Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mustang84

More evidence why global warming hysteria is BS

101 posts in this topic

Some bits:

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

Posted Image

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

Lots more technical info at the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

PDF of the graph analysis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2...MFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

I don't doubt that or deny that the earth is warming, but I don't understand why science is being skewed to suit political and social agendas...what is the ulterior motive? That's why I added the "hysteria" to the title. I find it disturbing that the UN is cherry-picking what it wants to display and portraying it as undisputed scientific fact. And the guy revealing these findings isn't just some hack...he was the UK's climate adviser under Margaret Thatcher.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that or deny that the earth is warming, but I don't understand why science is being skewed to suit political and social agendas...what is the ulterior motive? That's why I added the "hysteria" to the title. I find it disturbing that the UN is cherry-picking what it wants to display and portraying it as undisputed scientific fact. And the guy revealing these findings isn't just some hack...he was the UK's climate adviser under Margaret Thatcher.

....With his own agenda/book/image to burnish and publicize.

I'm fairly certain the science is there, even if the presentation of that science is exaggerated to make a point. Almost every government on the planet, most experts and that little outfit known as the Nobel Prize guys all pretty much agree.

Maybe people are 'hysterical' about it because it's potentially that serious an issue?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one source is wrong at the U.N..... oh pinch me Virginia! It cannot be!

There is plenty of other evidence available.

REGARDLESS.... there is no reason to accept excess pollution and excess waste of fuel. If we were all driving Chevy Volt variants and all had wind/solar/hydro powered homes and suddenly the earth decides it's going to go into a cooling spell, you won't see calls for people to remove their catalytic converters to try and warm the place up a bit. Pollution is bad by definition and we should make every attempt possible to reduce it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

I completely agree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

+1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you exaggerate science, you invalidate yourself as a scientist. The very nature of a 'scientist' is to find the truth and relay the facts- how am I supposed to take the issue seriously when that's not entirely what's happening? Those that twist the issue due to lobbying, political pressure, personal agendas or whatever undermine their own cause.

+2

It is a scientific fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Most of those cycles have occurred before human habitation, or while humans were just a small dot on the planet.

I personally believe that we need to take better care of the earth and reduce our pollution footprint, but "Global Warming" is political not scientific. It's being used by those seeking a world government, bigger governments and/or their own 15 minutes of fame. It's being used by those seeking government grants and and those seeking trophies (Noble Prizes) while leaving huge carbon footprints in their own wake.

There are many untruths in the movie "Inconvenient Truth". It's just inconvenient for the "Global Warming" hustlers to find them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to greenhouse gases, and the results of which are increased temperature due to heat not being able to escape. Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

DF:

Brotha you need to re-read M84's first post.

The scientists are MAKING UP & WILLFULLY TAMPERING with data!

How can you trust ANYTHING you read knowing that?

Let's think for a second... remember that period of time in the late

19th century known as the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION? Ever see a

painting of London, England from that era? Even towns here in our

own state of Massachusetts like Lawrence, Lowell, Worcester,

Haverhill, Framingham, Gardner, Fitchburg, and the list goes on &

on... every one of thise cities spewing millions of tons of CO2

from the factories. Look around right in YOUR backyard, only a

few of those smokestacks remain in Lawrence but in their hey-day

they spewed out nast, black soot day and night....

WHERE'S the spike on the charts from that? <_<

I have been saying this all along. Time to go throw some super

unleaded, lead substitute and a half-pint of Marvells' Mystery Oil

in the B-59 and go contributre to the stifling of an ice age.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look around right in YOUR backyard, only a

few of those smokestacks remain in Lawrence but in their hey-day

they spewed out nast, black soot day and night....

WHERE'S the spike on the charts from that? <_<

The spike is possibly what's happening now... the earth has a lot of 'thermal inertia' - that is, there is a lot of 'stuff', mostly water, on the earth to heat up before the air is going to get hotter. Plus it takes a while for the pollution to find its way to the atmosphere, a while for the atmosphere to be affected, a while for the sun's rays to start warming...

