Global Warming is a SCAM
category: general [glöplog]
Serpent: for some people, the simple / quickly explained solutions have massive appeal. It's just sad that most things in life are massively complex and simply cannot be explained in a single sentence.
Quote:
I always liked the "FUR IS MURDER!"-kind of argumentation, because it is so unbelivably arrogant and idiotic at the same time.
what a great strawman, do you want to set it on fire or should I? There is nothing arrogant in stating that you refuse to look at the evidence when quite clearly...you refuse to look at the evidence and keep yapping the party-line. If you are offended by that...tough. What is simpler than looking at the complex system that nature is, and conclude that mans outlet of co2 is the reason for the weather? that is as simpleton as it gets.
[quote]The "trick" referred to in the e-mail is the matter of reconciling actual temperature recordings with tree ring growth[quote]
You mean the TEN (1o) trees that Mann had cherry picked? etc etc Thank heaven we have the MSM to set things straight for us.
Quote:
Science not faked, but not pretty
It is not faked in the sense that they used random data in the model that had nothing to do with reality, or that they cherry picked all data that showed a warming trend and left out the large part that did not. Not fake at all...Oh wait...
Quote:
fake 1 (fk)
adj.
Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
2. Sports A brief feint or aborted change of direction intended to mislead one's opponent or the opposing team.
v. faked, fak·ing, fakes
v.tr.
1. To contrive and present as genuine; counterfeit.
2. To simulate; feign.
3. Music To improvise (a passage).
4. Sports To deceive (an opponent) with a fake. Often used with out.
v.intr.
1. To engage in feigning, simulation, or other deceptive activity.
2. Sports To perform a fake.
Michael Man is under pending token inquiry
Phil Jones steps down to make room for token inquiry
But it will be a whitewash inquiry
the AGW crowd is not a religious movement at all
hockey stick? what hockeu stick?
my oh my as goings get tough Mann throws Jones under the bus
man...nasa does it too? :(
and NZ does it
so the science is fairly shady to say the least, I do wonder what it could all be about
Perhaps it is a theology of sorts?
Phil Jones steps down to make room for token inquiry
But it will be a whitewash inquiry
the AGW crowd is not a religious movement at all
hockey stick? what hockeu stick?
my oh my as goings get tough Mann throws Jones under the bus
man...nasa does it too? :(
and NZ does it
so the science is fairly shady to say the least, I do wonder what it could all be about
Perhaps it is a theology of sorts?
If one side receive money from oil companies it apparently exposes them as the industry's henchmen, but if the other does it, it shows that the companies are now willing to change. the hypocracy is just mind boggling;
One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”..Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”..Who amongst us hasn’t seen variants of that pointed finger repeated thousands of times? The paradigm has shifted. Now it appears CRU is the one looking for “big oil” money. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
eebliss, spread your 'evidence' as much as you like, but could you quit the "anyone who disagrees is refusing to listen to TEH FACTS" spiel please? In case you didn't notice, I took an honest look at your beloved ice core graphs the other day. I acknowledged that they appeared to directly contradict the consensus view, and seriously asked myself: OK, one side is bullshitting here. Which one is it? (Yes, I had certain expectations about the answer. But the facts should speak for themselves, right?)
I placed the graphs side by side and stepped through the arguments. I spent several tedious hours looking up references. And at the end of it all, I found that it boiled down to a lame misdirection trick, like the old "three men walk into a hotel and pay $10 each for a $27 room" riddle. So yes, I have questioned the established science - something I haven't done in this much detail before, I'll happily admit - and yes, it does stand up to scrutiny.
I placed the graphs side by side and stepped through the arguments. I spent several tedious hours looking up references. And at the end of it all, I found that it boiled down to a lame misdirection trick, like the old "three men walk into a hotel and pay $10 each for a $27 room" riddle. So yes, I have questioned the established science - something I haven't done in this much detail before, I'll happily admit - and yes, it does stand up to scrutiny.
Philip D. Jones, Michael E. Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Briffa, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann, Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, Peter Stott, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, Eystein Jansen, Tim Osborn, all names that popped up as people read the east Anglia e-mails. So who are this little close circle of friends that reviewed each others papers? They are the leaders of the most influential climate research units, and several are scientific advisers for nations policy makers like James Hansen the leader of GISS is it in new zealand (that was just caught with their thermometer down btw)
Fine article by American Thinker
Fine article by American Thinker
Quote:
eebliss, spread your 'evidence' as much as you like, but could you quit the "anyone who disagrees is refusing to listen to TEH FACTS" spiel please? In case you didn't notice, I took an honest look at your beloved ice core graphs the other day.
And came to a pretty odd conclusion. Since it has been much warmer than it is now, even if you add in other data from the last 100 years. But somehow you managed to completely miss that or what?
Quote:
. But the facts should speak for themselves, right?
absolutely and they most certainly do. So.. I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about in the above post. What trick is it you think has been performed, could you expand upon this a little. Don't leave us hanging...
I mean Gasman has spend a couple of hours on it, there is no way that he could be wrong or be drawing up conclusions a bit too fast is there`?
No seriously! I have spend the last 4 weeks tediously going through every single news item (MSM only picked up after more than 2 weeks because the net user base became aggressive, they didn't say a peep of their own will.) I have gone through the blogs, the discussions raging on both sides to try and get an idea of what is going on. After 3 weeks I feel pretty convinced that the science need to be looked at again. Too many inconsistencies, and the scientists involved have some pretty poor research ethics.
