• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming Scam

Ceritus said:
As the Economist recently pointed out, they assume growth rates that are beyond any historical experience, resulting in predictions of a bizarre economic future in which the United States stops growing and developing nations overtake the industrialised world. But that reversal of fortune is, of course, precisely the objective.
Click to expand...

CARBON emissions are escaping into the earth's atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, an international group of scientists has warned.
In 2005, about 7.9 billion tonnes of carbon were released globally, according to figures published yesterday by the CSIRO. Scientist Mike Raupach, who also co-chairs the international Global Carbon Project, was surprised by his research results. "It shows recent efforts globally to reduce emissions have had little impact on emissions growth," he said.
The rate of emissions had grown by about 2.5 per cent each year since 2000, compared with less than 1 per cent growth each year in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...s-shock-experts/2006/11/27/1164476136557.html
 
I found this today and thought the true believers and so called deniers would be interested.





David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.





"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."



Have at it believers. First you will try and denigrate the author and secondly you will try and back up your beliefs without proof. A consensus is not proof. Call me a denier if you will. Here are some more interesting 'facts'. (I'll put it that way since the believers usually do)



newsbyus.com/more.php?id=6261_0_1_0_M

If the link is deleted or does not work just put British wine grapes in any search engine.
 
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.pdf

With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. There is 20 clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, but no strong “Medieval Warm Period” [MWP] (though the second warmest century in the Northern Hemisphere reconstruction is the 11th).

[...]

Despite much discussion (e.g. Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Bradley et al., 2003), there is 15 no clear quantitative understanding of what is meant by the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP). Crowley and Lowery (2000) [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions of the 11th century temperature shown in Fig. 1 estimate it to have been warmer than most of the past millennium. However, a question of more practical importance is not whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable warmth to the late 20th century.
MBH1999 concluded, with 95% confidence, that this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question using 15 proxy records (7 annually resolved, 3 with decadal scale variability and 5 with only centennial temporal resolution). Low-resolution (decadal and centennial) series were not used in the studies cited above, and 3 of the high-resolution series used by CL2000 are also new.
They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy series: it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous.
Click to expand...
 
Deathshead said:
"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
Click to expand...

So he does in fact say that global warming is happening. The fact that some reporters will pick their statements to support thir own biases, or just to sell a story, should come as no surprise to anyone that has ever seen any newspapers, TV or the internet.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
Click to expand...

Obviously I don't know the details, but I suspect that this was either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted. The medieval warm period is known to be fairly local, although there is debate over whether it occured over the whole northern hemisphere, the North Atlantic or just Europe. A statement about "needing to get rid of it" clearly means that a global picture is needed, rather than just a local view that includes the MWP due to most historical data being available from this area. In fact, it appears that the global average temperature may not have changed at all during the MWP, implying that the southern hemisphere actually cooled rather than just staying the same as was previously expected.

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
Click to expand...

Since the hockey stick applies to the world, local phenomenon would not appear. His claim that the MWP was global is simply a lie. On the other hand, most hockey stick reconstructions do show the MWP as a blip in the graph, so this work did not overturn anything at all, it simply gave some indication of how much faster the temperature is rising now than it has on average in the past. The main difference between the MWP and now is that there is strong evidence that global currents were significantly changed, leading to a large climate shift, whereas there is no change of the same magnitude happening now, so a different explanation is required.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."
Click to expand...

Sensationalism sells. No-one has ever claimed that the media is unbiased. The very fact that he is trying to imply that scientists are wrong based on what newspapers say says a lot about the quality of argument. This makes no more sense than saying that the media mislead us about Iraq, and therefore scientists are wrong about global warming.

Have at it believers. First you will try and denigrate the author and secondly you will try and back up your beliefs without proof. A consensus is not proof. Call me a denier if you will. Here are some more interesting 'facts'. (I'll put it that way since the believers usually do)
Click to expand...

A concensus may not be proof, but a concensus between almost all the leading scientists in an area is a much better proof than simply stating that they are wrong. Assuming you are denying global warming, do you have a good reason we should not call you a denier? Seems a fairly good description to me.
 
Deathshead said:
I found this today and thought the true believers and so called deniers would be interested.
Click to expand...

Hey, c'mon guys, let's cut Deathshead some slack here. At least he's making progress by cherry-picking from the ranks of actual scientists instead of just quoting Michael Crichton. That the guy he picks seems after a bit of research to be a paranoid with a persecution complex shouldn't matter.

But in the future, Deathshead, why not try formulating actual arguments from your sources, instead of just cutting and pasting? You might have a little more success. And remember, just 'cuz he's a scientist doesn't make him right. Fred Hoyle stubbornly stuck to his steady state theory until his deathbed. And the universe stubbornly keeps expanding.
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
Assuming you are denying global warming, do you have a good reason we should not call you a denier? Seems a fairly good description to me.
Click to expand...

And so 'skeptic' has become 'denier.' An ugly new turn in the GW debate.
Who are the heretics and who are the inquisitors?


Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.
Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.




http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
 
An unnamed journalist? Has she framed the legislation and had it approved by parliament?

