all four (4)
UN IPCC reports: 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.

His astonishingly detailed and thorough reviews are comprehensive and specific. They
address far more points and contain far more comments than do any other UN IPCC
reviews. His review comments on the latest UN IPCC report comprise 16% of all
review comments to the UN IPCC.

Dr Gray’s reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no strong evidence of any net warming,
human or natural. His reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no real-world evidence for
its claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.
Despite his enormously significant reviews, his comments were not even acknowledged
by the UN IPCC chapter Review Editors. This is unlike true scientific peer-review in
which authors are accountable for explaining their response to each reviewer’s comments.
Not so in the UN IPCC. It uses buddy-review.

He reveals that the UN IPCC downplays the known importance of solar cycles and El
Nino Southern Oscillation Index as drivers of Earth’s climate and global temperature.

so you know where you can stick your lil graph:lol: its bullshit


you also claim no scientific or other evidence of all this corruption in the IPCC and their data?? really?? lets have a look at some now:

again quoteing from the above document:

An independent international audit of the UN IPCC’s latest report, 2007, revealed
that 5,587 references cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC were not scientifically
peer-reviewed. They include mountaineers’ stories, newspaper articles and political
activists’ campaign material. Yet the UN IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri has
repeatedly publicly stated that UN IPCC reports rely on 100% peer-reviewed science.
A blatant falsity from the top of the UN’s climate body.
Universities whose scientists were prominent in the Climategate scandal have failed
to independently investigate the scandal. Yet the British Information Commissioner’s
Office (ICO) uncovered a breach of law by UN IPCC scientists at the Climatic Research
Centre, the core of the UN IPCC’s temperature fabrications.
Refer to The Eco-Fraud: Part 1, A Timeline of International Fraud
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_part%201.pdf

We must also consider the Oregon Petition of over 30,000 climate and other scientists who have indeed called this climate hoax rubbish out for what it is, rubbish!

Professor Tim Ball in his book "slayers of the sky dragon" discusses with a team of scientists and authors the falsity of the climate change fear mongers.

I have also previously provided links of many climate experts speak about this fraud, I shall post again:

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9391
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9304
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9277
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9196
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9116
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9105


I shall now also provide MORE climate experts in youtube clips further discuss this HOAX and FRAUD

iJefbUEreZ4

nxE51Tjh6Mw


now rather funny you say theres no evidence and no one speaking out against it isnt it??

Go join your commie mates down at their meetings

miffedmax
Jul 30th, 2011, 11:37 AM
Vincent Gray has never, ever published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change, worked for the coal industry and, once again,all you had to do to be a reviewer of the IPCC report was ask for a copy of it.

His critique of the IPCC report consisted mostly of inserting "so-called" and "alleged" throughout the text.

Once again, when the first thing an "expert" does is misrepresent his credentials, it leaves the veracity of his other claims in doubt.

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

You're reduced to recycling your fraudulent experts.

NoppaNoppa
Jul 30th, 2011, 08:45 PM
Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144933.htm)

World Population to Surpass 7 Billion in 2011; Explosive Population Growth Means Challenges for Developing Nations

ScienceDaily (July 28, 2011) — Global population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added -- nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as 1950. New estimates from the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations also project that the population will reach 10.1 billion in 2100.

If global warming is humans fault. It is simply because that we are many more of us now. And growing.
Can you imagine what 1.000.000.000 humans consume? That is what we are more in just a decade!

So, cure is aid, aid, aid?! My opinion sounds cruel to humanists. Imo, those areas that need help right now have reached the limit. Matter of years or months when they start moving to other countries. That leads to war(s). In media they are called "climate refugees". They are overpopulation refugees.

2.3 billion in 1950. Now 7.0 billion. More aid solves the overpopulation problem? How?

*JR*
Jul 31st, 2011, 12:17 AM
Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144933.htm)

World Population to Surpass 7 Billion in 2011; Explosive Population Growth Means Challenges for Developing Nations

ScienceDaily (July 28, 2011) — Global population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added -- nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as 1950. New estimates from the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations also project that the population will reach 10.1 billion in 2100.

If global warming is humans fault. It is simply because that we are many more of us now. And growing.
Can you imagine what 1.000.000.000 humans consume? That is what we are more in just a decade!

So, cure is aid, aid, aid?! My opinion sounds cruel to humanists. Imo, those areas that need help right now have reached the limit. Matter of years or months when they start moving to other countries. That leads to war(s). In media they are called "climate refugees". They are overpopulation refugees.

2.3 billion in 1950. Now 7.0 billion. More aid solves the overpopulation problem? How?

Well, let's follow your premise re. wars (not implausible, as fights for resources have been a major cause of it throughout history, probably 3rd after religious and ethnic disputes, in whichever order the top 2 things are). And lets further say that "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) prevents a nuclear war, which would kill everyone anyway via the immediate effects, fallout, and then "nuclear winter" from debris blocking out the sun like the impact of the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. :scared:

But "ordinary munitions" like fuel air explosives could eventually kill a couple of billion ppl worldwide in decades of "long wars", and coincidentally blow enough debris into the stratosphere to partially block the heat of the sun (like major volcanoes). And coincidentally these wars would reduce global consumption, as the survivors would be more concerned with basics like food and shelter than doing major energy consuming stuff, like a lot of recreational travel. :shrug:

In a cruel form of Darwinism, a growing population could "reduce its numbers" in fights for resources. This is horrible to contemplate from a humane standpoint; but is much like how if predator species decimate their prey too much, their own numbers decline, the populations of those they prey on increase, the predators again increase in population, and so on. (As 3rd world countries grow richer, they'll continue wanting more resources and buying ever more powerful weapons from arms pushers like the US, increasing the total capacity for such Darwinistic destruction) :help:

miffedmax
Jul 31st, 2011, 03:50 AM
Yes, JR, but a nuclear winter would solve this global warming thing. Would you just once look at the upside of things?

Like Lena's bangs.

Le Tenisse
Jul 31st, 2011, 04:43 AM
bangs.

If i read this one more time from you.. :explode:

Le Tenisse
Jul 31st, 2011, 04:52 AM
When you see at first hand the consequences of bizarre climate conditions in geographic zones that weren´t supposed to experiment them(believe me, it´s scary), it´s really difficult not to believe in climate changes. Sorry, just being honest. :shrug:.

*JR*
Jul 31st, 2011, 12:22 PM
Yes, JR, but a nuclear winter would solve this global warming thing. Would you just once look at the upside of things?

Like Lena's bangs.

Wouldn't it be funny if (atheist) Charles Darwin was really God, but only found out after his earthly life was ova? :scratch:

And you know my fetish in women's tennis wasn't with "Lena with an e" but "Lina with an i", aka Baby Blue Eyes. :sad: :sad:

I think the latter was also Eggy's favorite of all the Rooskies of the past decade. Though I doubt that the casual fan can spell Krasnoroutskaya. :shrug: But I'll bet The Bard never did a retirement song for Mommy Vera's baby. :p

ziQx0cXV4nY

renstar
Jul 31st, 2011, 11:51 PM
When you see at first hand the consequences of bizarre climate conditions in geographic zones that weren´t supposed to experiment them(believe me, it´s scary), it´s really difficult not to believe in climate changes. Sorry, just being honest. :shrug:.

Thats funny even the quacks that believe in this say unusual weather events lately are not even related to 'climate change' but normal weather cycles. There were huge heatwaves and periods of tornadoes in the 1930s, 40s, 50s etc but most of us were not around then, so maybe out of our mind we think anything we experience now must be 'climate change'

Don't forget the perpetrators of this hoax originally called it 'global warming' then when temperatures data clearly showed they were not their new propaganda word became 'climate change'

Le Tenisse
Aug 1st, 2011, 01:07 AM
Thats funny even the quacks that believe in this say unusual weather events lately are not even related to 'climate change' but normal weather cycles. There were huge heatwaves and periods of tornadoes in the 1930s, 40s, 50s etc but most of us were not around then, so maybe out of our mind we think anything we experience now must be 'climate change'

Don't forget the perpetrators of this hoax originally called it 'global warming' then when temperatures data clearly showed they were not their new propaganda word became 'climate change'

I´m not talking about this so-called by you "perpetrators". I meant when you hear o read that geographicly some place doesn´t have the conditions that are required for a climate event actually has one. In that sense, this events wouldn´t be cycles, right?.

renstar
Aug 1st, 2011, 02:23 AM
Vincent Gray has never, ever published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change, worked for the coal industry and, once again,all you had to do to be a reviewer of the IPCC report was ask for a copy of it.

His critique of the IPCC report consisted mostly of inserting "so-called" and "alleged" throughout the text.

Once again, when the first thing an "expert" does is misrepresent his credentials, it leaves the veracity of his other claims in doubt.

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

You're reduced to recycling your fraudulent experts.

Yes and you keep peddling out all the socialist propaganda don't you commrade! You know i really hope you live in a socialist country, then instead of sipping on your lattes discussing the latest left wing, green feel good ideology, your living standards would drop, they would take away your car, force you to live in high rise buildings next to traimpn stations, etc.... Oh sorry my mind wandered to the UNs evil agenda 21 plans.

So before you derided me for going to a blog for evidence, now you try produce some smutty smearing blog on the fine Dr Gray. And how dare you even bring up funding when this climate change HOAX is awash in government funding and from the corrupt UN in collusion to bring about onerous carbon taxes on their people. The socialist elite also want to bring it in so that the treaties countries sign sign away their soverignty to the god mother earth.

Ive already bought up much evidence of reports on lies of the IPCC as well as cover ups of global climate scams. This scam is rotten to the core and left wing nuts like you perpetuating it is absolutely disgusting.

This filthy seething puss of lies will eventually crumble with the parasites that promote it

miffedmax
Aug 1st, 2011, 02:57 AM
Cite a peer-reviewed paper on climate change by Dr. Gray. Disprove any of the statements made about him on the web site I posted the link to (which has links to other sources to support every one of its statements about Dr. Gray).

renstar
Aug 1st, 2011, 12:20 PM
Cite a peer-reviewed paper on climate change by Dr. Gray. Disprove any of the statements made about him on the web site I posted the link to (which has links to other sources to support every one of its statements about Dr. Gray).

Yes you can attack Dr Gray, but the point is the IPCC hand picked their scientists/ computer modellers and don't allow any reviews that go against their propaganda. He is as far as I last know on a pension, thus has no conflict of interest.

