Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 650 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 23, 2012 12:14:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 12:17:25 PM PST
This whole thread is simply proof that your grade school teacher was wrong...

Everyone's opinion ISNT equally valuable.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 2:38:21 PM PST
Global warming, climate change---isn't this where somebody should say---"Only time will tell?"

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 3:02:23 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
Gilbert, yeah, only time will tell how the climate will change, because the climate surely will change, all naturally, as it has for billions of years. End of nature's law. The rest is pseudoscience myth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 3:48:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 3:52:55 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
EB: "No, that's the wishful thinking part."

Lol the wishful thinking is on your part as usual - AGWers take cherrypicking tidbits of information as well as misinterpretation of others to a new level not seen since Göbbels = continual deception and censorship.

With the Russians, Reagan said "Trust but verify"
With AGWers it is much worse: "Distrust and Check."

PapaSmuref: "http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png"

Spencer's caveat of the trend line is that "The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2012-0-09-deg-c/

That said, 'no predictive value', it still illustrates an underlying cycle of climate cooling, warming, and cooling regardless of CO2 levels. It is an underlying oscillation of normal variation upon which CO2 levels have an influence not terribly different than zero.

To each poster, I say, please look at the graph and use your brain - don't listen to EB's lies that Spencer's data shows warming.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 3:56:53 PM PST
Treehugger© says:
This Truthseeker has never read mainstream climate science only fossil-fuel connected psuedoscience. I've looked at both sides and its clear that man made global warming is happening.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 4:03:29 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
There is only one point for AGWers - the point is "human CO2 emissions cause runaway global warming".

Think of the authoritarian Kingdom of AGW as the Holy Roman Empire. All roads have to lead to their preconceived single point of destination , i.e. "human CO2 emissions cause runaway global warming", otherwise they are ignored, censored, distorted, alternate roads heading to the Rome of AGW fabricated, etc = the exact antithesis of science.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 4:04:05 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 4:55:58 PM PST
fast forward says:
Bravo! Very nicely done, Mr. Feldman.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 4:57:17 PM PST
There have been times the earth has had no ice. This has happened without the existance of man. I'm not saying we are having no effect, but we do not poses the technology or know how to stop the warming. More study is needed to propperly ascertain man's contribution to it all; not lies and propaganda.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 6:54:45 PM PST
R. Tout says:
Martin: Aren't you ashamed now? Aren't you? Spiders now, is it? Flies ain't good enough!
Renfield: Flies? Flies? Poor puny things! Who wants to eat flies?
Martin: You do, you loony!
Renfield: Not when I can get nice fat spiders!
Martin: All right, have it your own way.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 8:42:27 PM PST
I wasn't "suckered" Elliot Bignell. I was merely pointing out to yet another troll trolling a troll that "Climate Change" is hardly the "little guy" anymore. There's billions and possibly TRILLIONS at stake on both sides of the issue. So any claims of piety on the side of "green" because they have "no money" is suspect. If you want to defend the green movement, then stick to the science and lay off the straw man attacks. They don't help your cause.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 10:28:14 PM PST
A customer says:
Michael Prokop - "There's billions and possibly TRILLIONS at stake on both sides of the issue. So any claims of piety on the side of "green" because they have "no money" is suspect."

Excuse me? You're changing the subject from the reality revealed by poorly-paid scientists to the income of a political movement that I have never even mentioned and you are suggesting that _I_ should lay off the Straw Man???

You couldn't make it up. And yet he did.

Here, let's make this clear:

"If you want to defend the green movement"

What makes you think I want to "defend the green movement", or more likely, think that you can get away with pretending that I do? Talk about trolling...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:32:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 10:33:02 PM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Lol the wishful thinking is on your part as usual - AGWers take cherrypicking tidbits of information as well as misinterpretation of others to a new level not seen since Göbbels = continual deception and censorship."

You're ignoring the entire content of a graph except a line superimposed without a label which even YOU claim is merely a high-order regression line posted without stating confidence limits. You, therefore, no more get to complain about "wishful thinking" than you get to post here all day and then claim that posting here all day means someone else must be wrong.

Why do you people all have to be such COWARDS?

"To each poster, I say, please look at the graph and use your brain - don't listen to EB's lies that Spencer's data shows warming."

No, that's you lying again. I said that Spencer ADMITS that it is warming. Although his data DOES show it, as it happens.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 12:19:58 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
EB: "Excuse me? You're changing the subject from the reality revealed by poorly-paid scientists"

Boo hooo hooo hooo! "Poorly paid" Hansen made millions off the AGW scam:

A list of payoffs that James Hansen took from environmental groups includes:

- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

----------------------------------------
I bet so many poor people would not complain at being so poorly paid
----------------------------------------
Al Gore scammed off $ 1 BILLION off AGW garbage
----------------------------------------
Big business such as GE is scamming hundreds of billions off "green" windmills and nuclear power plants (really Fukushima was an interesting color of "green")
----------------------------------------
Solyndra scammed off $500 million off my TAX dollars, and there are hundreds of similar examples of shameful waste
----------------------------------------

In summary, AGW is not science.
It is the means to ripping off the world of $45 TRILLION until 2050.

Poorly-paid scientists indeed.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 12:22:57 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 24, 2012 12:30:42 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
even Spencer admits its warming

Posted on Feb 24, 2012 12:31:30 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
I'm glad Truthseeker finally admits she takes scifi as reality

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 12:51:42 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "And EB lies that Spencer admits it is warming."

I am long past making the mistake of believing you capable of working this out, but Spencer has become a hero to denialists precisely because he claims there is negative feedback which COMPENSATES FOR global warming. You will not grasp this but anyone who understands the term "feedback" can tell you that this claim can be true or false, but to be germane it MUST entail conceding that there is a warming to compensate for.

In his own words:

"But it also means that the radiative forcing caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is not sufficient to cause PAST warming, either. So, this then leaves a critical unanswered question: What has caused the warming seen over the last 100 years or so?

"Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).

",,,The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

That's FIVE references to recent warming just off a single page of his own site.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 12:54:47 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Poorly-paid scientists indeed. "

Indeed. Your bluster aside, you have attributed $5,000+ to ONE scientist before changing the subject to non-scientists, without even establishing that the first figure ever even accrued to the personal benefit of the one scientist whose name you managed to remember. Mean income? Fat chance.

Another of your pyrrhic defeats.

Posted on Feb 24, 2012 1:27:31 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
when someone believes global warming is a hoax they will ignore the science and look only for evidence to back up their beliefs

Posted on Feb 24, 2012 1:51:55 AM PST
A customer says:
And pretend that peer-review is conspiring to suppress the "truth", just like creationists.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 2:01:26 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
When will you learn that it is not a question of belief. It is a question of facts.
And AGW quacks are so weak on facts that they are scared to debate, they serially lie at all levels (including Somerville - lead IPCC author9, they throw insults and try to censor anyone trying to point out facts , and they have to resort to stupidity like comparing to creationists.

There's no comparison. The fact is that the pseudoscience of AGW has been discredited and debunked irrevocably and there is nothing that AGWers can do to change that.

Anyways, I am wasting my time here arguing with stubborn Narrs. I think my time will be much better spent starting to write my book of AGW lies: 99 reasons why Anthropogenic Global Warming is science fiction.

Fakegate: Global Warmists Try to Hide Their Decline

By Robert Tracinski
The promoters of the global warming hysteria never really recovered from Climategate, the release of e-mails and data which demonstrated that climate insiders were using questionable data, promoting misleading arguments, and conspiring to block dissenting views from the scientific literature. It was a fatal blow to the credibility of the warmists, and it has been followed by a steady stream of distinguished scientists standing up publicly to withdraw their backing from the global warming "consensus." The latest example is an op-ed by sixteen such scientists in the Wall Street Journal, followed up by a devastating response to their critics.

The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal-James Delingpole calls it Fakegate-shows just how desperate they have become.

This was supposed to be a scandal that would undermine the global warming skeptics. In fact, it was supposed to be an exact parallel of Climategate, but this time discrediting the Heartland Institute, a pro-free-market think tank in Chicago that has been a leader in debunking the global warming hysteria.

Someone calling himself "Heartland Insider" released a series of internal documents from Heartland. On the whole, the documents were unremarkable. They revealed that a think tank which advocates the free market and is skeptical of global warming was raising money to, um, advocate the free market and promote skepticism of global warming. As Delingpole put it, "Run it next to the story about the Pope being caught worshipping regularly in Rome and the photograph of a bear pooping behind a tree."

But there was one document, a "confidential strategy memo" that provided more inflammatory material, including an admission that one of Heartland's programs is aimed at "dissuading teachers from teaching science." See, those evil global warming deniers really are anti-science!

But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.

This is the dead giveaway that the "confidential strategy memo" is a fake, and that is what the real scandal has become. The Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle helped break this open with an initial post raising questions, as well as a detailed follow-up. McArdle gets a little too far into the weeds of information technology, not to mention grammar and English usage, but the basic issue is that the "meta-data" in the Heartland files-data marking when the documents were created, on what machines, in what format, and in what time zone-don't match. Most of the documents were created directly as PDFs from a word-processing program, while the supposed "confidential strategy memo" was printed and then scanned. The genuine Heartland files were created weeks earlier in the central time zone, while the incriminating memo was created very shortly before the release of the documents and in the Pacific time zone. This corroborates Heartland's claim that the document is a fake.

