Climate Change Fraud

Really? Is that why there are increased numbers of sharks in the shallows, giand jelly fish and Squid showing up where they usually dont? And scientists saying it is due to warming oceans? Or the increase in ice bergs floating around the arctic, and currently off the coast of new Zealand? Or maybe the increase in freak weather and floods? Or the increase in plagues?

I have articles that can back all these claims up and are supported by Scientists. I can also post articles showing ExXon Mobile one of the major producers of polution is paying scientists millions of dollars a year to try to discredit this information using false data.

There is no brainwashing. This is the first November in a long time my city has not seen snow in November. Not to mention we have had milder winters for the last 10 years or so.

Articles? Scientists? Back it up with what? Manipulated or incomplete data which conveniently makes their case? You have been duped! They showed you a picture of a lonely polar bear floating on a tiny iceberg, and it tugged at your heart strings! They showed you an iceberg melting, but they didn't show the southern ice shelf 'growing' because that would have countered the visual of the iceberg melting, don't you see? We have been given incomplete information, only the info to support the idea of global warming... and NO, it has not been proven the planet is getting warmer.

You can't let your disdain for Exxon cloud your judgment on this, I know that is easy to do... big oil company... polluting the planet... I get it... but the facts of reality are what they are. Mankind has very little effect on the global climate. The sun and volcanoes have a billion times more to do with it than actions of man.

Now, I am a reasonable person, I can understand the importance of cleaning up our act, not polluting the planet with our garbage, helping to make the place cleaner for future generations... I don't believe we should throw caution to the wind and allow big oil (or anyone) to just pollute away for the sake of the almighty dollar. This is the viewpoint you wish to assign to me, because I won't buy into this insane and ignorant concept of global warming.
 
Let's not get mixed up here. The fact that the planet is warming right now is not really in question; AGW is.

I have come to the conclusion that AGW is impossible to prove. There are too many variables, and too many factors at work.

This whole scandal is an immense drag. It's extremely embarassing, and unfortunately, hurts a lot of people who had nothing to do with it. It also hurts the cause for sensible environmental measures and efforts to transition to domestic, renewable sources of energy more quickly.

WRONG again (at least in the first paragraph). The fact is the planet DID warm up in the 1990's. The FACT is that the trend has flat lined over the past 12 years. We have not had a warmer year than 1998.

I do agree that AGW is impossible to prove. Which is why I (and others) have stated that we should be focusing on reducing fossil fuel consumption, increasing alt/clean energy R&D and reducing pollution in any manner that we can. I know you have come on board with this line of thinking as well.... which shows you are not a complete moron. (Congrats on that by the way)

The scandal shows that when you pump that much money into 'studies' the scientists can be tempted to produce the results that keeps them funded. Regardless of whether they are funded by the government/environmentalists or by big oil.
 
So the FACT that the average global temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels is trumped by the fact that your city didn't get snow in November?

What about 2005? And isn't your start date for assessing trend in global temperatures (1998) rather arbitrary and designed to ignore the long-term trend?

And this:

WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

U.S. government data show the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping, and 2005 was the hottest year recorded.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It has been a while since the superhot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it is not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. Key to that is making sure that 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

What happened within the past 10 years or so is what counts, not the overall average, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis is begun in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
 
What about 2005? And isn't your start date for assessing trend in global temperatures (1998) rather arbitrary and designed to ignore the long-term trend?

And this:




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

MY GOD... not this bullshit again. NO 1998 is NOT an arbitrary start point. IT IS THE PEAK IN TEMPERATURES. It is like a stock chart... if the stock is to set a new HIGH... it has to BREAK the previous high. In 2005, the temperatures (from my recollection) were said to have equaled, but not surpassed, 1998.

When I first began discussing this peak it also happened to be at a point that showed the previous ten years.

My comments do NOT ignore the long term trend. AS I stated, we saw an increase in temperature (this is the portion that recognizes what occurred PRIOR to the flattening of the trend) in the 1990's.

As for other data... If you look at records it shows that 1934 was warmer than 1998 (according to NASA)... so if you really want to look hard at a long term trend, then look at that. Yes, the temperature of the 1990's as a decade was warm relative to other decades in the past 150 years... I am not suggesting it wasn't. What I have stated is that we have NOT seen a continuation of the increases in temperature.