Dr Gray is only one of hundreds if not thousands of scientists, including climate scientists that disagree with this climate scam. You seem to be in love with peer reviewed papers, SO let me give you a link to over 900 peer reviewed papers against the man made climate change model:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

What are you exactly going to do now? try dig up some dirt on all these people, or perhaps you will be like the AGW fan who tried to wipe out over 5,000 online references to the medieval warming period because it didnt fit the global scam mongers theories.

You also are claiming some sort of conflict of interest by energy companies funding those against AGW theories, yet this is absolutely dwarfed by the money thrown to promote the global warming scam, in the order of billions, soon to be trillions, lets look at that in this link shall we:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

Lets also have a little look at your skeptical science site, that is full of lies and corruption, I quote from the url:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/skeptoid-like-a-skeptic-but-not-quite/

"As for following the data. Yes, “let’s”.

As I keep saying, 28 million weather balloons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 argo buoys, then there’s the mystery of the missing heat energy which is not stored in the oceans and 30 years of satellites, not to mention 65 million years of climate information. They all point to the same conclusion — that CO2′s effect is minor.

“Look at the data. That skepticalscience.com site is a good resource. Forgive them for including four economic/political questions (which can’t be addressed by science) and look at the other 160 or so. What you’ll find is that there are multiple lines of data all converging on one conclusion: The net effect of our increased CO2 output is accelerated warming of the planet. It would be beyond the scope of this blog post to address every one of your very legitimate questions. Let them do it.”

We don’t need 200 papers, we need the critical results that validate the models most important assumptions in the long run.

SkepticalScience do put up a good job of it, really, especially when you consider how little real evidence is going their way. But with $30 billion dollars (and the rest) funding many teams of researchers to find a connection between CO2 and the climate, there are a lot of papers to list: irrelevant ones, poor quality ones, ones that deceive, and ones that review all those irrelevant, poor quality, and deceptive papers, and pretend they’ve come to a new conclusion. We don’t need 200 papers, we need the critical results that validate the model’s most important assumptions in the long run."

Lets look further at the reason theres so much "consensus" and relatively little desent, ie billions of funding for scientists to say what the AGW scam mongers want them to say:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/story-e6frg6xf-1226104017991

GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that's a problem.

Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.

Did anyone really expect that teams of volunteers without offices, budgets, access to data or PR writers would spontaneously arise and point out any flaws? Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radio-sonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it's taken years to build, and it's a silly way to run the country. This was always a loophole begging to be exploited.

We wouldn't let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we'll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.

Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming?

If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It's as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.

In law, if there is no defence, it's a sham.

In business, if there is no competition, it's a monopoly.

In science, if there is no debate, it's propaganda.

Between 1989 and 2009, the US government paid over $30 billion towards "climate change". And don't be fooled by the meaning of "climate change", which ought to encompass all the factors that change the climate. The inherent bias in the system is so strong that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change actually defines "climate change" as being "man-made". I kid you not.

"Climate change" means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The IPCC was originally established to investigate things "relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". That was their mandate. They would have no reason to exist if there's no disaster, and they were never going to announce that they studied it all and golly, but it's all OK Chipper, and we're headed home. Thanks for the funding!

What committee ever voted for its own extinction?

When the very term "climate change" means man-made, the mindset is biased. It's a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias. The Orwellian overtones are extreme: How do you ask "what causes climate change?" and get any answer other than "man-made"?

Where are the programs to find out if man-made emissions didn't cause global warming?

When people ask "how can thousands of scientists be wrong?" they forget that a consensus on a highly complex, immature subject can be purchased, or unwittingly created. If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content.

That's not to say that excessive one-sided funding proves anything about the climate, but nor does the existence of a consensus of government-paid climate scientists.

We've paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we "found" one. (Yes. It's true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled "CO2". But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones.

When politicians and journalists say they can't find a credible voice of dissent, it's only because they define "credible" as someone holding a government-funded position -- and by definition, there are no government-funded sceptics.

US president Dwight Eisenhower warned against government domination of science in his farewell speech in 1961: "In this [technological] revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalised, complex and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government."

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present.

The so-called "free market" leaders of the world missed the need for healthy competition in science. Their big mistake on climate policy was failing to see the effect of monopoly science. They could have set up institutes and research centres whose aim was to find non-man-made causes of climate change.

These alternate institutes and conventions would compete with the usual grant applicants for research, and it would be in their interest to find reasons the climate was changed by the sun, or geomagnetic effects or orbital changes, or who knows? Through natural competition (and may the best argument win) we'd have learned more about our climate, and we'd prevent a climate monopoly from potentially skewing the research.

As with all unbalanced systems, people are rushing to fill the vacuum. The volunteers are coming. Never before in science have so many unpaid people used their expertise to become whistleblowers.

As Eisenhower feared, government has come to dominate science. We need organisations that are timeless centres of excellence, rather than crisis-response teams. Groups of scientists need to compete to make the best, most accurate predictions, not the most alarming ones.

One thing is for sure, the mess of climate science needs to be cleaned up and we need to find ways to fund science that don't pre-empt the answers, or stifle competition.

miffedmax
Aug 1st, 2011, 01:03 PM
1. Turns out I don't have to. http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition?page=4

2. As usual, lots of insinuation, but no the direct links.

3. I got as far in the former TV presenter's rant as the bit about balloon data and remembered where timariot already shredded you on that. So I stopped reading as it's already pretty much established anytime we get into the science your pretty much going with made-up crap.

renstar
Aug 1st, 2011, 11:37 PM
1. Turns out I don't have to. http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition?page=4

2. As usual, lots of insinuation, but no the direct links.

3. I got as far in the former TV presenter's rant as the bit about balloon data and remembered where timariot already shredded you on that. So I stopped reading as it's already pretty much established anytime we get into the science your pretty much going with made-up crap.

Ahhhhhh so refreshing when left wing green nutcase lies are exposed.

Science settled? NO hundreds of peer reviewed papers say no its not, as well as thousands of scientists in the Oregon petition

IPCC open honest and accountable? No ive exposed it for what it is, the extreme left wing socialist arm of the UN. Predetermined results, no other causative factors taken into account, compromised scientific method by not allowing a prope peer review, fraudulent claims of scientists who turn out to be computer modellers


Dissenters funded by oil companies? No ive shown to the contrary funds from governments have dwarfed any funding from energy companies, ive showed links to billions and if not trillions pumped into this scam industry as well as involvement by world banks who stand to rake in billions from the administration of the carbon credit schemes.

As you see people aren't idiots they know left wing extremists like Miffed and Timariot have a vested interest in promoting this scam, probably in a job funded by this scam or paid up membership in a socialism political party or greens party.

People can make up their own mind, I just expose the lies and fraud of this scam

miffedmax
Aug 2nd, 2011, 12:33 AM
But according to you there's a massive conspiracy that muzzles all dissent. Or is there dissent all over the place? Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

You're not even making a coherent argument. You're just lobbing as much crap as you can as fast as you can and hoping some of it sticks.

Your links are extremely dubious at best, and anytime you've tried to discuss the actual science you've had your ass handed to you on a platter.

Stick to saving the world from Lady Gaga.

renstar
Aug 2nd, 2011, 02:23 AM
A gift for you miffed, what size are you? Would u like it gift wrapped:lol:

http://rlv.zcache.com/climate_change_green_is_the_new_red_t_shirt-p235390090784445905q66r_210.jpg

renstar
Aug 2nd, 2011, 02:28 AM
A lil graph for Timariot since he loves them so much :)

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/jevrejeva-sea-levels-1700-1800-1900-2000-global-2.gif

Vincey!
Aug 2nd, 2011, 05:00 AM
OMG! Haven't this thread had reappeared :O What new bullshit Renstar has came up with??? How did tht thread reappeared anyway? What happened? loll Can someone fill me in? I cannot read all the crap he has written in it again cuz I know he's only gonna come around and say facts are wrong and blah blah blah but his as to be right no matter how many scientists agree with what we are saying he only wants to believe his conservative greedy freaks.

Vincey!
Aug 2nd, 2011, 05:17 AM
A lil graph for Timariot since he loves them so much :)

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/jevrejeva-sea-levels-1700-1800-1900-2000-global-2.gif

sorry but that graph proves that since the industrial revolution when human started to produce more pollutants the level of water has indeed increased, yes it has started a bit before that (even tho you can clearly see that just before it "increased" it was much lower than few decennies ago, and they pointed out a period where it only went back to when it was before that time, that's a bit twisting facts around to consider the increasing start there)but don't you forget that it's not because it is increasing regularly since the last 150 years that the human has nothing to do with that, it is increasing dramatically fast if you look at that tangent. The regular augmentation can be explain in many ways, that graph clearly shows that it's exactly when the iindustrial revolution happened that the water has started rising more dramatically, aka the 2nd half of the 19th century. Also since that time the human population has growth exponentially to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere AND the Climate Change effects. I wonder how you can explain that? I've said it before, the problem is not that the climate changes, it's how fast it is changing.

miffedmax
Aug 2nd, 2011, 02:44 PM
But the great Lord Monckton says the seas aren't rising.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm

Which of your truths is the real one?

ivanban
Aug 2nd, 2011, 06:18 PM
:lol:

renstar
Aug 3rd, 2011, 10:38 AM
sorry but that graph proves that since the industrial revolution when human started to produce more pollutants the level of water has indeed increased, yes it has started a bit before that (even tho you can clearly see that just before it "increased" it was much lower than few decennies ago, and they pointed out a period where it only went back to when it was before that time, that's a bit twisting facts around to consider the increasing start there)but don't you forget that it's not because it is increasing regularly since the last 150 years that the human has nothing to do with that, it is increasing dramatically fast if you look at that tangent. The regular augmentation can be explain in many ways, that graph clearly shows that it's exactly when the iindustrial revolution happened that the water has started rising more dramatically, aka the 2nd half of the 19th century. Also since that time the human population has growth exponentially to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere AND the Climate Change effects. I wonder how you can explain that? I've said it before, the problem is not that the climate changes, it's how fast it is changing.

Oh Vincey Vincey, gracing us with your precence are you? finished your worship services of Mother goddess earth have we? Using made up world endemics to push a communist/socialist agenda classes 101 perhaps?

