Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CyberKen

That's wrong for obvious reasons. Otherwise, this thread should be about warming in the U.S.

http://www.slate.com..._abundance.html

http://shalebubble.org/

http://www.theguardi...economic-crisis

http://www.technolog...y-independence/

According to the IEA, at best global oil and gas production will increase by 9 pct during the next two decades, but for the economy to grow demand has to go up by 2 pct a year, just as it did the last three decades. Also, the 9-pct increase can take place only at maximum depletion rates, which will require oil companies to produce at lower profits, which is something that does not normally take place.

According to the data, it's not:

http://www.skeptical...tor-part-1.html

That's odd. If the Earth is warming then why is the Arctic Ice increasing by 60%?

According to you, the Earth should be transforming into Waterworld starring Kevin Costner. It's not!

You are starting to sound like Baghdad Bob over in Iraq.

"There are no American tanks in Baghdad."

Edited by CyberKen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You should try reading the caption on the graph you posted - it doesn't support your position. whats critical is that you understands the meaning of the error bar :tu:

A climate trend is statistically meaningful over a period of 30 years, so your statement regarding the trend is statistically meaningless.

That was sort of the point. Even 30 years is not enough. That was Carter’s point.

1880 – 1910 shows a downward tick but that comes in just the 10 years between 1900 to 1910. 1910 – 1930 shows an upward tick. 1940 – 1970 shows stasis. 1970 – 2000 shows a markedly upward tick. So what is climate doing? Is Man causing this? I don’t think you can make that judgment. It is not conclusive. I really don’t think that the error bar means that much here. As I’ve said before, it is too soon to know if temp is rising or falling but what is obvious is an uncharacteristic peak according to AGW. AGW says that there shouldn’t be such a broad peak. My prediction is that we will begin to see a pattern like the 1900s or 1940s. The 2010s will see a drop. The 2020s may see another rise but this disproves the unrelenting increase of AGW.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

What is wrong with WSJ? The data is from an advanced reading of the IPCCs document.

I guess Frank read the article – I haven’t seen a reply yet. So we are all waiting for the 27th to come around. I can’t wait to see how the AGW apologists squirm to spin this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

I guess Frank read the article – I haven't seen a reply yet. So we are all waiting for the 27th to come around. I can't wait to see how the AGW apologists squirm to spin this.

The truth has arrived. The smart liberals can see it. The not so smart liberals are too proud to admit that they were........wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

They are very conservative (especially now that Murdoch owns them) and may (or may not) have read it seeking confirmation of their own views or emphasizing parts they like and ignoring parts they don't like. Unfortunately it seems all reporters do this, probably unconsciously because it is always denied

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

They are very conservative (especially now that Murdoch owns them) and may (or may not) have read it seeking confirmation of their own views or emphasizing parts they like and ignoring parts they don't like. Unfortunately it seems all reporters do this, probably unconsciously because it is always denied

And the IPCC is liberal. It still doesn’t change the fact that the IPCC is dialing back on the doom and gloom prophecy. They are going to spin it that it isn’t that big of a deal, that they just miscalculated a little. Well, they sure did miscalculate. They will come short of saying that AGW doesn’t exist. Man is not the cause but perhaps Man is kicking climate in the side a bit. In the end, the AGW apologists will claim that this is what they meant in the first place and that they were just misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

And the IPCC is liberal. It still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is dialing back on the doom and gloom prophecy. They are going to spin it that it isn't that big of a deal, that they just miscalculated a little. Well, they sure did miscalculate. They will come short of saying that AGW doesn't exist. Man is not the cause but perhaps Man is kicking climate in the side a bit. In the end, the AGW apologists will claim that this is what they meant in the first place and that they were just misunderstood.

The IPCC was never about saving mankind.

The goal was to use fear as a tool to gain power over the general population.

The good news is that the IPCC has lost all credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

That was sort of the point. Even 30 years is not enough. That was Carter's point.

1880 – 1910 shows a downward tick but that comes in just the 10 years between 1900 to 1910. 1910 – 1930 shows an upward tick. 1940 – 1970 shows stasis. 1970 – 2000 shows a markedly upward tick. So what is climate doing? Is Man causing this? I don't think you can make that judgment. It is not conclusive. I really don't think that the error bar means that much here. As I've said before, it is too soon to know if temp is rising or falling but what is obvious is an uncharacteristic peak according to AGW. AGW says that there shouldn't be such a broad peak. My prediction is that we will begin to see a pattern like the 1900s or 1940s. The 2010s will see a drop. The 2020s may see another rise but this disproves the unrelenting increase of AGW.

