Jump to content

The global warming scam unravels


Recommended Posts

Note: No, this does not mean that we should stop investigating alternative energy and sustainable design, but it's about time these guys were exposed for the frauds that they are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.....;/16/do1610.xml

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More than being worried about climate change, I think we should be worried about the loss of wildlife habitat and rainforests.

Interesting read, though.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone just push Al Gore off a cliff and into obscurity already?

Let's get it over with... honestly.

I'm sure a few leftist pu$%ies & anti-gun-Nazis would cry but most

of us would be happy if the world forgot all about him and he live out

his life in obscurity & died as the pathetic, loser hypocrite that he is.

Edited by Sixty8panther
Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of wildlife, what happened to all the honeybees? My Dad did beekeeping as a side hobby in the '70s-80s...most are gone from Ohio from what I've read.

Colony collapse has been in the news for the last couple of years. I'm sure its just another left-wing conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where there is a real crisis is in scientific objectivity.

For far too many scientists politics have become more important than the truth.

Just like senators.

And the media.

These times are best summed up by one word: Bull$h!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of wildlife, what happened to all the honeybees? My Dad did beekeeping as a side hobby in the '70s-80s...most are gone from Ohio from what I've read.

Honey bees are not wildlife—they are domesticated insects. No-one knows what's going on, but I suspect inbreeding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honey bees are not wildlife—they are domesticated insects. No-one knows what's going on, but I suspect inbreeding.

Actually, they are both.

The wild populations have been devastated by a mite that infects their breathing apparatus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science puts forth theories in order to find the truth. Its not political. Its the right wing religious zealots in this country that have to make everything political. With that being said, I would like to point out that The Daily Telegraph is one of the most conservative news organizations in the UK.

The religious right screams "the world is flat" and then argue that some scientific study found a perfectly flat part of the world someplace.

The consequences of global warming include more erratic weather such as terrible snowstorms, huge hurricanes, etc. Its not just about the earth getting hot. This article is a fluff piece at best. It just serves to confuse the feeble minded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Science puts forth theories in order to find the truth. Its not political. Its the right wing religious zealots in this country that have to make everything political. With that being said, I would like to point out that The Daily Telegraph is one of the most conservative news organizations in the UK.

The religious right screams "the world is flat" and then argue that some scientific study found a perfectly flat part of the world someplace.

The consequences of global warming include more erratic weather such as terrible snowstorms, huge hurricanes, etc. Its not just about the earth getting hot. This article is a fluff piece at best. It just serves to confuse the feeble minded.

Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Knowing what I know, and knowing what the climate has become over the past 100 years, the trends of the polar ice caps, the issues with water currants along the Pacific coast leading to decreased seafood harvesting, and the more extreme weather that has occurred...Hello, global warming exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Knowing what I know, and knowing what the climate has become over the past 100 years, the trends of the polar ice caps, the issues with water currants along the Pacific coast leading to decreased seafood harvesting, and the more extreme weather that has occurred...Hello, global warming exists.

Yes, something is definitely going on. Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years has had a negative impact on the environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that human pollution shouldn't be reduced, or that alternative energy sources shouldn't be used, but the last time I checked, the Earth goes through NATURAL heating and cooling cycles...it's just what it does...for example...Wyoming used to be a prehistoric sea...that's why there are fossilized sharks teeth everywhere, it also used to be a thriving jungle full of plants and animals...hence so much coal...but, it was also covered in huge masses of ice...all of this BEFORE automobiles, coalfired power plants, etc...we should just learn to deal with the fact that Earth has many weather patterns and cycles, and then do our best to minimize the impact we do have on it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, something is definitely going on. Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years has had a negative impact on the environment.

Clearly. You can feel it when you breathe, or even when you're just outside and your eyes burn. That isn't good. The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that human pollution shouldn't be reduced, or that alternative energy sources shouldn't be used, but the last time I checked, the Earth goes through NATURAL heating and cooling cycles...it's just what it does...for example...Wyoming used to be a prehistoric sea...that's why there are fossilized sharks teeth everywhere, it also used to be a thriving jungle full of plants and animals...hence so much coal...but, it was also covered in huge masses of ice...all of this BEFORE automobiles, coalfired power plants, etc...we should just learn to deal with the fact that Earth has many weather patterns and cycles, and then do our best to minimize the impact we do have on it...

But there's nothing natural about all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere.