I do not understand everything in the science. But I understand manipulation and dishonesty, both which there has been plenty of from the green hockey-stick team (I expected nothing else from the 'other side' to begin with, since that side has vested interrests)
So gasman, you spend a couple of hours. I think you are wrong! and I think this because of the conclusion you have after those couple of hours. I think you went cherry picking for "proves against's" and not like you said made your own investigation. Your own investigation in a few hours are you fucking kidding me? If you want to insult my intelligence you can just call me names, no need to write all that.
During your - I am certain- exhaustive research, did you come by "the most important 10 trees in the world" ? Did you include that in your conclusion? etc etc etc....
I do not understand everything in the science. But I understand manipulation and dishonesty, both which there has been plenty of from the green hockey-stick team (I expected nothing else from the 'other side' to begin with, since that side has vested interrests)
So gasman, you spend a couple of hours. I think you are wrong! and I think this because of the conclusion you have after those couple of hours. I think you went cherry picking for "proves against's" and not like you said made your own investigation. Your own investigation in a few hours are you fucking kidding me? If you want to insult my intelligence you can just call me names, no need to write all that.
During your - I am certain- exhaustive research, did you come by "the most important 10 trees in the world" ? Did you include that in your conclusion? etc etc etc....
Quote:
Clean up our act and environment, and have a better place to live. If some idiot kid can't have a 3rd TV and has to walk to school with some friends instead of sitting in a humvee playing games... well fucking good.
And there it is again. The self-loathing and the guilt. The question isn't what difference it would make if the idiot kid walked to school, the point is that he SHOULD, because it's HARDER, and it SERVES HIM RIGHT for being human. And around and around it goes, this hysterical environmental rhetoric, never actually quantifying anything.
Quote:
Since it has been much warmer than it is now, even if you add in other data from the last 100 years. But somehow you managed to completely miss that or what?
If you have comparable data for the last 100 years then please point me to it. If you already did, then yes, I managed to completely miss it. I'm not going to trawl through wattsupwiththat.com to try and reconstruct your argument... help me out a bit here.
(Keep in mind that if it isn't ice core data - which for whatever reason doesn't appear to be available for the last century - then I'll be expecting more justification than simply adding apples to oranges.)
Quote:
What trick is it you think has been performed, could you expand upon this a little. Don't leave us hanging...
Finding a small peak at the end of the graph, implying that it's the same hockey stick that the IPCC are talking about, and then debunking their own version of it. Smells like a textbook strawman argument to me. And secondly, misleading scales on the graphs:
Short of loading it into photoshop and getting a ruler on it, can a casual viewer really be expected to notice that the data doesn't actually go up to the 2000 mark?
Quote:
Keep in mind that if it isn't ice core data - which for whatever reason doesn't appear to be available for the last century - then I'll be expecting more justification than simply
'new' snow is unreliable is the reason the scientists gives for cutting of the graphs there. However. I am trying to give references to what I have had to plow through during the last month, but as Gloom states ;"for some people, the simple / quickly explained solutions have massive appeal. It's just sad that most things in life are massively complex and simply cannot be explained in a single sentence.". You seems want the single smoking Gun, the damning article. There are no such a thing (when is there ever, the police certainly would love a world like that), there is a lot of pointers. How do you think the IPCC graphs come into being if not by mixing -as you say- apples and oranges? A little bit of urban heat island surface temp, a couple of tree rings (from 10 trees!) a bit of this a bit of that...The ice cores are only part of it, but since it goes back so far it is a pretty interesting one in the context.
Quote:
implying that it's the same hockey stick that the IPCC are talking about, and then debunking their own version of it
even if it isn't you can still see what the clear trend was before the industrial revolution. I think that is much more interesting than all the hockey sticks. This said. Yes I am fairly certain it is the same hockey stick in question.
(*made by one of the users at Anthony Watt's blog)
Quote:
There is nothing arrogant in stating that you refuse to look at the evidence when quite clearly...you refuse to look at the evidence and keep yapping the party-line. If you are offended by that...tough.
Dude - the only thing I said was that your thread is filled with random pictures and you lauch into this angry rant about me (and everyone beside yourself, apparently) is taking life for granted and that we'll all die a horrible death for ignoring the veil thrown over our eyes.
Get your head out of your ass.
it's almost ironic that those primitive dinosaurs walked this earth longer than us supermonkeys!
only one month 'til I go skiing!
Quote:
Dude - the only thing I said was that your thread is filled with random pictures and you lauch into this angry
You haven't seen angry
Quote:
s taking life for granted and that we'll all die a horrible death for ignoring the veil thrown over our eyes.
Try and read what is actually being stated. you don't have to make up things and I think your strawmen are getting slightly boring!
Quote:
Get your head out of your ass.
hahaha
Havoc why does it trouble you so to let the rest of us in on the point you are trying to make. Clearly you mean insult, but you are just not bright enough to put it forth in a manner that is insulting. I am trying to help you here. troll to troll
Quote:
it's almost ironic that those primitive dinosaurs walked this earth longer than us supermonkeys!
yes and judging from their climate, they had enough SUV's to go around...apparently.
This only goes to show that you do not actually read the things people participate with, but you most certainly have a knack for strawmen. Have you considered changing handle?
Quote:
You haven't seen angry
- Bruce Banner
\o/
eebliss, you are *not* a climatologist. What are your diplomas excatly ?