Straw man argument, its the long term trend which shows AGW not the local small scale variability - and those up-down wiggles on theshort term do not disprove anything other than your understanding.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

And the IPCC is liberal. It still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is dialing back on the doom and gloom prophecy. They are going to spin it that it isn't that big of a deal, that they just miscalculated a little. Well, they sure did miscalculate. They will come short of saying that AGW doesn't exist. Man is not the cause but perhaps Man is kicking climate in the side a bit. In the end, the AGW apologists will claim that this is what they meant in the first place and that they were just misunderstood.

Which shows mainly that you misunderstand the scientific method and that you are politically paranoid.

The purpose of the IPCC is to report the science - good or bad.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

August 2012 Photo in our hands: Arctic Ice pack is small

August 2013 Photo in our hands: Wow! Forget the faulty computer models. Look what ....really.....happened! 60% increase!

I predict my 25% increase on top of the 60% increase will be a lot closer than an IPCC daydream. We will find out in 11 months.

Computer models? These are used for measuring sea ice extent, etc.

http://nsidc.org/data/collections.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

That's odd. If the Earth is warming then why is the Arctic Ice increasing by 60%?

According to you, the Earth should be transforming into Waterworld starring Kevin Costner. It's not!

You are starting to sound like Baghdad Bob over in Iraq.

"There are no American tanks in Baghdad."

This might help you:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

And the IPCC is liberal. It still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is dialing back on the doom and gloom prophecy. They are going to spin it that it isn't that big of a deal, that they just miscalculated a little. Well, they sure did miscalculate. They will come short of saying that AGW doesn't exist. Man is not the cause but perhaps Man is kicking climate in the side a bit. In the end, the AGW apologists will claim that this is what they meant in the first place and that they were just misunderstood.

It's the opposite:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Computer models? These are used for measuring sea ice extent, etc.

http://nsidc.org/data/collections.html

Advance copies of the new IPCC report reveal.....they were wrong.

They decided there is no reason to deny the obvious.

The IPCC left out other variables that just got in the way of their agenda.

Agenda : Fear mongering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Straw man argument, its the long term trend which shows AGW not the local small scale variability - and those up-down wiggles on theshort term do not disprove anything other than your understanding.

You are so disingenuous. You’re the one touting that 30 years are needed for any meaningful trend. Well, I selected several 30 year periods and you call it straw man. You are full of it. Long term is at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of years and long term disproves AGW. That was Carter’s point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Which shows mainly that you misunderstand the scientific method and that you are politically paranoid.

It’s not me that doesn’t understand the scientific method. I’ve been bringing it up over and over again. That is what Carter was stating using cores. The IPCC overreacted and got caught up in their own fear mongering.

The purpose of the IPCC is to report the science - good or bad.

That’s not what they were doing. Even you were doing it.

Climate science is a piece of predictive human wisdom telling us its not to late to stop destroying the ecosystem, we ignore it at our peril.

That is not science. That is emotion. All the science tells us is that climate changes and Man attempts to predict that change. It does not make moral judgments. When it does, it then gets painted into a corner like now. The IPCC will be publishing an updated model using science that will say that things just weren’t as bad as originally thought, which should kill any vestige of AGW. That is if the IPCC has a solid foundation in science, it will. But let’s wait for the 27th. We’ll see if it sticks to science or continues being a political tool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Uhmmm….did you read the WSJ article Diechecker pointed out? The article you pointed out from the SA was from Dec 2012 and it will more than likely be superseded by the IPCC report on the 27th. At least that is what the previews have been alluding to. Something about the unpredictable effects of cloud cover??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

It's not me that doesn't understand the scientific method. I've been bringing it up over and over again. That is what Carter was stating using cores. The IPCC overreacted and got caught up in their own fear mongering.

That's not what they were doing. Even you were doing it.

That is not science. That is emotion. All the science tells us is that climate changes and Man attempts to predict that change. It does not make moral judgments. When it does, it then gets painted into a corner like now. The IPCC will be publishing an updated model using science that will say that things just weren't as bad as originally thought, which should kill any vestige of AGW. That is if the IPCC has a solid foundation in science, it will. But let's wait for the 27th. We'll see if it sticks to science or continues being a political tool?