Did you know that the ozone layer is a lot less effective than it used to be (excluding the hole)? Baby boomers had much less UV intensity back in the 50s and 60s. Are you going to tell me that more intense global UV light exposure won't have any climatic effects? It isn't natural.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years "<<

By "or so", do you mean instead 100 years? I'm not aware of any measureable human contribution to atmospheric contaminants in the 1800s, esp 1800-1850.

>>"The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week."<<

WTH does wildfire smoke have to do with "global warming" ?

>>"But there's nothing natural about all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere."<<

And the core question remains and will remain : what is the effect and how can it be measured independantly from the Earth's natural cycles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years "<<

By "or so", do you mean instead 100 years? I'm not aware of any measureable human contribution to atmospheric contaminants in the 1800s, esp 1800-1850.

I presume you have heard of the 'Industrial Revolution'.... lots of coal-fired plants polluting in the 19th century..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Fact is, scientists still have a pretty feeble understanding of how the earth works, but they want to pretend they do. That's a pretty crappy foundation for making major political decisions. I personally agree with the thought that it's just better to not pollute as much, but we still really don't know to what extent our pollution has on the environment. It may be very noticable... or it may not. We don't know, because we have a feeble understanding of how the earth works. The earth is often pretty resilient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Sorry about the polarizing language. Its just when I read that global warming is a scam it really boils my blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about the polarizing language. Its just when I read that global warming is a scam it really boils my blood.

and it boils my blood when people are truly convinced that it's gospel truth and we're all gonna die if everyone doesn't start riding bicycles everywhere. We just don't know what's going on well enough yet to predict with any real accuracy what's going to happen, or understand to what degree our pollution affects global temperatures. It is certainly worth studying, but some politicians have grabbed ahold of it and are squeezing every last drop of fear they can out of it to push their agendas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, wildfires would probably block as much sunlight (lowering temperatures) as it would create CO2 (raising temperatures.) Volcanoes spew a lot of nasty CO2 but usually result in a net cooling of Earth's temperatures.

As to the remarks about human activity, if my memory serves me correctly, the greater London, England area had a lot of pollution problems before 1850. The amount of coal that city was burning in and around it would have put out more pollutants (and CO2) than the city probably emits today. The affect to the planet may have been negligible, but certainly the seeds of man's impact on Mother Earth were sewn in the first half of the 19th Century. By the end of the 19th Century, many European cities (and some American) were total cesspools of filth and pollution.

I have serious doubts about this Global warming thing. There is just too much we don't know. Observing the smog over L.A. from Malibu last year, common sense dictates humans are having some sort of impact, but climatologists are sending out mixed signals as to what, exactly, is happening and why.

(By the by, Montana and Saskatchewan being at the bottom of the ocean has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with plate tectonics.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I ask 'Biz is that we continue research on a peer reviewed scientific basis with an open mind.

If global warming is real, then great we change the way we live and get on with it.

If Global warming is not real, well, then, there is a lot we don't know about the earth and we are still learning.

If global warming is real and it is as bad as some people say that it is you and your Boyfriend can tan under a palm tree in toronto in December.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week."<<

WTH does wildfire smoke have to do with "global warming" ?

Well, what do you think? Burning forests, sparked by humans in the vast majority of cases (Tea fire was caused by a smoldering campfire that was not properly extinguished), put a &#036;h&#33; ton of carbon in the air, just like wood burning, volcanic eruptions, coal-powered factories, and any other method of combustion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have serious doubts about this Global warming thing. There is just too much we don't know. Observing the smog over L.A. from Malibu last year, common sense dictates humans are having some sort of impact, but climatologists are sending out mixed signals as to what, exactly, is happening and why.

This is a very valid point. The question, though, is more of an issue with quantifying effects than the existence of effects.

What we know: the earth's climate has been increasing gradually over the past millenia; we are, geologically speaking, still leaving an ice age. That said, corresponding with the industrial revolution, the average annual increase in global temperatures has been escalating at a faster rate.

The ozone layer is earth's natural defense against increased UV radiation, which causes warming. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases as increased dramatically, leading to massive ozone depletion.

Since legislation in the 1970s and the banning of the use of many CFCs and aerosol products in the 1980s, the ozone hole has begun to shrink. Logically, there is a relationship between the hypothesis that CFCs and other pollutants may have had a deleterious effect on the ozone layer, to legislation being enacted to combat this, and then a subsequent reversal of the deterioration of the ozone layer. With China's (and SE Asia in general) industrialization in the last decade, though, this may no longer be the case. Jury's still out.