You are smart enough (I think) to comprehend that temperatures of the past several years are NOT higher than 1998 (or 2005).

All of the above does not suggest that we can't or won't see another rise in the future. It simply reflects on the data that we have currently available.

As for the alarmists 'data'... I think that is in serious question at this point.

As for MSNBC... I will go take a look at that now...
 
MY GOD... not this bullshit again. NO 1998 is NOT an arbitrary start point. IT IS THE PEAK IN TEMPERATURES. It is like a stock chart... if the stock is to set a new HIGH... it has to BREAK the previous high. In 2005, the temperatures (from my recollection) were said to have equaled, but not surpassed, 1998.

When I first began discussing this peak it also happened to be at a point that showed the previous ten years.

My comments do NOT ignore the long term trend. AS I stated, we saw an increase in temperature (this is the portion that recognizes what occurred PRIOR to the flattening of the trend) in the 1990's.

As for other data... If you look at records it shows that 1934 was warmer than 1998 (according to NASA)... so if you really want to look hard at a long term trend, then look at that. Yes, the temperature of the 1990's as a decade was warm relative to other decades in the past 150 years... I am not suggesting it wasn't. What I have stated is that we have NOT seen a continuation of the increases in temperature.

You are smart enough (I think) to comprehend that temperatures of the past several years are NOT higher than 1998 (or 2005).

All of the above does not suggest that we can't or won't see another rise in the future. It simply reflects on the data that we have currently available.

As for the alarmists 'data'... I think that is in serious question at this point.

As for MSNBC... I will go take a look at that now...


Well, if you were looking at the long term growth of the stock market you wouldn't start in 2007 would you? No, you would look at all of the available data. It is silly to start at the high point while ignoring the overall trend.

And it's not an MSNBC piece. It is an Associated Press article that appears on the MSNBC website.
 
No, warming waters in specific areas show changes in climate that may or may not have anything to do with global "warming" itself. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that that earth itself is not stagnant and has been in a stable period for a longer time than normal. Changes in water flow in the ocean also do not change the actual trend in temperature across the planet.

And the Antarctic melting would be significant because that is water that sits on land, it would raise the ocean levels, while the Arctic melting wouldn't do that as it isn't on land and floats in the water.

Picture the difference between adding ice into a drink, and ice melting that is already in the drink and you will get the picture.

The evidence points towards a reversing trend, that doesn't mean that the warming that occurred before disappeared. It means that in the future we may see more ice rather than less in both the Arctic and Antarctic caps.


And how do you know this? How do you know what you read is accurate? The articles I have are based on actual phenominas that have been happening world wide. Witnessed by many and cannot be denied. What evidence points to a reverse in trend? I look out my window and I see no reverse.

Only time will tell who is right and wrong but one thing I have learned? Dont trust everything you hear, since there are wealthy men that will go to any length and make up any lie to justify their transgressions.

Their has been an increase in ocean levels and that would explain the increase in floodings world wide. Since the rate of evaporation would increase. The signs are there.
 
And how do you know this? How do you know what you read is accurate? The articles I have are based on actual phenominas that have been happening world wide. Witnessed by many and cannot be denied. What evidence points to a reverse in trend? I look out my window and I see no reverse.

Only time will tell who is right and wrong but one thing I have learned? Dont trust everything you hear, since there are wealthy men that will go to any length and make up any lie to justify their transgressions.

Their has been an increase in ocean levels and that would explain the increase in floodings world wide. Since the rate of evaporation would increase. The signs are there.

Signs?

The signs may be there, but the science is not.

All you have is a myriad of anecdotal stupidity that adds up to zero.
 
The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

Given the current scandal.... I would question what data sets they used.

U.S. government data show the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping, and 2005 was the hottest year recorded.

I do not disagree that the past decade (or two to be more precise) has indeed been warm relative to previous decades. I would again question their data sources.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It has been a while since the superhot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

I do not think we have seen any type of cooling (at least nothing dramatic).