Its a simple fact that if you do one thing it has consequences. Science predicts those consequences, in relation to climate, in as factual a way as possible and then tells us what might be done to avoid them. Those are cold hard facts - not emotions. it is the political right who have been indulging in emotional fear mongering, not the climate scientists. The same tactics are been used as those which were used to defend the "safety" of smoking - and the same libertarian think tanks are doing it.

You have spent a whole thread indulging in politically motivated fear mongering :tu:

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Uhmmm….did you read the WSJ article Diechecker pointed out? The article you pointed out from the SA was from Dec 2012 and it will more than likely be superseded by the IPCC report on the 27th. At least that is what the previews have been alluding to. Something about the unpredictable effects of cloud cover??

You should wait for that report before passing ill informed opinions on something which has only been propagandised about so far.

I can almost guarantee that its conclusions will not chime well with your position or that of the WSJ article. All that article is doing is grandstanding to stake out the rights ground before it eats humble pie.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

You are so disingenuous. You're the one touting that 30 years are needed for any meaningful trend. Well, I selected several 30 year periods and you call it straw man. You are full of it. Long term is at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of years and long term disproves AGW. That was Carter's point.

150 years is the period of AGW so looking at a 1000yrs cannot disprove it since it falls outside of the period of influence. The critically important fact which you and Carter fail to explain is what is causing the climate to change. No change comes without a cause and for such a dramatic upturn of temperatures out of the blue to happen it needs a strong explanation. Simply repeating the tired mantra of "Natural cycles" without identifying what they are simply doesn't cut it. Its invoking magical thinking - invoking the Gods.

Every single climate change event has an identifiable cause.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Advance copies of the new IPCC report reveal.....they were wrong.

They decided there is no reason to deny the obvious.

The IPCC left out other variables that just got in the way of their agenda.

Agenda : Fear mongering

Ice extent is an empirical measurement - I really don't understand where you get the notion that it is a model. You take a satellite photograph and use a measuring instrument (a computer in this case) to accurately measure the ice extent. Where does the model come in ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Ice extent is an empirical measurement - I really don't understand where you get the notion that it is a model. You take a satellite photograph and use a measuring instrument (a computer in this case) to accurately measure the ice extent. Where does the model come in ?

Br Cornelius

That should go over really well with the captains of those yachts that traveled all the way up there only to run into a Titanic Nightmare.

Tell the captains "Ice is an empirical measurement!"

Response from the captains "You told us the ice would be gone. It has increased 60%."

You have zero credibility.

BTW, the Earth has been warming and cooling for millions and millions of years.

When the population of the Earth was - zero - it was warming and cooling.

Stop blaming evil mankind and stop ignoring the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

Isn't there a carbon tax in Australia? I'm surprised we're not really seeing much of an uproar down under as a result of the new findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

That should go over really well with the captains of those yachts that traveled all the way up there only to run into a Titanic Nightmare.

Tell the captains "Ice is an empirical measurement!"

Response from the captains "You told us the ice would be gone. It has increased 60%."

You have zero credibility.

BTW, the Earth has been warming and cooling for millions and millions of years.

When the population of the Earth was - zero - it was warming and cooling.

Stop blaming evil mankind and stop ignoring the sun.

A captain would have to be fairly dumb to not look at the sat images before preparing such a voyage :yes:

Remember that almost all experts in the field predicted a rebound from the record low of last year - so any sailor had the information to avoid that Titanic moment :rofl:

O - its those dang scientists who produce those images and made those predictions so they can't be trusted to tell the truth :w00t:

Your a funny guy and I think you should look in the mirror to see the incredible :devil:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

A captain would have to be fairly dumb to not look at the sat images before preparing such a voyage :yes:

Remember that almost all experts in the field predicted a rebound from the record low of last year - so any sailor had the information to avoid that Titanic moment :rofl:

O - its those dang scientists who produce those images and made those predictions so they can't be trusted to tell the truth :w00t:

Your a funny guy and I think you should look in the mirror to see the incredible :devil:

Br Cornelius

Stop ignoring the sun.

Mankind is innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Stop ignoring the sun.

Mankind is innocent.

Show me the correlation. It fails you know - no tracking between the sun and temperatures since the 1970's and only weak tracking before that.

Fail.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.