The Global Warming Hoax

beatnic

Its strange how the weather data just keeps getting in the way of their agenda

ArcticIce

NewIPCCreport

phobicsquirrel

pssh, then we need to stop all this anti oil talk and anti gas talk and all this anti coal stuff. I say we stop all production and development of anything that would give us a clean air, water, and land. Least of which we should up the production of fossil fuels because we have to get rich people even richer and with more production means more cancers and other illness's, which really is good; I mean it cuts down on the population. Stupid climate change scientists and green people.

beatnic

Is this you trying to warm your house Squirrel? LOL

Ken_Light

phobicsquirrel:

pssh, then we need to stop all this anti oil talk and anti gas talk and all this anti coal stuff. I say we stop all production and development of anything that would give us a clean air, water, and land. Least of which we should up the production of fossil fuels because we have to get rich people even richer and with more production means more cancers and other illness's, which really is good; I mean it cuts down on the population. Stupid climate change scientists and green people.

No one says we don't want clean air, water, or land. It would also be nice to be free of middle eastern garbage by making our own energy. These are both great reasons to move away from oil and coal. However, global warming is nothing but a liberal/green scare tactic which has unfortunately turned into big business for bad and unethical scientists. It's growing more and more obvious that these people are fudging data and stretching their theories until they break to fit the data they can't fudge. This creates pushback, which tends to be an equal (or greater) and opposite reaction. Because of the pushback, people will ignore good reasons to reduce our dependence on oil and coal and vehemently insist the (equally asinine) thought that oil and coal are just fine and change is not necessary. So we'll swing back and destroy our food, water, and air in the process. I'll still blame the tree-hugging unethical f*ckwits for diverting the conversation from the real issue.

beatnic

In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Gore said that, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now." “If anything,” he said, “our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer… is already too conservative.”

The former vice president also warned that rising temperatures were “a planetary emergency and a threat to the survival of our civilization.”


Talk about rich guys trying to get richer? This guy tops them all.

webmost

Sssshhhhhh!

It's settled science.

perkinke

Ken Light:

phobicsquirrel:

pssh, then we need to stop all this anti oil talk and anti gas talk and all this anti coal stuff. I say we stop all production and development of anything that would give us a clean air, water, and land. Least of which we should up the production of fossil fuels because we have to get rich people even richer and with more production means more cancers and other illness's, which really is good; I mean it cuts down on the population. Stupid climate change scientists and green people.

No one says we don't want clean air, water, or land. It would also be nice to be free of middle eastern garbage by making our own energy. These are both great reasons to move away from oil and coal. However, global warming is nothing but a liberal/green scare tactic which has unfortunately turned into big business for bad and unethical scientists. It's growing more and more obvious that these people are fudging data and stretching their theories until they break to fit the data they can't fudge. This creates pushback, which tends to be an equal (or greater) and opposite reaction. Because of the pushback, people will ignore good reasons to reduce our dependence on oil and coal and vehemently insist the (equally asinine) thought that oil and coal are just fine and change is not necessary. So we'll swing back and destroy our food, water, and air in the process. I'll still blame the tree-hugging unethical f*ckwits for diverting the conversation from the real issue.

this is a good take on it. But this whole issue shows the problems that arise when a scientific issue becomes politicized. You also have to remember that the term "Global Warming" was coined in the 70's coming out of an era with significantly higher pollution than we have now, and most of the models that the politicians and activists use are from that era as well. Most rational scientists, the ones who rarely get quoted because rationality is not in vogue these days, have shifted their models and positions as the data has gotten better and shown the need to shift. Earth's climate has always changed between warm periods and ice ages, we know this. Does man cause these shifts? No. Can we have influenced the climate and altered the timing of the cycles? Sure, it would be equally unreasonable to say we have had no effect as it is to blame it entirely on man. My friends who study this stuff seriously want to find the first person to use "Global Warming" and beat them to death with their own shoes.

beatnic

I love this debate, because it is science. Too bad most people get their science from news organizations.

TimeMag1974

Ken_Light

perkinke:

Ken Light:

phobicsquirrel:

pssh, then we need to stop all this anti oil talk and anti gas talk and all this anti coal stuff. I say we stop all production and development of anything that would give us a clean air, water, and land. Least of which we should up the production of fossil fuels because we have to get rich people even richer and with more production means more cancers and other illness's, which really is good; I mean it cuts down on the population. Stupid climate change scientists and green people.

No one says we don't want clean air, water, or land. It would also be nice to be free of middle eastern garbage by making our own energy. These are both great reasons to move away from oil and coal. However, global warming is nothing but a liberal/green scare tactic which has unfortunately turned into big business for bad and unethical scientists. It's growing more and more obvious that these people are fudging data and stretching their theories until they break to fit the data they can't fudge. This creates pushback, which tends to be an equal (or greater) and opposite reaction. Because of the pushback, people will ignore good reasons to reduce our dependence on oil and coal and vehemently insist the (equally asinine) thought that oil and coal are just fine and change is not necessary. So we'll swing back and destroy our food, water, and air in the process. I'll still blame the tree-hugging unethical f*ckwits for diverting the conversation from the real issue.

this is a good take on it. But this whole issue shows the problems that arise when a scientific issue becomes politicized. You also have to remember that the term "Global Warming" was coined in the 70's coming out of an era with significantly higher pollution than we have now, and most of the models that the politicians and activists use are from that era as well. Most rational scientists, the ones who rarely get quoted because rationality is not in vogue these days, have shifted their models and positions as the data has gotten better and shown the need to shift. Earth's climate has always changed between warm periods and ice ages, we know this. Does man cause these shifts? No. Can we have influenced the climate and altered the timing of the cycles? Sure, it would be equally unreasonable to say we have had no effect as it is to blame it entirely on man. My friends who study this stuff seriously want to find the first person to use "Global Warming" and beat them to death with their own shoes.

"Global Warming" was based, in 'science,' on the "Greenhouse effect," in which a depleted ozone would let in more UV light and heat the world. Two problems: One, the ozone layer doesn't protect us from the part of the UV spectrum that generates heat, it protects it from the part that causes things like sunburn. Two, this model predicts the upper atmosphere would heat faster than the lower. No data has even shown evidence of the upper atmosphere heating.

"More current data" show a drastic rise in temperature. Unfortunately, the data from the "drastic rise" happen when one shifts from estimates of temperature obtained from tree samples to actual thermometer readings. If you stick with the trees, there is no rise. So if you take that and think about it, all the "dramatic rise" shows is that tree temperatures are an underestimate, a drastic one probably. So the old data is garbage and we have nothing to compare the current data to.

The "models" being used are the same ones that try to tell you if it's going to rain 4 days from now. Everyone knows not to trust it 4 days out, but somehow they believe it can predict years and decades out with no problem. That's insanity at it's highest echelon.

catfishbluezz

i remember writing research papers on global cooling and ice age...in the 90's lol. It's amazing what rackets politicians will create.

fla-gypsy

So how much has the average temp increased since actual temp readings were recorded? I seem to recall it was all of .7 degrees over about 200 years or so. Since actual climate shifts take 1,000's of years I think the idea that the Church of Global warming can actually give us realistic or accurate predictions if they wanted to be truthful is highly unlikely.