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

Again, I question the data that was provided to them. That said, I also do not believe we have seen 'declines'. What I have stated time and again is that the temps have flatlined since 1998.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Again, if you use the above, then looking at the spike in the 1990's... you are 'suspect'. Because the long term trend would simply show peaks (1934,1998,2005) and troughs (1970's) in between the peaks. But if you ARE going to use the 'hockey stick' (which is now in question) spike which occured over a ten year window, then looking at the subsequent ten year period as well is hardly arbitrary.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

Again, questioning the data sets used... that said... I do agree with the above that temps declined after 1998, spiked back up towards 2005 peak and then declined again. I disagree that we are again seeing increases. From what I have read we are not seeing increases again, but rather a decline (though I think this is simply weather patterns and not indicative of a long term shift in the trend)
 
Well, if you were looking at the long term growth of the stock market you wouldn't start in 2007 would you? No, you would look at all of the available data. It is silly to start at the high point while ignoring the overall trend.

And it's not an MSNBC piece. It is an Associated Press article that appears on the MSNBC website.

I could care less if it was an MSNBC piece or not.... unlike you, I do not dismiss articles simply because of their source.

If I was looking at a stock chart, I would most certainly use the peaks as points of reference. It is ridiculous to claim that we are still 'warming' if we are below previous peaks. The same holds true with stocks. if the Nasdaq peaked on March 10, 2000.... then it would be silly to claim that the Nasdaq has continued 'rising' since then. The reality is that since that time the Nasdaq has risen and fallen but it hasn't broken through the highs. If you are going to make an argument for warming then that trend has to actually CONTINUE breaking to new highs. If it were just one year, then you are right, but over a decade plus shows that the trend has at least taken a break.

Again, given the recent scandal, I would call into question the data sets being used.
 
Articles? Scientists? Back it up with what? Manipulated or incomplete data which conveniently makes their case? You have been duped! They showed you a picture of a lonely polar bear floating on a tiny iceberg, and it tugged at your heart strings! They showed you an iceberg melting, but they didn't show the southern ice shelf 'growing' because that would have countered the visual of the iceberg melting, don't you see? We have been given incomplete information, only the info to support the idea of global warming... and NO, it has not been proven the planet is getting warmer.

You can't let your disdain for Exxon cloud your judgment on this, I know that is easy to do... big oil company... polluting the planet... I get it... but the facts of reality are what they are. Mankind has very little effect on the global climate. The sun and volcanoes have a billion times more to do with it than actions of man.

Now, I am a reasonable person, I can understand the importance of cleaning up our act, not polluting the planet with our garbage, helping to make the place cleaner for future generations... I don't believe we should throw caution to the wind and allow big oil (or anyone) to just pollute away for the sake of the almighty dollar. This is the viewpoint you wish to assign to me, because I won't buy into this insane and ignorant concept of global warming.

And how do you know your data is not manipulated? Since most people believe what they want to believe. Volcanoes have a billion more times effect? When was the last volcanic eruption and what effect did it have on our climate?You want to compare that to the millions of factories and cars that produce pollution every day? And the sun does not cause pollution.

And I agree with your closing statement. We should go "green" because it is all around healthier for us and the planet and just incase people like you are wrong and we are contributing? The consequences can be severe.....
 
Signs?

The signs may be there, but the science is not.

All you have is a myriad of anecdotal stupidity that adds up to zero.

Says who? The bought out scientists? We have scientists from all over the world stating that these world wide phenominas are caused by global warming and that man is the cause or is contributing to it heavily.

What proof do you have? Oh because scientists say so or some guy was "SUPPOSEDLY" caught manipulating data? This is all B.S. and just a smoke screen.

How do you know the data collected is even accurate on both sides of the Isle? Do you take your own data? Have you travelled around the world collecting data? Were you there when they were aquiring supposed data?

What cant be denied is the fact that there are phenominas happening world wide witnessed by billions with scientists stating it is a result of global warming either aided by humans or as a result of human pollution.

THOSE are the facts and cannot be denied. Not some piece of paper by some scientist that says so. If I tell you that there is a 10th planet. Would you believe me? If you thought I was an expert probably. Since though there is no chance you can prove me wrong. That is why I can get away with that lie. But If we had a craft and went up to space and seen with our own eyes there was no 10th planet, would you believe him? Of course not.