For those who don't live in Austlralia, some context might help to see why some people are starting to talk of such desperation. The major capital cities are all experiencing severe water shortages due to unprecedented drought. Farm production has plummeted. Bush fires are burning with unprecedented danger, because the forest and land is so dry, it is going up in flames even on relatively mild days. Melbourne has experienced unprecedented smoke pollution due to the fires. Stream flows to the damns for the cities are at unprecedented lows.
 
What do you think is considered more woo? Claiming we are effecting the global climate, or claiming that we are not? Or claiming the climate is not changing?
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
What is more woo is claiming something in contradiction of the science.
Click to expand...

You mean the science of the current time. Science has been proven wrong many, many times. Was it woo when some people said the world was NOT flat? Was it woo when it was said the Earth is not the center of the universe? Was it woo when it was said that spontaneous generation was crap?

Contradicting the accepted science is necessary for the advancement of science. It is not woo
 
stocks said:
If you don't denounce the use of the word 'denier' than you are part of the rabble that shouts down your opponent.
Click to expand...

A 'denier' is "one who denies (the truth of something)", I would be a tooth fairy denier. If you deny that global warming is happening, you are a global warming denier. If you don't like the term, tough, LIGAF.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
You mean the science of the current time. Science has been proven wrong many, many times. Was it woo when some people said the world was NOT flat? Was it woo when it was said the Earth is not the center of the universe? Was it woo when it was said that spontaneous generation was crap?
Click to expand...

Was it woo when Rhine found 20% of people have ESP? Was it woo when Puthoff and Targ found that Uri Geller had clairvoyant powers? Was it woo when Duane Gish claimed Triceratops had no ancestral forms? Was it woo when Troy Hurtubise claimed his 'angel light' could allow you to see through solid matter?

Contradicting the accepted science is necessary for the advancement of science. It is not woo
Click to expand...

Not true. You don't just say "That's wrong!" and science advances. You provide evidence that is not consistent with the current theory, or you provide another theory that is consistent with the current evidence but simpler, or more elegant, or more powerful, or simply a testable alternative.
 
DeviousB said:
A 'denier' is "one who denies (the truth of something)", I would be a tooth fairy denier. If you deny that global warming is happening, you are a global warming denier. If you don't like the term, tough, LIGAF.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in your thoughts on this thread as it seems very relevant to the sort of back and forth on this thread.

Show thread

I posted it, but it seemed to be ignored
 
Please Woo! Can't I keep burning everything in sight!

Cmon kids, I'm getting real tired of the Oil company "No global warming propaganda"! use your heads (that the Good Creator, or Woo or You (yourself), or whatever you like to call him/her)! gave you. It's becoming VERY OBVIOUSLY APPARENT that we ignorant little apes (that have ran very largely rampant with technology, automation and "progress" & little wisdom) are destroying almost everthing (and ourselves) on the planet and heating it up. Just Look around! Who goes out and says, "Hey, I just spent all that I worked for to tear up all this hot cement, put the stream, trees, plants, animals etc back the way they have been for 100's of millions of years before I "got" here (or became aware I was here).

No, us APES in our assumed infinite knowledge and bank roll (of mechanization) continue to Cut, Dig, burn, pollute , overpopulate and kill. Ohh, and by the way all that burning (of oil etc... etc..) and destruction of balanced natural habitat produces HEAT! Go look at what major cities in arizona are doing to combat the heat problems! That will convince you if your calculator will not.

If anyone even needs to EVEN ask if global warming is real then they should first> 1. Take a basic thermodynamics class. 2. Look at how many humans (animal apes) are on the planet DESTROYING IT. 3. Do some basic math. 4. If 1-3 does not seem to work, find a reasonably intelligent physics major and have them walk you through 1-3 and explain earth systems and heat pumps to you.

Does woo teach Balance? we need to ALL TAKE THAT WOO COURSE!

lh
 
Woo, Is moma earth gonna kick our butts SOON?

stocks said:
And so 'skeptic' has become 'denier.' An ugly new turn in the GW debate.
Who are the heretics and who are the inquisitors?


Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.
Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.




http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
Click to expand...

stocks,

very well put!

as you may well know, the reason the USA and its mostly crooked greedy politicians are doing / teaching this denial game is because The UsA IS GREEDY and IS or was the worst offender (most all being considered) (and In denial) about the oil/energy over use issue. Our culture of over advertizement, waste, greed, over government spending and over consumption perpetuate the evil. If we really want to make a difference:

1. We all need to stop working for (taking monies from) or buying or consuming products or associationg with people that "exhude" this denial of oil damage and overconsumption/waste/inefficiency/greed. They are all over our homes (the destructive products) and in our communities (the denial people)! (or living in gated ones)!
2. Address/Agree to Population control!
3. Make "green LAws" (like you mentioned above). and start hanging the major violators.

In the mean time I rant (as I have unpopularly for years before it was popular) about the overconsumption, (Give people who overconsume some grief and encourage them to do the right thing> conserve instead) I have a small car and motorcycle I try to avoid using. Turn down or turn OFF THE AC and heat. (walk more) and I recycle almost everything and purchase products that encourage recycleing and quality and longevity in my environment.

If we purchase/recycle properly we should only have bio/food and plant waste in our garbage cans (in fACT MINE IS USUALLY NEAR EMPTY).


I have just resigned myself to the fact that the planet is gonna kick our pridefull, ignorant lil apes asses very soon!

Thank GOD! (the other species might get a little break for a while)!

lh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom