8 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

I was going to add to the Copenhagen post, but this really deserves its own thread.

Latest developments:

Phil jones says what?

This is the man central to the original climategate issue now saying,
"He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled."

This is the same guy who threw out the MWP (Medieval warming period) data, cannot provide the "hockey stick" data, disregarded tree ring data past the 1960s, etc.

Lucy...I think you have some 'splainin to do!

Of course, this comes after the IPCC (the body responsible for providing international climate change reports that countries are basing their climate change decisions on) has had a series of embarrassing exposes of their shoddy scientific method.

Glaciergate

Amazongate

Weather stations data suspect

"these stations have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, frequently, being moved from site to site."

Couple this with cherry picking of data:
One example

and the picture starts becoming pretty clear.

Anytime you have a garbage input, you get a garbage output. using data that fits your theory and "adjusting" the data that does not is blatant fraud.

While I do not deny that the overall climate is changing (it's never static for pete's sake), I ind the evidence overwhelming that the political forcing of the data is far more pervasive than any actual evidence for AGW.

Have at it lads!

[Bill Z]

I was going to add to the Copenhagen post, but this really deserves its own thread.

Latest developments:

Phil jones says what?

This is the man central to the original climategate issue now saying,
"He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled."

This is the same guy who threw out the MWP (Medieval warming period) data, cannot provide the "hockey stick" data, disregarded tree ring data past the 1960s, etc.

Lucy...I think you have some 'splainin to do!

Of course, this comes after the IPCC (the body responsible for providing international climate change reports that countries are basing their climate change decisions on) has had a series of embarrassing exposes of their shoddy scientific method.

Glaciergate

Amazongate

Weather stations data suspect

"these stations have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, frequently, being moved from site to site."

Couple this with cherry picking of data:
One example

and the picture starts becoming pretty clear.

Anytime you have a garbage input, you get a garbage output. using data that fits your theory and "adjusting" the data that does not is blatant fraud.

While I do not deny that the overall climate is changing (it's never static for pete's sake), I ind the evidence overwhelming that the political forcing of the data is far more pervasive than any actual evidence for AGW.

Have at it lads!

While I am 100% in agreement with you, I want to point out something else.

Global cooling which happens time to time, (think periodic ice ages), kills many plants and animals.

Global warming, well all historic evidence to date shows that the planet thrives with life when it is warmer.

So even if the planet was to further warm as the fear-mongers would have you believe, it isn't likely to bring the famine and global doom that they predict, it should increase the amount of land that plants and animals and humans can live on.

With the rate the human population is increasing, I think we may need some warming to feed them all, unless you GW fanatics believe we need some Global Cooling to drastically drop the human population back down to pre-industrial age numbers. Personally, I'ld rather not see 1/2 the earth's population die off from starvation.

[Maria]

I totally agree that global warming is a hoax. I even went out and bought my whole family used Hummers, hoping that since they are used, they will not be properly tuned, and therefore will spew even more crap into the air! I love the fact that they only get 11 miles per gallon.

I also spent the entire weekend removing trees and vegitation from the greater Folsom area. I mean, not only are they ugly, but they don't do anything.

My greatest accomplishment is yet to come! I plan on leaving for a week to go on vacation. While away, I am going to leave all electronics on. I have instructed my neighbor to crank the heat up to 85 degrees in the morning, and then turn the a/c down to 60 at night, thereby undoing what had been done!

I hjave also applied for a burn permit, hoping that instead of recycling my cardboard, plastic and batteries and paints I can just torch them in my backyard! I will make sure to check back in and let you all know how it went.

This is a joke, for anyone experiencing an allergic reaction to satire....

[folsom500]

With the rate the human population is increasing, I think we may need some warming to feed them all, unless you GW fanatics believe we need some Global Cooling to drastically drop the human population back down to pre-industrial age numbers. Personally, I'ld rather not see 1/2 the earth's population die off from starvation.

One Problem Bill,

The locations with the greatest population increase are the same as those with past and present issues of drought, floods, crop failures, and poor quality lands - all of which portend to even more famine and loss of life... so your desire not to see a major portion of the earth's population to die off from starvation is a bit uninformed at the least. It will happen- not because of the GW , but because these countries that pop out babies like rabbits will have to face the consequences of their regions OVER POPULATION - and how much warming can the following countries handle ?

Can you believe that the 4-8th countries with the largest populations are the following ?

4 Indonesia 231,369,500 July 2009 3.4%
5 Brazil 192,483,000 February 15, 2010 2.83%
6 Pakistan 168,738,500 February 15, 2010 2.48%
7 Bangladesh 162,221,000 2009 2.38%
8 Nigeria 154,729,000 2.27%
(the % is % of world Pop)

Global warming nor cooling will help these countries...

[EDF]

I totally agree that global warming is a hoax. I even went out and bought my whole family used Hummers, hoping that since they are used, they will not be properly tuned, and therefore will spew even more crap into the air! I love the fact that they only get 11 miles per gallon.

I also spent the entire weekend removing trees and vegitation from the greater Folsom area. I mean, not only are they ugly, but they don't do anything.

My greatest accomplishment is yet to come! I plan on leaving for a week to go on vacation. While away, I am going to leave all electronics on. I have instructed my neighbor to crank the heat up to 85 degrees in the morning, and then turn the a/c down to 60 at night, thereby undoing what had been done!

I hjave also applied for a burn permit, hoping that instead of recycling my cardboard, plastic and batteries and paints I can just torch them in my backyard! I will make sure to check back in and let you all know how it went.

This is a joke, for anyone experiencing an allergic reaction to satire....

what was the point of this joke....

inquiring minds want to know...

[The Average Joe]

Oops...the fraud, er "mistakes" continue to pile up...

Africa crops data false, good data ignored

And then there is the "increased hurricane activity and intensity" cited by the IPCC

No there isn't

What really bothers me is that I have to look at foreign sources to get this info. Where is the American press? What a bunch of hacks and shills for whatever agenda is given to them...

[Chris]

Wow, never thought I'd see this from Obama....! Two nukes....! Now that's "CHANGE" I like to see....! Of course the leftist EPA will fight it tooth and nail...! Now if we could get another 100 or so built all around the country then we would really be on our way...! And for you doubters there is no evil bad "waste" at all....! Just reprocess the rods, take out the neutron absorbers and re-use the Uranium over and over again...! What little "waste" you end up with is half lifed out to neutral in 30 years. Now if we could only get our cars running on natural gas in 10-15 years and build the infrastructure around the country we could give the middle east the one fingered salute...! We can sit on our massive coal reserves for 150-200 years until our technology gets better. No need for oil, no need to go the sandbox and fight a war...! A win win for US....! Chris

Nuclear power aids White House climate push

http://www.alertnet....k/N16216891.htm

[Bill Z]

Oops...the fraud, er "mistakes" continue to pile up...

Africa crops data false, good data ignored

And then there is the "increased hurricane activity and intensity" cited by the IPCC

No there isn't

What really bothers me is that I have to look at foreign sources to get this info. Where is the American press? What a bunch of hacks and shills for whatever agenda is given to them...

That is sad that you have to find this stuff on UK websites and our nations media obviously purposefully ignores it. Thanks for doing the research.

I wonder what FFG, er FVW has to say about this and his love of carbon credits.

[The Average Joe]

It's hard to lose when you cover all the bases....if it gets hotter, it's AGW, if it gets colder, it's AGW...

Cases in point....lol

SF fog declines by a third due to AGW

SF fog to increase due to AGW

I swear...you just can't make this stuff up! (but they can....lolol)