COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Nobel Prize (for propaganda)

So...

There are those scientist who don't believe the actual data and are still saying the model data is right? :eek:
 


Bass-ackwards
(as only climate "science" does it)



clip_image0044.png





​
 



“There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change.”

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.
​



​
 
“There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change.”

-Matt Ridley, Ph.D.


I thought it was supposed to do that.
To reverse the damage caused by mankind's stupidity.
:)
 


Media reporting on climate is disgraceful.



“Here’s what you also won’t learn from most climate reporting: Climate models that predict significant warming presume natural feedbacks that magnify the impact of human-released carbon dioxide by 100% to 400%. Models that presume no dominant feedbacks see warming of only about one degree Celsius over the entire course of a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Who knows what future scientific advances will reveal, but models that assume minimal feedback are more consistent with the warming seen so far—and remember, we’ve been burning coal for 200 years and accumulating temperature records for longer than that.
-Holman Jenkins
​



​
 

...and you didn't think activists are attempting to hijack climate "science" in an effort to attain their political objectives ??


A wikileaked email to John Podesta asking him to use his position to influence media reporting:



podesta-email-pressure-tv-networks.jpg






When all else fails and the facts aren't cooperating—
just make them up.
​
​



This kind of crap represents a disgusting politicization and abuse of science.


​
 
Climate change.

Is the climate changing? Of course it's changing. It's been changing ever since the last ice age. If it hadn't, the ice age would still be here. It's not.

Can man do anything about climate change? Of course not. It's going to happen not matter what man does.

So... bend on over and kiss your ass good-bye.
 


No wonder the dolts think global temperatures are rising. The true believers all live in the same places and
they are all being fooled by the Urban Heat Island effect. It's classic groupthink/bubble thinking.



30563444636_edd49636b5_c.jpg




​
 



...On November 19, 2009, an internal whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom)... these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world.

These e-mails were a subset of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. Those involved developed surface temperature data sets, promoted the “Hockey Stick” curve, and wrote or edited the core of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports to that time.

The incident was branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole. These e-mails provide an insight into practices that fall somewhere between bad science and fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.

Some of the more salient quotations follow:


Man-Made Warming Controversy


“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
​
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.​

“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003​

“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
​
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
​
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.
​



Manipulating Temperature Data

“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999.
​

“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”
—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006.
​
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….”
—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008.
​
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011.​


Data Suppression; Freedom of Information (FOI) Avoidance


“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.​

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005.
​
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008.
​
“You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, on avoiding Freedom of Information requirements, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 12, 2009.​

​


Subverting the Peer-Review Process


“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.​

​


____________

“Climategate was a turning point,” Professor Judith Curry remembered, where “pronouncements from the IPCC were no longer sufficient.”



​
 


Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information


...this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.
-Eric Worrall
​




________________________
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/energy-department-refuses-president-elect-trump-request-for-information/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...resident-elect-trump-request-for-information/
​
 



The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare


...To the extent that the global warming movement has anything to do with "science," EPA is supposedly where that science is vetted and approved on behalf of the public before being turned into policy. In fact, under Obama, EPA's principal role on the "science" has been to prevent and stifle any debate or challenge to global warming orthodoxy. For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA's authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond. In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy. Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money. Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up. And in case you might think that the science on this issue is "settled," so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists. A couple of excerpts:

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ' . . .

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’​

Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering for the last eight years. Questions like: Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted? How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated? What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago? Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough any more. What now?...​




http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/13/some-predictions-for-the-future-in-the-climate-game





​
 
Why haven't this rediculous thread been moved to the politics board? It's nearly a decade of stupidity by now.
 
tomlitilia said:
Why haven't this rediculous thread been moved to the politics board? It's nearly a decade of stupidity by now.
Click to expand...

Because this isn't a political thread, it's a religious thread. On one side you have your fanatics, while on the other side you have your heretics. :devil:
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Because this isn't a political thread, it's a religious thread. On one side you have your fanatics, while on the other side you have your heretics. :devil:
Click to expand...