Asking why the industrial revolution didn't cause a heat spike is a bit like cranking the heat in your house and asking immediately, "Why is it still cold in here?".

I'm not saying that we are or aren't having an effect on the earth. I'm just saying that if we are, the effect will not be immediate.

Edited by the_yellow_dart
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

:yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YD:

Dude, but what about { cue James Earl Jones voice-over } GLOBAL DARKENING!?!?!?!

Balthazar said it all.

Science has been whored out by the politicians just like our economy.

...but you do get my point, right?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... it's YET another theory.

I personally do not believe that it takes over a century for THAT much thermal energy to materialize.

But then again I'm not an expert... if I was I'd skew the evidence to prove what I want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight. If global warming isn't true... then it's ok to pollute without regard for air quality?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... it's YET another theory.

I personally do not believe that it takes over a century for THAT much thermal energy to materialize.

But then again I'm not an expert... if I was I'd skew the evidence to prove what I want.

There you have it folks, the Global Warming debate has been settled by a 27 year old Car Salesman/Accountant from Massachusetts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it folks, the Global Warming debate has been settled by a 27 year old Car Salesman/Accountant from Massachusetts.

Thank you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldsmoboi:

I never said I had all the solutions but my point is NO ONE does.

But it seems you're fine with this kind of deception on the part of people who call themselves "scientists"

You guys need to open your eyes. It's all about $$$.

Just like the war, the fuel crisis of 1974, the obsolecense/existance of the EPA...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldsmoboi:

I never said I had all the solutions but my point is NO ONE does.

But it seems you're fine with this kind of deception on the part of people who call themselves "scientists"

You guys need to open your eyes. It's all about $$$.

Just like the war, the fuel crisis of 1974, the obsolecense/existance of the EPA...

Quite honestly I don't care if we are warming or cooling or staying the same. I think we should make every effort to restrict the amount of pollution we create.

Hypothetical - If we were entering a period of cooling, would you advocate for people to remove the catalytic converters from their PZLEV Focuses?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical - If we were entering a period of cooling, would you advocate for people to remove the catalytic converters from their PZLEV Focuses?

That's a loaded question... perhaps. It's more practical than buying a Prius or

someone telling me to reduce my CO2 emissions by trading in my gas guzzler

for an economy car. It's a free country, if I want to drive a damn Hummer H1

and I can afford the gas it's MY right. This is NOT Communist Russia, yet.

Am I a proponent of recycling, energy saving bulbs, alternative fuels etc.? YES.

Edited by Sixty8panther
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a loaded question... perhaps. It's more practical than buying a Prius or

someone telling me to reduce my CO2 emissions by trading in my gas guzzler

for an economy car. It's a free country, if I want to drive a damn Hummer H1

and I can afford the gas it's MY right. This is NOT Communist Russia, yet.

Am I a proponent of recycling, energy saving bulbs, alternative fuels etc.? YES.

I"m all for you buying whatever car you want, but you should pay closer to the actual cost of the damage you do. I think that people should be discouraged financially from buying fuel inefficient vehicles. You want a Rolls Royce Phantom? Fine, but you need to pay a yearly pollution/gas guzzler tax that will go to more/better public transportation and tax credits for ZEV, PZEV, and alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, rather than miles per gallon, vehicles should be rated by pollutants per 100 miles. This will instantly change the focus from fuel efficiency to vehicle cleanliness. My Avalanche might get worse fuel mileage than your Datsun, but I can guar-enn-tee that the Avalanche is a cleaner burning vehicle.

Buy whatever you want, just be prepared to pay for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look no further than Venus to see the Greenhouse Effect.

...because we have a full understanding of the workings of Venus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because we have a full understanding of the workings of Venus.

Most men don't. Then there are those who are Mars experts.

Edited by Oldsmoboi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0