Its funny how you can "not be bothered" reading all my so called crap, you should maybe you would get an education rather than spewing the crap your spewing. Either you are in denial or can't for the life of you read or interpret a graph but the tangent began in about 1860 when man made CO2 wasnt even a factor and man made CO2 not even a factor untill after 1945. It has not rapidly increased after the industrial revolution it has been a constant tangent since 1860, in other words man made CO2 has nothing to do with it at all. Any other spin you try put on it is bullshit, and you know it. Oh really the problem is how fast the climate is changing? Is that why over the past decade temperatures have plateaued, whilst man made CO2 levels have increased by 5%, clearly invalidating the erroneous hypothesis of AGW, end of story! Next!!!!

renstar
Aug 3rd, 2011, 10:43 AM
But the great Lord Monckton says the seas aren't rising.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm

Which of your truths is the real one?

Well who would really know, we have absolute Quacks like Gore telling us seas are going to rise 6 metres, Australian Climate change adviser Tim Flannery saying we would have droughts (we dont) and sea level rises of a metre, the IPCC giving much lower estimates...... We have the expert Phil Watson showing tidal records showing sea level rises are decelerating!

We have the term in AGW of consensus showing the science is NOT settled as the alarmists would try and convince us. IN other words science does cannot pin point with much accuracy the reasons for sea level rises, and many AGW alarmist quacks have got it very wrong!

renstar
Aug 3rd, 2011, 11:03 AM
Let me quote myself:



I don't know if you misrepresent what was said or whether there was an error in the program, but troposphere has COOLED over the last few decades. This is pretty much exactly as predicted by AGW hypothesis, and contrary to what one would expect if the Sun was driving the climate change.



I know have the answer to this innacuracy you portray:

the AGW alarmists contend that as greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere, a distinct greenhouse signature is a warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere. They say that this is what’s observed by satellites and weather balloons.

BUT The fingerprint that matters includes a hot spot as well. After 10 years of data adjustments by many teams, no one has found the hot spot with weather-balloon data. Both radiosondes and one satellite set are in agreement. The hot spot is the fingerprint of positive feedback, which causes the vast bulk of the warming in the climate models . It ain’t there. There’s no evidence to support the catastrophic predictions.

miffedmax
Aug 3rd, 2011, 12:28 PM
Well who would really know, we have absolute Quacks like Gore telling us seas are going to rise 6 metres, Australian Climate change adviser Tim Flannery saying we would have droughts (we dont) and sea level rises of a metre, the IPCC giving much lower estimates...... We have the expert Phil Watson showing tidal records showing sea level rises are decelerating!

We have the term in AGW of consensus showing the science is NOT settled as the alarmists would try and convince us. IN other words science does cannot pin point with much accuracy the reasons for sea level rises, and many AGW alarmist quacks have got it very wrong!

The discussion over how much the seas levels are changing is hardly the same as arguing that they aren't changing at all.

You're continuing to throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks. It's the same tactic creationist use when they try to refute evolution--seizing on an area of debate within the scientific community and acting like it refutes the overall theory, and from there expect us to follow the logic that it must be some kind of conspiracy. Again, there is no internal logic to your arguments. You simply respond willy-nilly to individual posts--often with false or extremely preliminary information taken out of context--and completely contradict yourself and your allegations.

The fact that scientists are still debating the specific effects of global warming does not mean there is not a consensus. Indeed, the mere fact that the scientific community has moved on to debate its specific effects, rather than its existence, is indicative OF a consensus. The argument over whether it exists or not, and whether or not we contribute to it, is over.

Vincey!
Aug 3rd, 2011, 01:29 PM
Oh Vincey Vincey, gracing us with your precence are you? finished your worship services of Mother goddess earth have we? Using made up world endemics to push a communist/socialist agenda classes 101 perhaps?

Its funny how you can "not be bothered" reading all my so called crap, you should maybe you would get an education rather than spewing the crap your spewing. Either you are in denial or can't for the life of you read or interpret a graph but the tangent began in about 1860 when man made CO2 wasnt even a factor and man made CO2 not even a factor untill after 1945. It has not rapidly increased after the industrial revolution it has been a constant tangent since 1860, in other words man made CO2 has nothing to do with it at all. Any other spin you try put on it is bullshit, and you know it. Oh really the problem is how fast the climate is changing? Is that why over the past decade temperatures have plateaued, whilst man made CO2 levels have increased by 5%, clearly invalidating the erroneous hypothesis of AGW, end of story! Next!!!!

Oh I'm sorry to not want to read all your craps, in one post you say something then you bring up something else that say the opposite of the first one you just said. At least my facts are all going in the same direction, there's not one saying that sea level is not increasing then another sayin the sea level is increasing but has nothing to do with Human. Or that there was no sign of bigger, stronger and more frequentt natural disaster then come up with an article that just say there have been! See those are 2 examples of what you brought up about that topic. BUT maybe you're right I should read your crap and you'll give me the proof I need to show you how incousciously blinded you can be.

You're not only poor in science but also in history, 1860 is the 2nd half of the 19th century just when the industrial revolution happened and look what happen on your graph? WOW how is that impossible to be related? I'm sorry but the fact that it has been constant doesn't mean human made CO2 or other pollutants has no effect on it. If you can prove that to me then I'm welcome to hear you on that topic. It's a constant INCREASEMENT, which means it's still increased with the increasement of the CO2 as well. You should know that Nature has some "power" over the CO2 and can actually attempt to control it, so maybe it should come to your mind that the reason why it has not be desastrous on that graph is because the Nature is still trying to regulate the CO2 even tho some capitalist ignorant like you keep on shutting their eyes to the real problem making that impossible to control.

I'm sorry but how caring about the environment is communism or even socialism?. It's not because you care about your future and your health and you well being that you're that much of a lefty or a lefty at all! Or maybe you don't care about anyone but you?

You should really think about stopping believing and at least first of all using all the crap you found that support your poor little view of the world only because it affects your little selfish way of living your life. Maybe and only MAYBE it would make your post in here more coherent, but I've stopped believing that it's something that you're smart enough to do, you should know tht when you DO get an education you start thinking about some facts and you don't buy everything that agrees with you, you're open to other ideas and willing to evaluate them. That makes your opinion clear and precise and you wouldn't come up with contradictions.

miffedmax
Aug 3rd, 2011, 02:28 PM
Yes. renstar needs to post denouncing Prof. Spencer's work, since it is heavily dependent on computer modeling which he assures us is completely unreliable.

Again, you can't have it both ways and claim it's great when it supports your view and unreliable when it doesn't.

miffedmax
Aug 4th, 2011, 02:31 AM
The Climategate scandal turned out to be a non-scandal, global temperatures have increased every decade, the US government has stated it's investigation into Monnett has nothing to do with his polar bear article, and Spencer's claims have already been blasted by almost every other scientist of note in the country--this article has nearly every "fact" it mentions flat out wrong.

NoppaNoppa
Aug 5th, 2011, 06:58 AM
For me climate change and population growth go hand in hand. If there is human effect to it, then it should be calculated per/capita not what it was 50 years ago, when there were about 4.000.000.000 less of us.

This clip, if you dare to watch with open mind, will blow you away. I´m not kidding. First you go. Wait, this isn´t what I have been told. Sucks. Then you go. Wait a second. Hmmm. Gowddamit I have been screwed my whole life!

LPjzfGChGlE

Vincey!
Aug 5th, 2011, 02:00 PM
For me climate change and population growth go hand in hand. If there is human effect to it, then it should be calculated per/capita not what it was 50 years ago, when there were about 4.000.000.000 less of us.

This clip, if you dare to watch with open mind, will blow you away. I´m not kidding. First you go. Wait, this isn´t what I have been told. Sucks. Then you go. Wait a second. Hmmm. Gowddamit I have been screwed my whole life!

LPjzfGChGlE

What's your point? lol Trust me USA is not allowing immigrants in their country as an humanitarian act lol. They have benefits from it. I don't get tho why you posted that in a climate change thread lol

renstar
Aug 8th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Oh I'm sorry to not want to read all your craps, in one post you say something then you bring up something else that say the opposite of the first one you just said. At least my facts are all going in the same direction, there's not one saying that sea level is not increasing then another sayin the sea level is increasing but has nothing to do with Human. Or that there was no sign of bigger, stronger and more frequentt natural disaster then come up with an article that just say there have been! See those are 2 examples of what you brought up about that topic. BUT maybe you're right I should read your crap and you'll give me the proof I need to show you how incousciously blinded you can be.

You're not only poor in science but also in history, 1860 is the 2nd half of the 19th century just when the industrial revolution happened and look what happen on your graph? WOW how is that impossible to be related? I'm sorry but the fact that it has been constant doesn't mean human made CO2 or other pollutants has no effect on it. If you can prove that to me then I'm welcome to hear you on that topic. It's a constant INCREASEMENT, which means it's still increased with the increasement of the CO2 as well. You should know that Nature has some "power" over the CO2 and can actually attempt to control it, so maybe it should come to your mind that the reason why it has not be desastrous on that graph is because the Nature is still trying to regulate the CO2 even tho some capitalist ignorant like you keep on shutting their eyes to the real problem making that impossible to control.

I'm sorry but how caring about the environment is communism or even socialism?. It's not because you care about your future and your health and you well being that you're that much of a lefty or a lefty at all! Or maybe you don't care about anyone but you?

You should really think about stopping believing and at least first of all using all the crap you found that support your poor little view of the world only because it affects your little selfish way of living your life. Maybe and only MAYBE it would make your post in here more coherent, but I've stopped believing that it's something that you're smart enough to do, you should know tht when you DO get an education you start thinking about some facts and you don't buy everything that agrees with you, you're open to other ideas and willing to evaluate them. That makes your opinion clear and precise and you wouldn't come up with contradictions.


Oh puhhlease Vincey the more you say the more you make yourself look ridiculous. If you cared to have read what i had posted up rather than writing your predetermined idea then you would not make such ridiculous comments. The article i posted and the graph i posted do not contradict each other at all. The article states that tides are 'decelerating', meaning the rate of increase is much smaller than predicted by the alarmists, you are somehow interpreting it as saying decreasing tides. The graph also shows a tidal increase, so the two articles don't contradict each other so sorry your a big fat WRONG on that count.

And stop dredging up irrelevant facts regarding the graph, the plain fact is the mass of carbon dioxide emission happened AFTER tidal levels had already started to trend up, proving other factors involved in this process. For the alarmist scientists to pin point one factor, CO2 as the culprit is not only unscientific but ludicrous.

Well you can believe or not believe that AGW is not a man made socialism scare, the fact of the matter is this fake event dressed up as environmentalism was planned as far back as club of Rome meetings by world leaders in 1968. I suggest you lookk up UN agenda 21 to see the tyranical socialist one world government they want. Crashing the worlds economies is also part of the plan. If you dont believe me look at the policies of 'greens' parties, the one here in Australia has a one world government as its agenda.

The simple fact is, and ill say it again, the AGW hypothesis proved clearly wrong : CO2 gone up 5% in past decade, global temperatures down

renstar
Aug 8th, 2011, 03:07 AM
The Climategate scandal turned out to be a non-scandal, global temperatures have increased every decade, the US government has stated it's investigation into Monnett has nothing to do with his polar bear article, and Spencer's claims have already been blasted by almost every other scientist of note in the country--this article has nearly every "fact" it mentions flat out wrong.

The climate scandal turned out to be true and alarmists like miffed have to cover it up!

And miffed tell me, what drugs are they slipping into your water and the socialist alarmist camp meetings your going to because the satellite data clearly shows global temps plateauing or going down in the past de ade

http://dev.joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/scepticshandbookart/ppt/co2_temp_1995-2009_uah_giss_768.jpg

miffedmax
Aug 8th, 2011, 01:16 PM
The NOAA seems to have different data.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

And actually, your graph DOES show an overall warming trend, despite being doctored to eliminate 2010 and to highlight the abnormally hot year of 1998. :haha:

Vincey!
Aug 8th, 2011, 03:16 PM
Renstar you make no sense sorry but explain to me how you dare say YOU are relevant when you quote people who think differently on the same matter, it's not because that they say as you want them to say that you ahve to use them, they all need to be coherent. Your lord Moron said that there was NO increasing in sea level, but then you posted that graph that proves that there was indeed an increasement. That graph does show an increasement in the 2nd half of the 19th century right when the human started to be more populated and industrialised so I'm sorry if you can't read a graph and make easy associations. MAYBE it's not the only reason, I never pretended that it was, but yo ucan't deny the fact that it's a strong probability and other studies have shown it was clearly related.

You're so scared that it's all such a big conspiracy that you want to believe anything you want so it won't change your narrow minded illusions. I'm sorry but the economic problems that are happening right now are not related to any environmentalist effect. Stop accusing people who don't think like you for screwing up your own little pathetic world.

About the last graph that you showed about the last 14 years (how is that even relevant? 14 what a suspicious number lol), it can hardly prove anything, it's not on a long enough period to be that relelvant, but as miffedmax said even on that short period you can see a small increasement. Yet again you say you don'T see any? You etheir can't read a graph or you think everyone will believe it cuz yo usaid it. lolll

miffedmax
Aug 8th, 2011, 03:44 PM
The overall trend is toward shorter, less severe winters and longer, hotter summers with greater extremes, which is just what would be expected. It's very deceiving to plot the CO2 increase as a simple straight-line curve and the temperatures as gradients because it creates exactly the sort of optical illusion seen here. 1998 looks like a high, and the curve appears to fall while CO2 goes up. But if you actually track the temperature graph, it shows a steady increase over time.

Joanne Nova, btw, has a long history of working for the energy industry and is not a scientist, or even much of a science reporter. Yet she manages to run a blog and get speaking engagements in spite of the international conspiracy. Then again, given her inability to read a graph, why should we bother.

See you at the meeting next week.

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 12:42 PM
The NOAA seems to have different data.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

And actually, your graph DOES show an overall warming trend, despite being doctored to eliminate 2010 and to highlight the abnormally hot year of 1998. :haha:

the noaanews can suck my arse, its acknowledged by most climate scientists that we have gone through a cooling period over the past decade, if you think otherwise your a complete IDIOT, end of story. An overall warming trend, what over a hundred of year period when the climate has changed for thousands, suck on this graph FOOL!

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx6l0tfbON1qabih7o1_500.jpg

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 12:51 PM
Renstar you make no sense sorry but explain to me how you dare say YOU are relevant when you quote people who think differently on the same matter, it's not because that they say as you want them to say that you ahve to use them, they all need to be coherent. Your lord Moron said that there was NO increasing in sea level, but then you posted that graph that proves that there was indeed an increasement. That graph does show an increasement in the 2nd half of the 19th century right when the human started to be more populated and industrialised so I'm sorry if you can't read a graph and make easy associations. MAYBE it's not the only reason, I never pretended that it was, but yo ucan't deny the fact that it's a strong probability and other studies have shown it was clearly related.

You're so scared that it's all such a big conspiracy that you want to believe anything you want so it won't change your narrow minded illusions. I'm sorry but the economic problems that are happening right now are not related to any environmentalist effect. Stop accusing people who don't think like you for screwing up your own little pathetic world.

About the last graph that you showed about the last 14 years (how is that even relevant? 14 what a suspicious number lol), it can hardly prove anything, it's not on a long enough period to be that relelvant, but as miffedmax said even on that short period you can see a small increasement. Yet again you say you don'T see any? You etheir can't read a graph or you think everyone will believe it cuz yo usaid it. lolll

Vincey Ive already explained my position on that graph, if you still can't get it I can't help you, re read it, thats all I can say.

I have not once gone on about Lord Monktons views on sea levels, I agree with a lot of what he says, does that mean I have to agree with everything he says? If you agree with something someone says do you agree with _everything_ they say? even AGW climate scientists agree and disagree on different things.

You go on that this is a conspiracy, well your AGW is an unproven earth worshiping cult which your a worshipping member:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_branch_carbonian_cult_1.html

The Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on the worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic "belief" system than on objective climate science.

Since this worldwide Movement and its strident policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices (in order to achieve reductions in everyone's "carbon footprint") are at the heart of America's enormous energy shortfall, it poses a national security threat of major proportions.

And in this context, the AGW Crusade should be understood in a "Know Thy Enemy" frame of reference -- perhaps not in terms of a fully conscious or intentional enemy of the American people at a time of war and economic crisis but as a deadly threat to our economic stability and national security, nonetheless.

Kingdom of the Cults

Here, therefore, in far more detail than any routine allegation of "cultism" conveys, are no fewer than ten of this AGW ideology's very specific characteristics, many of whose roots and lock-step influences can be found in Walter Martin's and Ravi Zacharias' definitive, award-winning 2003 book, "Kingdom of the Cults:"

1. Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet -- in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is rapidly being supplanted by President Barack Obama.

2. Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.

3. An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).

4. Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.

5. Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers -- in this case, Prophet Gore's pseudo-scientific book "Earth in the Balance" and his more recent "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.

6. A specific list of "truths" (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members..

7. An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member.

8. A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult's definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.

9. A "Heaven-on-Earth" vision of the results of the mission's success and/or a "Hell-on-Earth" result if the cultic mission should fail.

10. An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.

Prophet Gore's (and now Prophet Obama's) Ten Commandments

With this half of the AGW Cult's self-definition now clearly established, here is the other half -- its Ten Commandments of "Thou-Shalt" and "Thou-Shalt-Not" absolutes -- designed for keeping its devoted cultists in lockstep support and its intimidated detractors in retreat:

o Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you

o Thou shalt not worship false Prophets -- especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and "Objective Science" in general

o Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called "Ozone Layer"

o Thou shalt not doubt man-made "Greenhouse Gasses" as the primary cause of GW

o Thou shalt condemn such doubters as "Extremists" and "Criminals Against Humanity"

o Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news

o Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything

o Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes

o Thou shalt promote "zero-carbon-footprint" policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol

o Thou shalt engage forever in "Eeeekology" and "Eeeekonomics" (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican

Finally, since this AGW juggernaut seems to have brainwashed a majority of Americans, most of the media and academia, a majority of the Congress and even many churches into a mind-set of support for its pseudo-religious scam, a recent Wall Street Journal's recent conclusion that this represents a "Mass Neurosis" of a cultic nature seems alarmingly accurate.

Truths to be Ignored or Denied

On the more climatically correct side, all that is needed to begin the collapse of this house-of-cards scam is yet another list of certifiable facts and truths -- one which will disprove much of the Cult's mission, tactics and alleged "solutions" -- namely,

(a) the fact that while Arctic ice may (or may not, of late) be receding, Antarctic ice has been increasing for about 40 years

(b) the fact that global temperatures have been on a slightly decreasing trend since 1998,

(c) the fact that Mars (which features no man-made factor at all) is experiencing "global warming," as well,

(d) the fact that Antarctic "ice shelves" which occasionally break off, float away and melt at sea, do not raise ocean levels at all,

(e) the fact that several of the "hottest years" on record were in the 1930s and 1940s, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's,

(f) the fact that ever more scientists assert convincingly that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging consequence, rather than a triggering cause, of alleged global warming,

(g) the fact that all earlier glacial and inter-glacial periods were clearly caused not by man but by solar, ocean and volcanic cycles and "natural" fluctuations,

(h) the fact that di-hydrogen oxide (H2O) molecules -- water vapor -- and methane molecules are 20-30 times more heat-retentive than CO2 molecules are,

(i) the fact that termites worldwide expel about as much "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere as does all the burning of fossil fuels by human beings,

(j) the fact that even if all Kyoto-type limits on CO2 were obeyed by all nations, the estimated net impact by 2050 would be less than half a degree F -- with a ruinous cost-to-benefit ratio of thousands to one, when the standard requirement is no more than one to one.

Conclusion: Since every such Prophet-led, scare-mongering, pseudo-religious conspiracy needs a properly descriptive name, and since this one's primary concerns over alleged depletion of the so-called "ozone layer" over Antarctica have shifted to a panic over CO2, instead, a fitting name for this cultic gaggle might be the "Branch Carbonian Cult" --

o "Branch" because it is a radical offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism;

o "Carbonian" because of its professed fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of AGW; and

o "Cult" because of its self-evident structure and practices -- which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, Branch Davidian or otherwise.

miffedmax
Aug 11th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Harris and Mann aren't climatologists, and the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that the earth is getting warmer, as the chart you previously posted clearly shows. Saying the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration can suck your ass hardly refutes their findings, but it does expose the depth of intellect of your attempted rebuttals.

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 12:59 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/SxLjRD39XBI/AAAAAAAABXM/0NpVsKJJ5rw/s1600/Cartoon+-+Climate+Science.png

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 01:04 PM
Harris and Mann aren't climatologists, and the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that the earth is getting warmer, as the chart you previously posted clearly shows. Saying the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration can suck your ass hardly refutes their findings, but it does expose the depth of intellect of your attempted rebuttals.