We may not yet understand the exact mechanics of what is occurring, but scientists do see the relationships between some human activity, and some climate effects. It's kinda like hurricanes: we know a lot about hurricanes...what causes them, what feeds them, and what kind of damage they inflict. But we still don't quite understand how they move. We cannot yet predict with any certainty where and when they shift direction, or where they make landfall. We don't even know exactly when they will gain or lose strength. But we still know, despite that, that hurricanes exist, and what their effects are on the territory they pass through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All I ask 'Biz is that we continue research on a peer reviewed scientific basis with an open mind.

If global warming is real, then great we change the way we live and get on with it.

If Global warming is not real, well, then, there is a lot we don't know about the earth and we are still learning.

If global warming is real and it is as bad as some people say that it is you and your Boyfriend can tan under a palm tree in toronto in December.

Chris

That would be nice! Actually, global warming has been good for Ontario. 100 years ago, for the Santa Clause Parade (held last weekend, BTW), Santa originally was pulled on a real sleigh because there usually was enough snow in downtown Toronto to do just that. These days, it is very rare to have any significant snow fall in Toronto before mid-December. In fact, I'd say 7 of the last 10 Christmases have been 'green.' The Great Lakes used to freeze completely over; now even Lake Ontario doesn't.

I do agree with you: even if what we are currently doing is not overly harming the environment, China and India's economic rise will completely destroy the planet. Can you imagine China with the same per capita penetration of gasoline powered cars as North America? Ouch.

Therefore, research needs to continue. Personally, I hope we see quantum-singularity powered cars before I die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this issue is that it has managed to politicize science. To guess at the viewpoint of a given scientist, one only need look at where his funding comes from.

Both sides of the debate are guilty of this.

It is a travesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what do you think? Burning forests, sparked by humans in the vast majority of cases (Tea fire was caused by a smoldering campfire that was not properly extinguished), put a &#036;h&#33; ton of carbon in the air, just like wood burning, volcanic eruptions, coal-powered factories, and any other method of combustion.

But forest fires are stopped by man, something that didn't used to happen. We have had to learn that we need to purposely cause (and control) fires in many areas, because otherwise too much underbrush builds up, resulting in an eventual fire that destroys the trees (see Yellowstone fire in the 80's). So is the overall forest fire level higher today, or 500 years ago? While we may cause fires, we also stop them far before they would end naturally, so if there are 100 yearly fires in the US, but they only burn 1/1000th of the amount of land, pollution from forest fires would actually be reduced.

We have to keep in mind that we tend to over estimate anything we personally observe. If someone lives in the smog filled valleys of california, it may be hard for them to understand that there are 40+ states (and large areas of the rest and their own) that really don't have smog problems. The same thing happens with heat waves and snow storms. Every heat wave, you hear people crying "see! global warming!", and every snow storm you hear others crying "where's global warming now!" Of course some of it is tongue-in-cheek, but there are fanatics that really mean these things, even though no individual heat wave or snow storm means anything about the overall state of the global climate.

Also keep in mind that just because someone can show you a graph with measure A going up and measure B going up, that one causes the other. They may have nothing to do with each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's nothing natural about all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere.

Did you know that the ozone layer is a lot less effective than it used to be (excluding the hole)? Baby boomers had much less UV intensity back in the 50s and 60s. Are you going to tell me that more intense global UV light exposure won't have any climatic effects? It isn't natural.

I absolutely agree with part one of your statement, and part two seems very reasonable, but I just don't think the Earth is as helpless as politicians say it is. I think that we really should research every source of clean energy possible, but that doesn't mean that we are the cause of every 'terrible' thing happening to the environment.

Off subject, and probably as much BS as every global warming exists rant, I actually read an article about how certain "pollutants" actually break down in the atmosphere and become O3 which helps rebuild the ozone layer. Could put an interesting twist on pollution...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also keep in mind that just because someone can show you a graph with measure A going up and measure B going up, that one causes the other. They may have nothing to do with each other.

....but, pirates and global warming are inversely related..i saw a graph!!!! i think the recent happenings are only helping that hypothesis. lol

Edited by loki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we are very lucky that 3/4 of the planet is water because our oceans are great neutralizers: they store heat, they moderate weather, as well as nurturer Life.

Anyone who thinks that science is not political is mistaken. Look at Copernicus. Look at Socrates. There were lots of things thought or said hundreds or thousands of years ago that went unchallenged because the prevailing thought of the day wouldn't accept it.

As a woman I know who is studying biochemistry and evolutionary biology said to me recently,"it's amazing that we are even having these discussions in this day and age."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...