Basically saying that the data you believe in does not add up to the billions that have witnessed actually events caused by global warming who SCIENTISTS acredit are caused if not aided by humans. Those are the facts.
 
the globe has warmed and cooled many time,
the alarmist leave that out.

No doubt. And usually(if not always) caused by events OUTSIDE our planet. Still, I am a man of logic. And from the amount of pollution being produced by us and the amount of trees being chopped down? It is only common sense to see this can be damaging to our enviornment. I have no doubt we are contibuting to this phenomina...

Tell me? Is acid rain also a natural cycle and what effects do these pollutants have on our atmosphere?
 
No doubt. And usually(if not always) caused by events OUTSIDE our planet. Still, I am a man of logic. And from the amount of pollution being produced by us and the amount of trees being chopped down? It is only common sense to see this can be damaging to our enviornment. I have no doubt we are contibuting to this phenomina...

Tell me? Is acid rain also a natural cycle and what effects do these pollutants have on our atmosphere?

But there is no evidence that co2 causes global warming.
 
Says who? The bought out scientists? We have scientists from all over the world stating that these world wide phenominas are caused by global warming and that man is the cause or is contributing to it heavily.

What proof do you have? Oh because scientists say so or some guy was "SUPPOSEDLY" caught manipulating data? This is all B.S. and just a smoke screen.

How do you know the data collected is even accurate on both sides of the Isle? Do you take your own data? Have you travelled around the world collecting data? Were you there when they were aquiring supposed data?

What cant be denied is the fact that there are phenominas happening world wide witnessed by billions with scientists stating it is a result of global warming either aided by humans or as a result of human pollution.

THOSE are the facts and cannot be denied. Not some piece of paper by some scientist that says so. If I tell you that there is a 10th planet. Would you believe me? If you thought I was an expert probably. Since though there is no chance you can prove me wrong. That is why I can get away with that lie. But If we had a craft and went up to space and seen with our own eyes there was no 10th planet, would you believe him? Of course not.

Basically saying that the data you believe in does not add up to the billions that have witnessed actually events caused by global warming who SCIENTISTS acredit are caused if not aided by humans. Those are the facts.

The globla warming bullshit is their case to make. They destroyed the data and tried to shut out dissent. Those are the facts. They failed to prove co2 based global warming. It's not my burden to prove its not happening.
 
The globla warming bullshit is their case to make. They destroyed the data and tried to shut out dissent. Those are the facts. They failed to prove co2 based global warming. It's not my burden to prove its not happening.

I honestly believe this was a set up. And only the gullible believe this.

I'll give you an example how I know CO2 heats up. Whenever the factories are running at full tilt? There is usally a smog warning and soon after? Unbearable humidity.....

It is a known fact that CO2 heats up faster than Oxygen or Nitrogen. Most people dont realize it because in comparison co2 makes up a small percentage of air. Still when it comes to things like atmosphere and body temperatures. Even the slightest changes in temperature can have very negative effects, The fact that there is more CO2 being produced then ever and coinciding with this global warming phenomina? I'd say the two are linked.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.

The source can be debateable since this is from wikipedia. Still it makes sense to me.


P.S. The only other thing it could be is that the sun is heating up or there has been a shift in our orbit. Both of which are very, very bad.
 
I honestly believe this was a set up. And only the gullible believe this.

I'll give you an example how I know CO2 heats up. Whenever the factories are running at full tilt? There is usally a smog warning and soon after? Unbearable humidity.....

It is a known fact that CO2 heats up faster than Oxygen or Nitrogen. Most people dont realize it because in comparison co2 makes up a small percentage of air. Still when it comes to things like atmosphere and body temperatures. Even the slightest changes in temperature can have very negative effects, The fact that there is more CO2 being produced then ever and coinciding with this global warming phenomina? I'd say the two are linked.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.

The source can be debateable since this is from wikipedia. Still it makes sense to me.


P.S. The only other thing it could be is that the sun is heating up or there has been a shift in our orbit. Both of which are very, very bad.

But to you god is a provable fact. Your intellect is suspect.


There is no proof for co2 based global warming.
 
Back
Top