I just re looked at the graph and if you drew a line in the middle of the graph you would clearly see it has plateaued in the past ten years, maybe not to your very biased green cult mind, but it has.....

OH my my temperatures have gone on a slight trend in the past hundred years of a percentage of a degree, how extraordinary, the point IS that climate has always changed, and this does nothing to prove that increased man made CO2 has done it.

Overwhelming consensus of overpaied bribed hand picked IPCC scientists have gone along with a corrupt IPCC document heavily influenced by politics and funding? and yes its a "consensus" because any unproven science is called that, its pathetic, just like your arguments

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 01:11 PM
Harris and Mann aren't climatologists, and the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that the earth is getting warmer, as the chart you previously posted clearly shows. Saying the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration can suck your ass hardly refutes their findings, but it does expose the depth of intellect of your attempted rebuttals.

well then lets put another one up then

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rss_1998-2008.png

renstar
Aug 11th, 2011, 01:13 PM
and another

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/hadcrut_1998-2008.png

miffedmax
Aug 11th, 2011, 02:50 PM
Yes. If you eliminate the summer of 2010, you get a plateau. And you originally said it had dropped. And the line is still higher than the start of the graph. Which means temps still rose.

As for Anthony Watts, he's a radio announcer, not even an actual meteorologist.

I'm sure you won't, but neutral persons may, if they wish, follow the link below to learn why focusing on the time frame from 1998 to 2008 deliberately distorts the data to support a predetermined conclusion: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

renstar
Aug 14th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Yes. If you eliminate the summer of 2010, you get a plateau. And you originally said it had dropped. And the line is still higher than the start of the graph. Which means temps still rose.

As for Anthony Watts, he's a radio announcer, not even an actual meteorologist.

I'm sure you won't, but neutral persons may, if they wish, follow the link below to learn why focusing on the time frame from 1998 to 2008 deliberately distorts the data to support a predetermined conclusion: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

If someone printed that sketicalscience website out, It wouldnt even be worth being used as toilet paper, its UN, leftist GARBAGE, no more to be believed than literature by the tobacco companies on how good tobacco smoking is for your lungs. The UN and governments of the world supporting this myth of AGW stand to make billions, why wouldn't they spend at least a few million creating this load of bile. It is recognised by most climate scientists, including those that believe in AGW we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period, that you believe otherwise just shows how left of centre and in denial you are.

Most people with a brain, who recognise they had to build a wall to keep people in for the philosophy of communism was a failed human experiment, will realise this is what you and your ilk are really promoting. Like in European countries that rapid rejection of rabid socialist greens parties, promoting an evil agenda. Im glad most people will start to see this for what it really is, and the more you go on the more you expose yourself.

You also had the hide in a previous post to challenge my intellect by a comment I made, yet in a post a while back you compared me to Jerry Halliwell, a comment Id associate with a teenage girl, an immature one at that, or a gay man with a very adolescent, flippant mind.

A debunking of the global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. :

vvObfrs3qoE

Territory
Aug 14th, 2011, 11:51 PM
If someone printed that sketicalscience website out, It wouldnt even be worth being used as toilet paper, its UN, leftist GARBAGE, no more to be believed than literature by the tobacco companies on how good tobacco smoking is for your lungs. The UN and governments of the world supporting this myth of AGW stand to make billions, why wouldn't they spend at least a few million creating this load of bile. It is recognised by most climate scientists, including those that believe in AGW we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period, that you believe otherwise just shows how left of centre and in denial you are.

Most people with a brain, who recognise they had to build a wall to keep people in for the philosophy of communism was a failed human experiment, will realise this is what you and your ilk are really promoting. Like in European countries that rapid rejection of rabid socialist greens parties, promoting an evil agenda. Im glad most people will start to see this for what it really is, and the more you go on the more you expose yourself.

You also had the hide in a previous post to challenge my intellect by a comment I made, yet in a post a while back you compared me to Jerry Halliwell, a comment Id associate with a teenage girl, an immature one at that, or a gay man with a very adolescent, flippant mind.

A debunking of the global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. :


Hi. I thought I'd provide some feedback on your post. Addressing the grammatical and spelling issues outlined below will improve your expression and make your arguments sound more convincing and educated. Spelling improvements are marked with an asterisk. Feedback on grammar and sentence construction following the italicised sections.

*skepticalscience *it *wouldn't *it's

The UN and governments of the world supporting this myth of AGW stand to make billions - rationale and evidence required

*plateaued

It is recognised by most climate scientists, including those that believe in AGW we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period - lacking relative clause marker "that".

we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period - poor wording

Most people with a brain, who recognise they had to build a wall to keep people in for the philosophy of communism was a failed human experiment, - ungrammatical, second verb (was) shouldn't be tensed, replace with 'to be'.

Like in European countries that rapid rejection of rabid socialist greens parties, promoting an evil agenda. - Ungrammatical, lacking a verb in the main clause.

*I'm *Geri *i'd

You also had the hide in a previous post to challenge my intellect by a comment I made, yet in a post a while back you compared me to Jerry Halliwell, a comment Id associate with a teenage girl, an immature one at that, or a gay man with a very adolescent, flippant mind. - Weak argument. The assumption that knowledge of who Geri Halliwell is reduces one's ability to judge intelligence is weak and not supported by any evidence.

renstar
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:13 AM
Hi. I thought I'd provide some feedback on your post. Addressing the grammatical and spelling issues outlined below will improve your expression and make your arguments sound more convincing and educated. Spelling improvements are marked with an asterisk. Feedback on grammar and sentence construction following the italicised sections.

*skepticalscience *it *wouldn't *it's

The UN and governments of the world supporting this myth of AGW stand to make billions - rationale and evidence required

*plateaued

It is recognised by most climate scientists, including those that believe in AGW we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period - lacking relative clause marker "that".

we have had a past ten years of plateued or cooling period - poor wording

Most people with a brain, who recognise they had to build a wall to keep people in for the philosophy of communism was a failed human experiment, - ungrammatical, second verb (was) shouldn't be tensed, replace with 'to be'.

Like in European countries that rapid rejection of rabid socialist greens parties, promoting an evil agenda. - Ungrammatical, lacking a verb in the main clause.

*I'm *Geri *i'd

You also had the hide in a previous post to challenge my intellect by a comment I made, yet in a post a while back you compared me to Jerry Halliwell, a comment Id associate with a teenage girl, an immature one at that, or a gay man with a very adolescent, flippant mind. - Weak argument. The assumption that knowledge of who Geri Halliwell is reduces one's ability to judge intelligence is weak and not supported by any evidence.

OH puhlease, this is an internet forum, would you also like to correct me on the spelling of puhlease as please! Get a life! I thought someone of your intelligence may be a school teacher? What's a matter can't get a real job dear?

Its funny too the spelling checker said you mis spelt "italicised".

I actually have 2 university degrees with quite a few distinctions and high distinctions in essays I have written, so bring it on school teacher! One would also realise from looking at most doctor scripts and their signatures and perhaps level of 'proper grammar' that one does not need the grammar of an English Mam such, such as yourself. I don't give a hoot about propositions, juxtapositions, adverbs etc. I care more about exposing this green agenda crap, that is being demoralised in our polls.

And Ill give you some advice Territory, in every thing you have written you have had no argument, you have merely taken a personal pot shot at me, or made some sort of inference about me in your smug replies. I'm sure I would get an HD for my arguments, and you would get a FU, oh sorry, F for your dismal effort to just sling mud and have not one thought in your vacuous mind to put forward.

Ta ta for now:)

Territory
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:18 AM
I was only trying to help :shrug:

renstar
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:20 AM
I was only trying to help :shrug:

I was just trying to make you look like a fool, it worked:lol:

miffedmax
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:42 AM
If someone printed that sketicalscience website out, It wouldnt even be worth being used as toilet paper, its UN, leftist GARBAGE, no more to be believed than literature by the tobacco companies on how good tobacco smoking is for your lungs. (snip)

A debunking of the global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. :

vvObfrs3qoE

That's particularly hilarious, given Roy Spencer's affiliation with the Heartland Institute.

postalblowfish
Aug 15th, 2011, 06:22 PM
You also had the hide in a previous post to challenge my intellect by a comment I made, yet in a post a while back you compared me to Jerry Halliwell, a comment Id associate with a teenage girl, an immature one at that, or a gay man with a very adolescent, flippant mind.

Do straight men not have adolescent, flippant minds?

renstar
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:24 AM
That's particularly hilarious, given Roy Spencer's affiliation with the Heartland Institute.

Oh thats right according to you anyone that opposes an unproven theory propagated by the corrupt IPCC is linked to the oil industry. You and your ilk can't fight the facts so resort to shooting the messenger.

http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hacked-climate-emails.jpg

renstar
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:41 AM
Oh yes and by the way New Zealand has just had its coldest snap in 50 years with large sections of the country under snow, wow global warming, who knew it could produce so much snow!!

Lets have a look at the links between the IPCC and Greenpeace, further proof of the fraud of AGW

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/greenpeace-gate-breaks-and-the-ipcc-is-busted-the-shock-could-they-really-be-this-dumb/

Steve McIntyre discovered that a lead-author on an IPCC report* was also a Greenpeace employee, and worse, he reviewed his own work.* A* recent IPCC report claimed we could get 80% of the world’s energy from renewables was thus founded not on a selective peer reviewed paper written by independent scientists, and not even on a shonky economic “study” issued by a big-government-loving-university, but, gasp, on a Greenpeace sponsored wish-list for world peace. Hello?
The IPCC issued a press release (May 9th) though as usual, with no details or sources at the time. They got the media headlines, then quietly “backed” it up a month later with a 1000 page report they figure no one will read. Certainly, they must be a little surprised that within two days of quietly releasing the tome, it is spreading like fire across the blogosphere, and some of it’s deepest secrets are already out of the bag.
Let’s be clear about this, Greenpeace is a $200-million-euro-per-year machine (see the Greenpeace annual report for 2009). Their charity status was recently revoked in New Zealand. They are a big political animal, like the IPCC. But both are claiming to use science to support them. And both, it seems, cite each other as if they were scientific. Greenpeace openly, but the IPCC hides the reverse-citations in invisible ink, between the lines.
As far as bang for your buck, goes, this scheme is quite a money multiplier. A Greenpeace donation is a neat “investment” (especially if it’s tax deductible). If you wanted to lean on many western government agendas (or the Western public at large) for a paltry percentage of your future profits (or tax revenue) here’s the plan: set up a “foundation”, donate to Greenpeace, and encourage them to write a report saying that all your products or favourite policies (carbon certificates, honky windmills, electric-cars, unsellable solar panels etc etc) are attractive, economic, brilliant, and* absolutely essential or else the world will be consumed in a hot acid bath (or something like that) and “Voila”.
Basically Greenpeace writes what you and they want to hear, the IPCC pants in excitement, and before you know it, the PR agents who call-themselves-journalists have reprinted the IPCC declaration in the mass media, then Western Governments are quoting the IPCC, and saying how the idea has been reviewed by 120 scientists and 22 supercomputers, and we should be grateful to spend $2 trillion a year now and even more in the future. If you question it, you’re a cane-toad-like-farting-fool-idiot-denier-who-ought-be-tattooed-jailed-tied-to-a-post (or insert variation here).

Territory
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:50 AM
Oh yes and by the way New Zealand has just had its coldest snap in 50 years with large sections of the country under snow, wow global warming, who knew it could produce so much snow!!


Um... it's "climate change" rather than "global warming", isn't it? The thread title says so...

What's happening in NZ sounds like climate change to me. Thanks for letting us know about it.

miffedmax
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:50 AM
No, actually I was alluding to the fact the Heartland Institute is closely tied to the tobacco industry. But now that you mention it, yes, they also get massive funding from the oil industry as well.

Fox New's attempt to take Phil Jones' quote out of context has been repeatedly and comprehensively refuted. Here is a transscript from a BBC interview:

"Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the ***** part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail."

The entire interview is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

miffedmax
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:54 AM
Um... it's "climate change" rather than "global warming", isn't it? The thread title says so...

What's happening in NZ sounds like climate change to me. Thanks for letting us know about it.

Actually, increased snow fall is direct evidence of global warming.

Vincey!
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:10 PM
Um... it's "climate change" rather than "global warming", isn't it? The thread title says so...

What's happening in NZ sounds like climate change to me. Thanks for letting us know about it.

Renstar wants to post so many things to try to convince us that is little theory is right that he doesn't even understand half of what's happening so he's been giving US facts and examples to prove our point over him. He doesn't understand that IF the IPCC and the global warming "conspiracy" as he likes to call it sound way less of a cult or a religion then his ignorant "human made CO2 (or other pollutants) don't have to do anyhting with global warming cuz global warming doesn't even exist" theory ruled by money. He should really TRY to start by understanding the principle and the cycle of a normal climate change and then try to see how it is happening rihgt now. Also it's not by insulting people who are not agreeing with him that it's making his point any more serious, actually it does the opposite, it makes him and the ideas that he supports totally foolish, childish and hateful which just make everyone think that his theory is utter bullshit.

Renstar I have to go back at that first graph :shrug: I'm sorry but if you draw a line of the highest temperature each year it may not seem to have increased that much but if you drew a ling for the lowest temps, you'll see that in the years 2000 and up it's slightly higher and they didn't even count the warmest year, 2010. Once again I feel the need to tell you that the past climate change have happened on thousand if not millions of years. This one is happening too fast, you shouldn't see such a significant change in only 14 years.Even less since it's a trend since the last 100 years or so.

Vincey!
Aug 17th, 2011, 02:15 PM
Actually, increased snow fall is direct evidence of global warming.

yep increased of snowfall, rain, thunderstorm, hurricanes,tornadoes, heat waves, drought are all proves of a climate change linked to higher temperature.

renstar
Aug 20th, 2011, 10:59 AM
Renstar wants to post so many things to try to convince us that is little theory is right that he doesn't even understand half of what's happening so he's been giving US facts and examples to prove our point over him. He doesn't understand that IF the IPCC and the global warming "conspiracy" as he likes to call it sound way less of a cult or a religion then his ignorant "human made CO2 (or other pollutants) don't have to do anyhting with global warming cuz global warming doesn't even exist" theory ruled by money. He should really TRY to start by understanding the principle and the cycle of a normal climate change and then try to see how it is happening rihgt now. Also it's not by insulting people who are not agreeing with him that it's making his point any more serious, actually it does the opposite, it makes him and the ideas that he supports totally foolish, childish and hateful which just make everyone think that his theory is utter bullshit.

Renstar I have to go back at that first graph :shrug: I'm sorry but if you draw a line of the highest temperature each year it may not seem to have increased that much but if you drew a ling for the lowest temps, you'll see that in the years 2000 and up it's slightly higher and they didn't even count the warmest year, 2010. Once again I feel the need to tell you that the past climate change have happened on thousand if not millions of years. This one is happening too fast, you shouldn't see such a significant change in only 14 years.Even less since it's a trend since the last 100 years or so.

Well lets deal with a few little facts to shut ur ignorant little Canadian trap, thats full of useless hot air.

First of all why should I be the conspiracy theorist, AGW is an unproven theory, so the fact they are trying to portray it as fact is their conspiracy, and dullwits like you and Miffed that actually believe it :lol:

Secondly I have never said "global warming doesn't even exist", your words not mine, I suggest you stop hallucinating and actually read what I say. I have said the man made climate change theory is not real, big difference. You know the bogus theory that the tiny amount of CO2 man puts into the atmosphere, compared to nature, is going to cause catastrophic global warming, OH im sorry Climate Change, OH im sorry we need a "price on carbon", sorry is there any more dubious propaganda words I can use?? After all any who dont believe this diahorrea are "deniers" and "flat earthers" right? funny that, what have these people got to hide they have to use such propaganda to shut down any debate??

I suggest you re look at the graph, especially the blue satelite data line, if you cant see that it has gone down or at least plateaued then take a few tablets, have a good lie down, and see your doctor in the morning

renstar
Aug 20th, 2011, 11:20 AM
Actually, increased snow fall is direct evidence of global warming.

God, your balls dropping at puberty were also a sign of global warming? Im sure if you mentioned "global warming" and balls dropping, hey presto millions in funding? isnt that the way the bogus UN corruption system works? Increased snow fall direct evidence of global warming, what a load of bullllllshit! How did this progress from some bogus chapter in the hand picked corrupt scientists report from the IPCC. Ill tell you, millions in funding for the corruption of science, then indoctrination to green idiots like you sitting in greenpeace meetings eating up this garbage.

Lets look at the only 4 factors that matter, dispute these if you can, which I doubt it:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing: Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the tell tale of the telltale "hotspot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. Theres not even a hint! Something else caused the warming!!!

2. The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data, turned the theory inside out. Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half a million years temperatures have gone up beforecarbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This has totally thrown out what was thought was the cause and effect out the window, meaning something else caused the warming!

3. Temperatures are not rising: Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.

4. Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do. Adding twice the CO2 doesn't make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.


Lets also have another look at your LIE that non scientists signed the Oregon Petition, in fact of the 30,000 scientists that signed it, 9,000 were PHDs. The petitions wording is unequivocal and again shows the lies of so called consensus:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth"

www.petitionproject.org

miffedmax
Aug 20th, 2011, 01:03 PM
You know your graph for the medieval warming period there only covers England, right? And it's out-of-date, with subsequent studies showing that the rest of the world was not as warm as England during that time period? And that a British Parliamentary Inquiry and two scientific inquiries cleared the so-called Climategate of any wrongdoing? Meanwhile, contrary to your claims, it is getting hotter. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again

You just keep coming back with the same already disproven claims from the same unqualified sources, most of which are out-of-date and/or simply inaccurate.

As far as being affiliated with the Heartland Institute, you're the one who brought up how foolish it would be to believe a bunch of scientists who were paid off by the tobacco lobby, yet you go right on doing it.

renstar
Aug 21st, 2011, 01:51 PM
You know your graph for the medieval warming period there only covers England, right? And it's out-of-date, with subsequent studies showing that the rest of the world was not as warm as England during that time period? And that a British Parliamentary Inquiry and two scientific inquiries cleared the so-called Climategate of any wrongdoing? Meanwhile, contrary to your claims, it is getting hotter. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again

You just keep coming back with the same already disproven claims from the same unqualified sources, most of which are out-of-date and/or simply inaccurate.

As far as being affiliated with the Heartland Institute, you're the one who brought up how foolish it would be to believe a bunch of scientists who were paid off by the tobacco lobby, yet you go right on doing it.

Yesssssss thats right you can't answer my 4 points. I keep coming up with the same fundamental points you can't answer. Your f*** pathetic.

Its YOUR opinion that its outdated, yet the facts speak for themselves, hundreds of weather balloons, NO hotspots, increased CO2, Lower temps...... climate change frauds of temperature reporting,
the same facts you cant dispute....... predtermined results set for computer jocks, not scientists to plug into their computer.

Yes the science is in, the science is in that this bogus phony theory cant be proved, and it irks a pathetic greeny such as yourself. Oh well dude, all I can recommend is you
move to North Korea and experience your own utopia over there......... cause uve lost the argument here.... go home to mommy with your tail between your legs

Your a green nutcase beyond help, so Im not trying to convince you, im just putting the information up for others, so I couldnt care less about your opinion

http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/obama-yes-we-can-climate-change.jpg

miffedmax
Aug 21st, 2011, 02:16 PM
I've refuted your pathetic talking points comprehensively, as demonstrated when the best refutation you could come up with was that the NOAA could "suck my ass." A very persuasive and fact-based argument. The fact you've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to read a graph, understand simple principles like evaporation, repeatedly contradict yourself and apparently believe that smaller statistical samples are somehow more valid than large ones only goes to show how utterly deluded you are. Then again, given your posts about Lady Gaga being part of an Ilumanati plot to take over the world, that's scarcely surprising.

Indeed, plant life is smarter than you are.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/201179/20110820/species-shifting-habitats-faster-to-north-seeking-cooler-places-global-warming-plant-and-animal-clim.htm

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 01:42 AM
I've refuted your pathetic talking points comprehensively, as demonstrated when the best refutation you could come up with was that the NOAA could "suck my ass." A very persuasive and fact-based argument. The fact you've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to read a graph, understand simple principles like evaporation, repeatedly contradict yourself and apparently believe that smaller statistical samples are somehow more valid than large ones only goes to show how utterly deluded you are. Then again, given your posts about Lady Gaga being part of an Ilumanati plot to take over the world, that's scarcely surprising.

Indeed, plant life is smarter than you are.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/201179/20110820/species-shifting-habitats-faster-to-north-seeking-cooler-places-global-warming-plant-and-animal-clim.htm

Bwahahahahah still cant take the truth that your bogus theory cannot be proven, no matter how much verbal diahorrea comes out your mouth. Funny on Lord Moncktons tour of Australia no scientist was game to debate him, perhaps because they know their bogus lies would be exposed and funding at stake..

The fact you cling on to the eronneous belief that temps have not cooled in the past decade despite it being commonly accepted by climate scientists just makes you look more like an idiot and moron clinging to your socialist greeny orientation. As far as NOAA, are they similar to our CSIRO, where recently a long time insider has confessed policy and science has been doctored to suit political agendas.

You see Muffed every single argument that dismisses the bogus claims of this UN corruption they have employed weak undermining techniques that are so see through its laughable.

Ill say it reaaaaaly slowlu so u can understand, CO2 up, temp down, CO2 up, temp down.....stick that fact on acard and read at night, then stick where the sun dont shine...

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx6l0tfbON1qabih7o1_500.jpg

miffedmax
Aug 22nd, 2011, 02:40 AM
And, once again, your precious chart was not prepared by an actual climatologist and meteorologist, no matter what they claim.

Tell me why I should believe somebody when the first thing they do is lie about their qualifications?

Here is a chart about the last decade from actual scientist at NASA who actually have the qualifications they claim to have:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Cliff Harris bases his views on global warming on the Bible, not science. But if you want to take their word over NASA's, go ahead. Just don't expect every many other people to.

Vincey!
Aug 22nd, 2011, 05:41 AM
Alrght Renstar I'm sick of you pathetic attempt to insult EVERYONE that is against your stupid little conspirace theory, I'm sorry but your theory doesn't have ANYTHING proven yet, and if you can't believe any facts that the scientist give you saying they are not real, they are lying, human doesn't produce CO2 blah blah blah let me pollute all I want. How on Earth can you believe Human doesn't produce enough CO2 to change the climate, C'MON wake up it's not because it doesn't seem alot TO YOU (who clearly lack of knowwledge on alot of things)that this difference doesn't make a big deal on a tightly balance environment! You know they say a butterfly wing in somewhere can create an hurricane somewhere else is a good metaphore, it's actually true. One drop of something can change the whole balance of an ecosystem.

MAYBE you do believe in climate change (even tho maybe it's me who,s dumb but you keep bringing those "facts" saying there's no significant change in temperature, or such a thing as ice cap melt down or more hurricanes or basically no climate change right!? like that past graph?? Or maybe I've dreamt about it cuz oh yeah I must live in a world where I bring facts and proves of the points I'm trying to prove wrong? OOOOOH wait! sorry that's what YOU are doing, contracticting yourslself all the time, sorry sometime I get lost in all your shits)but clearly you're too stubborn and selfcentered to realise that wether or not it's the CO2 that is having the biggest impact on this climate change (which I know it's not, you don't need to convince me or anyone else of that). The point is human IS polluting and we ALL need to do something about it, they can start with CO2 why not! Anythin will do to stop to pollute will be helpful! We DON'T need to make money out of anything, life and the earth is to precious for idiots like you.

Oh I talked I get lost in all your shits earlier right? Well soon if everyone keeps thinking like you, people will think recycling is useless, composting is just for hippies, trying to use less chemicals and eco friendly products is for greenpeace and all this is worhtless because some scientists or company want o make money out of poor little people trying to save their world. Well soon you WILL live in your own pile of shit! Quite trying to prove people wrong or to stop people who are actually trying to make an effort to make their life better and their future cleaner and stat to at least find a way to solve thigns. You're just a stupid conservative that doesn't want to evolve, you're afraid of the change and doubt of everything! You need to stop acting like an insecure demented grandpa infront of an ATM machine! OMG this thing must be there to steal my money!!!! Stop being such a dramaqueen. If you don't wanna make an effort don't fullfill yourself in your own little world be spreading your shit with no real factts, no real proves, no real anything makin your point having any weight. All you brought up is personal opinions, personal feelings, doubts, concerns and wrong facts or factts that others say that they are wrong or proved otherwise. You just chose to believe the ones that were substaining your idea that doesn't mean it's the right one, as I don't pretend that because I chose to believe in the ones that support my idea that they are necesserly better, I don't have the arrogance to think that eveything I say is necessarly right, but at least from what I've learnt, or what I know and saw they seem to be more suitable to what's going on, and morelogical! Sorry if you can't see common sense if you're blind to science.

I'm seriously sick to see you posting comments about people insulting them! If you don't have any other way to say your poor view of the climate change issue than you're not any better than all the previous dictators who have walked on this planet and screwed it up! No wonder you support an opinion that might just destroy the Earth slowly.

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:08 PM
And, once again, your precious chart was not prepared by an actual climatologist and meteorologist, no matter what they claim.

Tell me why I should believe somebody when the first thing they do is lie about their qualifications?

Here is a chart about the last decade from actual scientist at NASA who actually have the qualifications they claim to have:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Cliff Harris bases his views on global warming on the Bible, not science. But if you want to take their word over NASA's, go ahead. Just don't expect every many other people to.

as well as exposing the motive of this AGW fraud as the basis of INternational banking cartels making billions of dollars, and the basis for the formation of a one world government.. look at the graph at 6.09 from university of Alabama, clearly showing temps going down in past decade
As Lord Monkton has said to similar green alarmists, he gets the data directly from Satellite records, so I dont care what NOAA says, if they arent getting that record their wrong!!!!
WWWT-dsFTlA

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:10 PM
Alrght Renstar I'm sick of you pathetic attempt to insult EVERYONE that is against your stupid little conspirace theory, I'm sorry but your theory doesn't have ANYTHING proven yet, and if you can't believe any facts that the scientist give you saying they are not real, they are lying, human doesn't produce CO2 blah blah blah let me pollute all I want. How on Earth can you believe Human doesn't produce enough CO2 to change the climate, C'MON wake up it's not because it doesn't seem alot TO YOU (who clearly lack of knowwledge on alot of things)that this difference doesn't make a big deal on a tightly balance environment! You know they say a butterfly wing in somewhere can create an hurricane somewhere else is a good metaphore, it's actually true. One drop of something can change the whole balance of an ecosystem.

MAYBE you do believe in climate change (even tho maybe it's me who,s dumb but you keep bringing those "facts" saying there's no significant change in temperature, or such a thing as ice cap melt down or more hurricanes or basically no climate change right!? like that past graph?? Or maybe I've dreamt about it cuz oh yeah I must live in a world where I bring facts and proves of the points I'm trying to prove wrong? OOOOOH wait! sorry that's what YOU are doing, contracticting yourslself all the time, sorry sometime I get lost in all your shits)but clearly you're too stubborn and selfcentered to realise that wether or not it's the CO2 that is having the biggest impact on this climate change (which I know it's not, you don't need to convince me or anyone else of that). The point is human IS polluting and we ALL need to do something about it, they can start with CO2 why not! Anythin will do to stop to pollute will be helpful! We DON'T need to make money out of anything, life and the earth is to precious for idiots like you.

Oh I talked I get lost in all your shits earlier right? Well soon if everyone keeps thinking like you, people will think recycling is useless, composting is just for hippies, trying to use less chemicals and eco friendly products is for greenpeace and all this is worhtless because some scientists or company want o make money out of poor little people trying to save their world. Well soon you WILL live in your own pile of shit! Quite trying to prove people wrong or to stop people who are actually trying to make an effort to make their life better and their future cleaner and stat to at least find a way to solve thigns. You're just a stupid conservative that doesn't want to evolve, you're afraid of the change and doubt of everything! You need to stop acting like an insecure demented grandpa infront of an ATM machine! OMG this thing must be there to steal my money!!!! Stop being such a dramaqueen. If you don't wanna make an effort don't fullfill yourself in your own little world be spreading your shit with no real factts, no real proves, no real anything makin your point having any weight. All you brought up is personal opinions, personal feelings, doubts, concerns and wrong facts or factts that others say that they are wrong or proved otherwise. You just chose to believe the ones that were substaining your idea that doesn't mean it's the right one, as I don't pretend that because I chose to believe in the ones that support my idea that they are necesserly better, I don't have the arrogance to think that eveything I say is necessarly right, but at least from what I've learnt, or what I know and saw they seem to be more suitable to what's going on, and morelogical! Sorry if you can't see common sense if you're blind to science.

I'm seriously sick to see you posting comments about people insulting them! If you don't have any other way to say your poor view of the climate change issue than you're not any better than all the previous dictators who have walked on this planet and screwed it up! No wonder you support an opinion that might just destroy the Earth slowly.

I think my deluded Canadian friend, a fake global environmental problem is the least of our problems, try to listen hard to this video and get the message this hoax was created by the big international banking cartels and gore and you have been sucked in hook line and sinker

WWWT-dsFTlA

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:15 PM
And, once again, your precious chart was not prepared by an actual climatologist and meteorologist, no matter what they claim.

Tell me why I should believe somebody when the first thing they do is lie about their qualifications?

Here is a chart about the last decade from actual scientist at NASA who actually have the qualifications they claim to have:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Cliff Harris bases his views on global warming on the Bible, not science. But if you want to take their word over NASA's, go ahead. Just don't expect every many other people to.

Here, try say this graph is going up douchebag!

http://www.wnd.com/images/091208cooling.JPG

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 12:21 PM
E8n1jKAeZPE

Vincey!
Aug 22nd, 2011, 02:04 PM
Here, try say this graph is going up douchebag!

http://www.wnd.com/images/091208cooling.JPG

where's 2010 ??:shrug: this graph only include 9 years?? How is that statistically relevant in climatology?? Taking thousands of years to change :shrug: Dude if your gf vomit during ONE morning it doesn't mean she's pregnant, you need to see a moere global trend on a longer period. Don't jump into conclusion at the first sight of any little data that are happening during a short period of time.

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 11:09 PM
where's 2010 ??:shrug: this graph only include 9 years?? How is that statistically relevant in climatology?? Taking thousands of years to change :shrug: Dude if your gf vomit during ONE morning it doesn't mean she's pregnant, you need to see a moere global trend on a longer period. Don't jump into conclusion at the first sight of any little data that are happening during a short period of time.

Well whatever dude, ive shown in the past decade temps have gone down, but in the end that is a mute point! The major point in any case is that CORRELATION is NOT the same as CAUSATION, so that even if two things go up the same time does not mean one is the cause of the other.

