Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jimmy Leeds

The Global Warming Fraud

78 posts in this topic

I don't believe models predicted a massive rise in C02 coupled with a flattening of temperatures for the last decade. IF CO2 forces temperature rising then an 8-12 year pause in warming during continued increase of CO2 seems unlikely. I know people re-did their models to explain why this pause is happening, but that doesn't mean these models are any better at predicting future events. If we can't come up with models that can predict 10 years into the future then it seems hard to believe the models that predict 100 years into the future.

Reminds me of what happened from the 1940s through '70s? During the post-WWII industrial boom, CO2 pollution was ... well ... booming. Yet temperatures fell for nearly 40 years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with there being no government regulation for emission standards etc.

The problem is people think global warming is a hoax. That they do not need to demand companies not put the bottom line first.

Your arguements are all flawed - and no one will acknowledge that. It's really easy to defend a stand with a really vapid "prove it" If I shoot you in the head with this gun you will die.... "Prove it!" I can make you watch me shoot another person and you're OK and have some proof. Well there is no other planet to destroy for you so You're the only person I can shoot - all I can do is shoot parts of your body off bringing you closer and closer. I can shoot your knee cap and you say "but that's not even close to the same make up as my skull and brain - you've proven nothing." :doh1: Dude -- do you get that once you're shot in the head -- you're dead or severely debilitated? SEE SEE???? NOT DEAD! SEVERELY DIBILITATED! HAHA I'M RIGHT! :argh: Oh blessed ^&^#&%...

All the mounting evidence isn't "But what if I'm right" It's way beyond that. To keep saying that it isn't, is to be stupid. I'm sorry to say it but it is.

Here is a site with scientific refernces answering all of the skeptic arguments put forward. SkepticalScience.com

Like I said I'm asking NOTHING except that people UNDERSTAND it's real. I prefer when Jerry says I dont give a sh!t if it's real I just won't spend money on it. At least you see what he's being stubborn about -- you see the reality of it. It DOES bug me to backpeddal and say BUT IT"S STILL NOT REALLY REAL. No it is -- and you dont give a sh!t. and that's fine.

ACTUALLY -- you dont have to. I'd just like to know some people I for some reason care about here aren't so thick. Dont' think that's any kind of viable argument. But it really doesn't matter what you all think in the grander scheme of things. Everyone keeps tell me that. You guys are a minority in the public sector. It's globally understood that it's real. We have developing countries saying they can't afford to cut emissions and all of that -- but they aren't saying anything is a fraud or hoax. This is where the real fun starts :argh: and that's when gov'ts say they have to mandate emissions control etc. It bugs me that the real world response to my conundrum here with you all is always Oh come on they're stupid - you're wasting your time" It's like you're Kyydax of the climate change world. You're like Manta with Kovalchuk. It's all just this weird unfounded opinion. and they love saying "what do you expect form a hockey message board" :evilcry: well... Scott Neidermayer agrees with me lonely-1.gif "Yeah - because his dad is an MD. He's a smart, educated guy" but Scott Stevens didn't go to college - yeha well - he's a hunter and thus a gigantic environmentalist... and he's a snob anyhow -- ok... they dont say that only I do... giggle.gif

yeah -- so I never wasted my time with Kyydax - he was amusing too. SO... i'll accept you all don't REALLY believe this stuff you're just contrarians with agendas uninterested in understanding the situation.

Say what you will but I have no other alternative. I haven't been met with anything compelling to sway me to your view. If what I present to you isnt' compelling or if you choose to only read the "are you stupid?" etc parts.... well -- :noclue: oh well. So.. if I have ever sounded patronizing I apologize. As I write often enough I'm not that smart... it's just that:

You're stupid! Langue31.gif

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent read a lick of this forum but just a heads up, its 62 degrees out 3 days before xmas. beach anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a site with scientific refernces answering all of the skeptic arguments put forward. SkepticalScience.com

http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf

Tit for tat.

And just to be clear, PK, you say over and over that "it's real." What exactly are you referring to?

Does "it" refer to warming in general? Because practically no one in the skeptical community is saying warming hasn't been happening. You're arguing with yourself if that's your point.

Does "it" refer to the man-caused element of warming? Because that would be the crux of the debate.

In most cases, skeptics would agree with you that "it" is real. The question that begs is: How real is it? Just how much is man actually causing the warming we've seen?

And this is where the skeptics get skeptical. There is a ton of sound science on every side of this topic.

Those firmly-rooted in the man-caused warming community tend to look only at the studies that support their cause. This is cherry-picking, and it's garbage science. The reason the latest email leak is newsworthy is because it not only shows how blatant and intentional the cherry-picking has gotten, but it also shows an actual effort to purposely distort facts that fly in the face of the conclusion they're trying to prove.

Those who are skeptical look at all of it -- the studies showing man has a huge impact on climate, the studies showing man has a negligible impact on climate, the studies showing man's impact is somewhere between huge and negligible, the studies showing man has no impact at all, the studies showing that not enough evidence has been soundly collected to draw any conclusive conclusions whatsoever -- and come away unsure.

Mind you, none of this changes the fact that we pollute too much and we need to burn less oil. Man doesn't need to be bringing about a CO2-driven apocalypse for those points to hold value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the point there is no money to be made in restrictions due to global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets

A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the US also declined, and only the European Union's internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $120bn. However, leaked documents seen by the Guardian appear to show that even the EU's emissions trading system is in danger.

That's a market that was created out of nothing that generate billions for people, corporations, and governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the point there is no money to be made in restrictions due to global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets

That's a market that was created out of nothing that generate billions for people, corporations, and governments.

Enron had attempted to cut in on the carbon trading scheme.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know it was 74 today right? lol

It's funny (kind of sad too), but doesn't demonstrate anything.

The past 365 days here have been ridiculously hot. But that's still just one area of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing at one day or even a few days is irrelevant. The global warming debate involves trends taking place over decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a hot topic the last few days. Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who often speaks about the ethics, or lack of ethics, in the climate debate, has admitted to identity impersonation and has likely also created a fake document to try and smear those he disagreed with.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should call it climate religion instead of climate science!

I agree, then we can support a religious fundamentalist to actually make progress on our agenda :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should call it climate religion instead of climate science!

So you're admitting religion is bullsh!t or that man made climate change is real? or do you want it which ever way serves your purpose? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're admitting religion is bullsh!t or that man made climate change is real? or do you want it which ever way serves your purpose? :P

Neither! I am saying that AGW has become a matter of faith for environmentalists. The left also bows at the altar of any government programs created under the FDR and LBJ administrations. They have shown a willingness, a zeal, to destroy the "99%" they purport to fight for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an "If you know Jesus but deny him you're going to hell" kind of thing.

It's a "The evidence that smoking causes cancer is negligible so I'm going to keep smoking - the odds are with me - I have a greater chance to be killed in a car accident" kind of thing. The basic scientific data supports this opinion - and yet we now understand how to put the data into the appropriate context.

The layperson has seen enough life-experience evidence to understand the statistical relevance. It's really in our best interest to not smoke - it's not worth the risk as small as it may seem on paper.

AGW lacks the life experience -- Now this is just me but it seems logical to conclude that, as I said before, to kill the planet is not the same as watching deaths attributed to smoking pile up. It's a one shot deal. We need to trust analogous results because the hard result is irreversible.

AGW is based on science. Not one or two inconclusive studies but many many many studies by many many independent (and partisan on both sides of the argument) researchers, using many many different methods. It's not at all a matter of faith. It's not a matter of propaganda. It's a matter of scientific relevance. The preponderance of the evidence supports AGW.

Your statements lead me to believe that you do not understand the science. You do not understand what constitutes a statistically relevant result in science. The people on the street do not understand why climatologosts are able to say "Sure there is some doubt" The people on the street do not understand the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject the idea that "some science" is anything to base an educated opinion on. You have to take it ALL. The preponderance of the evidence I'm speaking about includes your "some."

You are getting your "some" from data specifically selected by special interest groups.

You do not understand -- my opinion is based on ALL science pro and con. As I wrote -- I can cherry pick studies proving smoking doesn't have significant impact on one particular aspect on one particular lung illness. But when you put ALL the data together the picture is very clear. Smoking causes significant harm to your lungs.

You don't understand - or you think I don't understand. I do, so be truthful -- as you started out in this thread. If you ARE ashamed of your short-term gains stance -- then maybe you need to do some soul searching, because you can't change the science.

Also please note this is 16 scientists and a very carefully worded "drastic action" published in a publication tailored for the business industry --- this is not a refutation of AGW if that's what you're selling. I repeat - either you do not understand or you think I don't.

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was good for a laugh. A crackpot who links birth control with reducing global warming. Science or left-wing politics, you be the judge!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/activists-birth-control-can-fight-global-warming/

Neither. It's some woman's opinion. Sure decreased population should theoretically free up resources, but it's pretty obvious increased access to birth control has done zip to control population. Famine and disease has historically been the only successful population reducer. Even then humans respond as all animals and step up reproduction with any mass population cut back. Anyhow it's irrelevant to the science in support of AGW as is Daniel's link.

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pepperkorn, I believe that the science is corrupted because the scientists have been corrupted. I know you consider Climategate a one-off. I don't. I think it's the tip of the iceberg (good global-warming pun, no?). The hidden iceberg is deceit that runs all the way to the United Nations and the EPA.

But let's say you're right, that global warming is not a scam. Would you support going to war with China over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is leading the pack in alternative energy research. No I wouldn't support going to war because coal is their weakness. They cannot control their HUGE population with no cheap alternative. Hence their leading the technology drive. Are you going to get your panties in a whiney bunch when China smacks our ass in the technology department and we lose our global positioning chasing an antiquated paradigm?

The facts are China has more human resources than we and can divide her efforts more economically. : noclue:

Where is the deceit and misinformation really coming from? I think from companies who's profits are driven by an old paradigm and you think a global independent community of scientists. Thousands. With varied research goals. Which is really the more likely deceiver?

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bunch of scientists, they wrote that letter to look good either way.

They're calling on NASA to not take a stance until the "science is settled." Which gives away nothing on their stance of whether global warming or climate change is man made, man affected, or neither.

If the science is settled (whatever that statement means), they can say "Hey! we told NASA to hold off until..." or "Hey! Look how we told NASA they were wrong..."

It's a mighty wide fence they are sitting on.

Edited by njdevsfn95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty meaningless stunt if you ask me. They don't attempt to refute anything in any concrete way. Rather it's merely an appeal to authority. Of course, the other side does it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0