Well, given how the views on climate change is split along party lines, it seems very much like politics to me. If it isn't politics, it should be a scientific discussion. And that discussion is best held by scientists. You know, with data, statistics, models and peer review -- all stuff that makes it something other than simple opionions, uninformed by other unqualified opinions on internet forums. CC certainly got nothing to do with writing porn.
 
tomlitilia said:
Well, given how the views on climate change is split along party lines, it seems very much like politics to me. If it isn't politics, it should be a scientific discussion. And that discussion is best held by scientists. You know, with data, statistics, models and peer review -- all stuff that makes it something other than simple opionions, uninformed by other unqualified opinions on internet forums. CC certainly got nothing to do with writing porn.
Click to expand...

Let me know who put the gun to your head and made you click on this thread. I firmly believe you have the right not to click on threads you don't like or don't want to read.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Let me know who put the gun to your head and made you click on this thread. I firmly believe you have the right not to click on threads you don't like or don't want to read.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against its existence. I'm just saying it doesn't belong in AH. I am proposing that it's political, thus making it suitable for the politics forum. Alternatively, GB in case this thread actually lacks a political angle.
 
tomlitilia said:
Why haven't this rediculous thread been moved to the politics board? It's nearly a decade of stupidity by now.
Click to expand...

I do hope you are not suggesting that all this evidence is so-much junk and climate change is to be ignored ?
It's science and not politics; the politics comes later - mixed with the rich buffoons who do not see why we should be a bit more careful what we pitch into the atmosphere or the sea.
 
tomlitilia said:
I'm not arguing against its existence. I'm just saying it doesn't belong in AH. I am proposing that it's political, thus making it suitable for the politics forum. Alternatively, GB in case this thread actually lacks a political angle.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you a relative noob say so? As you've said in your first post, it's been around almost a decade. If the powers that be haven't moved it in all that time, what makes you think your complaint will get it moved?

Another whiner who wants it his way or the highway. :rolleyes:
 
Handley_Page said:
I do hope you are not suggesting that all this evidence is so-much junk and climate change is to be ignored ?
It's science and not politics; the politics comes later - mixed with the rich buffoons who do not see why we should be a bit more careful what we pitch into the atmosphere or the sea.
Click to expand...

No, I am (not at all) suggesting that. Quite the opposite. It is as you say a scientific issue, and not something that should be debated by laymen. But it's a politicized issue, and this is just another post-truth thread along those lines. So if someone thinks it's dignifying to debate CC on a web page for porn writing, the politics forum seems more appropriate. Or GB.
 
AH_Mod said:
Threads or posts about elections, candidates, elected officials, political parties, or specific legislation will be moved to the political forum.
Click to expand...

This thread does not meet any of those criteria.
 
What goes undiscussed in this is that the acidification of the oceans will kill us all before it gets too hot. Melting glaciers will hopefully dilute the acid a bit so some sea life remains for humans to fight over.
 
JackLuis said:
What goes undiscussed in this is that the acidification of the oceans will kill us all before it gets too hot. Melting glaciers will hopefully dilute the acid a bit so some sea life remains for humans to fight over.
Click to expand...

Christ you're a gullible fool. That's just plain stupid. Do some frickin' homework, learn some chemistry and do some research before shooting your dumbass mouth off.


​
 


How To Tell Who's Lying To You (Climate Science Edition)
by Francis Menton
"The Manhattan Contrarian"

Scott Adams -- known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series -- has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day. His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion. Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of "climate science," with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side. Now, suppose you come to this debate with no scientific expertise and no ax to grind for either side. The debate has very significant public policy implications, and understanding it is important to being an informed voter. How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view? Adams comments:

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one. If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you. This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial. The method is this: look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side. If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem. And rightfully so.

I'll give just a few examples of this phenomenon relevant to the climate change issue...



Read the rest here:

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

​



​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
125
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
V
There's a Little Black Spot on the Sun Today [remix]
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
965
phrodeau
phrodeau
SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
Sean Renaud
Is there anything truly crazy most of the Left at least pretends to believe?
2
Replies
37
Views
318
Sean Renaud
Sean Renaud
Rightguide
Alleged Climate Change
3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
1K
Sean Renaud
Sean Renaud
Back
Top