So lets go back to the gf vomitting scenario, lets say a guys wife has been vomiting the past decade, and global temps have gone up the past decade, hypothetically, can we draw the conclusion the guys gf has caused global warming??? this is how ridicuolous ur argument is.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/SxLjRD39XBI/AAAAAAAABXM/0NpVsKJJ5rw/s1600/Cartoon+-+Climate+Science.png

renstar
Aug 22nd, 2011, 11:12 PM
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/actually.png/#

Ryan
Aug 22nd, 2011, 11:44 PM
The next time someone insults another poster in this thread, I'm shutting it down. If you can't argue politely, you won't argue at all. Thanks peeps.

Vincey!
Aug 23rd, 2011, 12:45 AM
Well whatever dude, ive shown in the past decade temps have gone down, but in the end that is a mute point! The major point in any case is that CORRELATION is NOT the same as CAUSATION, so that even if two things go up the same time does not mean one is the cause of the other.

So lets go back to the gf vomitting scenario, lets say a guys wife has been vomiting the past decade, and global temps have gone up the past decade, hypothetically, can we draw the conclusion the guys gf has caused global warming??? this is how ridicuolous ur argument is.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/SxLjRD39XBI/AAAAAAAABXM/0NpVsKJJ5rw/s1600/Cartoon+-+Climate+Science.png
Lol not all! The girl vomitting could be the result of a woman being pregnant. What i'm saying is yes it's not because she's vomitting that she's necessarly pregnant, but that doesn't mean she's not etheir, you just need to wait a longer period to see if she's vomitting every morning or so and then you take the test. ;)

With global warming it has been proved that CO2 and other pollutants created by human has an impact on it so this IS related and proven. I'm not taking two datas that are not related together. SO you CAN see a causation in the correlation of both datas going up. Is it the only reason? No, probably not, but you CAN'T deny the effect that this part has on the climate change etheir.
If you want to save money to buy a car for example, you'll start to try to find things that you can stop using or buying to get that money. You could stop to take a coffee every mornings at your local coffee shop, that way you'd save like 10 to 15 dollars every weeks, obviously it'd be better and quicker to just save $50 off your paycheck every week but at least with the coffee it's a start at something you know you can change without major concequences on your budget. You cannot deny something only because it doesn't seem so important at first.

miffedmax
Aug 23rd, 2011, 01:07 AM
where's 2010 ??:shrug: this graph only include 9 years?? How is that statistically relevant in climatology?? Taking thousands of years to change :shrug: Dude if your gf vomit during ONE morning it doesn't mean she's pregnant, you need to see a moere global trend on a longer period. Don't jump into conclusion at the first sight of any little data that are happening during a short period of time.

There is no discipline in which a smaller sample size is considered statistically more valid than a larger sample size.

As for Lord Monckton being more reliable than NASA and NOAA, once again neutral reader can choose between two large, scientific organizations and a man who falsely claims to be a member of the House of Lords, to have received a Nobel Prize and to have discovered a cure for AIDS. Here's what Jurgen Hubert, an actual scientist, found when he examined some of Monckton's work:
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html (Hint: Monckton is lying, again).

As far as graphs, you can easily find a graph that shows a cooling trend by finding one that only measures temperature in the upper troposphere, or by using graphs that eliminate ocean warming and only measure land surface temperature, or only measure certain areas of the earth.

The NASA and NOAA links I provided measure both ocean and land temperature increases and are generally considered among the most comprehensive available.

Vincey!
Aug 23rd, 2011, 01:17 PM
There is no discipline in which a smaller sample size is considered statistically more valid than a larger sample size.

As for Lord Monckton being more reliable than NASA and NOAA, once again neutral reader can choose between two large, scientific organizations and a man who falsely claims to be a member of the House of Lords, to have received a Nobel Prize and to have discovered a cure for AIDS. Here's what Jurgen Hubert, an actual scientist, found when he examined some of Monckton's work:
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html (Hint: Monckton is lying, again).

As far as graphs, you can easily find a graph that shows a cooling trend by finding one that only measures temperature in the upper troposphere, or by using graphs that eliminate ocean warming and only measure land surface temperature, or only measure certain areas of the earth.

The NASA and NOAA links I provided measure both ocean and land temperature increases and are generally considered among the most comprehensive available.

Actually I don't think that any size of sample is good to demonstrate any points. In theory I agree that the sample size shouldn't make a difference in its validity but you need to stay coherent, if you want to see a trend about global warming you need to have a bigger sample, it's not by looking at the last 5 years that you can call it a global warming or a climate change, it won't be taken seriously since many things such as random chance can affect the climate for this short period.

I so agree with you on lord Monkton, that guy is a joke really.It's just sad to see someone that is not supporting the ideas of this man BUT that is claiming that every scientists that support (man made) climate change even from renoun institutes are frauds. It's so easy to get confused in those datas, as you explained it if you don't take every datas or don't look at the good ones. You can make a graph and make it say EVERYTHING you want, you just need to put the good sets of data together. It will still look coherent and have somewhat real datas, but if you look at it carefully you'd realise that it would need a more precise title and people wouldn't be misled by graph with subjective title but that only count a limited amount of data that makes it more or less meaningful.

miffedmax
Aug 23rd, 2011, 06:19 PM
Basic statistics, though, says that--all things being more or less equal--a bigger sample size tends to be more accurate than a small one. Which is why as others have pointed out you can take any 5 or 7 year period since we started using instruments to measure temperatures and show that the earth is (or was) cooling at a rapid rate, or warming so rapidly as to be uninhabitable in another decade. That's why I think we're actually in agreement--the long term trend over the last century (which is upwards) is the one to watch--it's the bigger statistical sample.

Vincey!
Aug 24th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Basic statistics, though, says that--all things being more or less equal--a bigger sample size tends to be more accurate than a small one. Which is why as others have pointed out you can take any 5 or 7 year period since we started using instruments to measure temperatures and show that the earth is (or was) cooling at a rapid rate, or warming so rapidly as to be uninhabitable in another decade. That's why I think we're actually in agreement--the long term trend over the last century (which is upwards) is the one to watch--it's the bigger statistical sample.

That's right ;)

renstar
Aug 27th, 2011, 04:46 AM
That's right ;)

Yes of course, thats right, its a load of Baloney...:)

Lets see, with all Muffed drivel that the hundreds of climate scientists that disagree with AGW all happen to be paid by oil companies. Lets see where the REAL money is going to be made by this bogus mound of corruption. If you don't believe this is made up bullshit, then your a naive idiot.

Here in Australia billions will be diverted out of our country to support this bogus threat:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/staggering-cost-of-co2-permits-revealed/story-fn7j19iv-1226122430767

AUSTRALIAN businesses and households will have to send about $650 billion overseas between 2020 and 2050 to buy permission to keep some of our coal-fired power stations and other industries operating.

This staggering cost is indicated in the fine print of the Treasury modelling of the Government's carbon dioxide tax and subsequent emissions trading scheme.

The $650 billion will be to buy "permits" to emit CO2.

The permits will be bought from sellers that don't yet exist, or in markets that have yet to be formed, although the Government expects - hopes - they will develop over the next few years.

But this week it was reported that European police agency Europol had revealed a fraudulent trade in these so-called carbon credits in the only serious market that does operate - for the European Union - was far more widespread than previously thought and could have cost EU taxpayers up to €5 billion ($7 billion) in lost revenue in just 18 months.

It's important to stress, we won't be buying anything tangible with this huge amount of money.

Like wind turbines or solar panels or even licences to use technology. It will just buy "permission" to emit CO2 with every prospect it will be rorted Nigerian-style.

These are the permits that Australian industry and power stations will have to buy under Julia Gillard and Greens leader Bob Brown's scheme. With the costs passed on to consumers.

Even without any rorting, the impact on the economy of this part of the scheme will be exactly like taking $650 billion and shredding it.

That will be throwing away nearly $30,000 for every Australian, about $120,000 for a family of four.

These wasted funds could build 15 National Broadband Networks. They could build a fast train network linking every capital city five or six times over. Every hospital we need. Every road. Every port, every dam, indeed every power station.

The expected outlay is the equivalent of closing down the entire economy for a full six-month period. True, as it's spread over 30 years, that allows Treasury to claim we'll hardly notice the loss.

Indeed, Treasury claims that by pushing up the price of power, to everyone - households and businesses alike - every year, from next year through to 2050, we'll all get richer and richer.

Under its plan, the Government is committing to cut Australia's CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050. Except it isn't, and we won't.

The Treasury modelling shows that would require us to cut our emissions by 152 million tonnes in 2020.

According to Treasury we'll actually only cut 58 million tonnes.

So we'll buy "permits" from foreigners that will cover the other 94 million tonnes. Theoretically somebody else - Nigerians? - will do the actual cutting; and we'll pay them to allow us to keep emitting.

Treasury estimates these permits will cost $29 per tonne in 2020, so the total cost in that year will be a relatively modest $2.7 billion. That's "relatively modest", only if you are living in Canberra's ivory towers.

But by 2050 we'll be buying permits from foreigners covering 434 million tonnes, according to Treasury. And they will cost $131 a tonne then, Treasury says.

So by 2050 we'll be sending $57 billion every year to foreigners. Just for the right to keep our lights on. That's to say we will be throwing away an NBN every year.

If we calculate a constant increase in the number of permits and their price from the $2.7 billion in 2020 to the $57 billion in 2050, the total cost adds up to nearly $650 billion over the thirty years.

Vincey!
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:01 AM
I'm sorry Renstar, but this has nothing to do with Global Warming, if it's real or not. Do I agree for your government to do that? To put that money to buy carbon credits so you can still produce? NO I'd much rather want your government to take that money and actually build some things that would reduce the pollutants produce by australians. That doesn't prove in any the reality about global warming tho.Wether it's real or not is not has nothing to do with that.

renstar
Aug 30th, 2011, 02:10 AM
I'm sorry Renstar, but this has nothing to do with Global Warming, if it's real or not. Do I agree for your government to do that? To put that money to buy carbon credits so you can still produce? NO I'd much rather want your government to take that money and actually build some things that would reduce the pollutants produce by australians. That doesn't prove in any the reality about global warming tho.Wether it's real or not is not has nothing to do with that.

Vincey just keep repeating to yourself:

Correlation does NOT = Causation

Scientific consensus ( so called ) does NOT = scientific fact

You see all this useless carbon trading schemes benefit bankers and the elite and fool the greeny believers of this crap its helping the environment