McArdle also points out that the "confidential strategy memo" consists almost completely of facts and wording lifted from the other files, with the inflammatory quotes pasted in between in an inconsistent style. Moreover, some of the facts from the other files are used inaccurately. For example, the memo claims that money from the Koch brothers-central figures in any good leftist conspiracy theory-was being used to support Heartland's global warming programs, when it was actually earmarked for their health-care policy work. That's something a real Heartland insider would know; only a warmist creating a fake document would get it wrong.

So it was pretty obvious that the "confidential strategy memo" was not a Heartland document at all but a fraud pasted together after the fact by someone who wanted to discredit Heartland, but who didn't know enough about IT to cover his tracks.

Note one other thing: how this fraud self-consciously tries to recreate every aspect of the Climategate scandal, projecting those elements onto the climate skeptics. Climategate had: a) an insider who leaked information, b) private admissions of unscientific practices, like misrepresenting the data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and c) discussions of attempts to suppress opposing views. Further scandals that followed on from Climategate included one more element: d) using material from non-scientists in activist groups to pad out scientific reports for the UN.

The fake Heartland memo tried to re-create all of this. It was posted to the Web by someone who called himself "Heartland Insider." It contains admissions of things like opposing the teaching of science. It includes discussion of attempts to exclude global warming alarmists from the media, particularly an attempt to oust a fellow named Peter Gleick, described in the memo as a "high profile climate scientist," from his Forbes blog, because "This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out." And it describes a program to hire a "paid team of writers" to "undermine the official United Nation's [sic] IPCC reports." So this has all of the elements of Climategate, but in mirror image.

But it is all a lie. It took bloggers mere days to spot the document as a fake and less than a week to find the person who posted it and the other Heartland documents. He turns out to be...Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who is president of the left-leaning Pacific Institute. It's actually kind of pathetic, when you think about it. What gave Gleick away was the little touch of self-aggrandizement, the fact that he couldn't resist over-inflating the significance of his Forbes blog. In his own mind, clearly, he is the one man whose bold opposition keeps the Heartland leadership awake at nights.

So the "leaker" wasn't an insider, Heartland has not been exposed as anti-science, and it is not conspiring to silence opposing voices. In fact, days before the documents were posted, Heartland had asked Gleick to participate in a debate, and he refused the invitation. Oh, and those "paid writers" who were supposed to "undermine" the UN climate reports? They were actually a team of distinguished scientists who were compiling their own independent climate research.

After he was caught, Gleick confessed, but he's still trying the "modified limited hangout": confess to a small crime in the hope that this will mollify investigators and they won't dig up evidence of your big crime. So Gleick has confessed to obtaining the genuine Heartland documents through deceptive means. (He called Heartland posing as a member of the institute's board and talked a gullible junior staffer into sending him the handouts for an upcoming board meeting.) But he still maintains that the fake "confidential strategy memo" was sent to him by an anonymous source, and that he only obtained the Heartland documents in an attempt to verify the memo.

This won't hold up, because Gleick still doesn't understand the meta-data that tripped him up. The fake strategy memo was created about a day before the documents were released, which appears to be well after Gleick pilfered the genuine documents. That fits with McArdle's impression that the fake memo was created by cutting and pasting facts from the other documents. Which implies that Gleick was the forger.

All of this will come out, and in a much fuller way than in the Climategate scandal. With Climategate, the victim of the fraud was the public, which pays the salaries of the scientists who have been fudging the facts. But this means that the government and its scientific institutions were put in charge of the investigation, and they had a vested interest in whitewashing the story. In this case, the victims are Heartland and other independent scientists whose reputations were impugned by the forged document. They have a good criminal and civil case against Gleick for identity theft, fraud, and defamation, and they will be able to use the courts' subpoena power to dig into Gleick's computer records and get to the whole truth. So he's now going to suffer the same fate as John Edwards: admit part of his wrongdoing but cover up the rest, then be forced to admit more, then a little bit more. It's the most ignominious way to go down.

Which means, for us skeptics, that it's time to pass around the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh, and it gets better. Some global warming alarmists are lining up to defend Gleick. Judith Curry points to the blog where Gleick posted the fake memo, which is now declaring, "For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, [Gleick] deserves our gratitude and applause." Another warmist adds that Gleick "is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

I certainly hope so. A lot of people deserve to go down along with Gleick.

Even many of those who deplore Gleick's fraud are still willfully blind to its implications. In Time, Bryan Walsh laments that "Worst of all-at least for those who care about global warming-Gleick's act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn't already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon." So yet another warmist has been exposed as a fraud-and the worst thing that can happen is that this will reduce the credibility of the warmists? But they deserve to lose their credibility.

Fakegate shows us, with the precision of a scientific experiment, several key truths about the global warming movement. It shows that most warmists, both the scientists and the journalists, will embrace any claim that seems to bolster their cause, without bothering to check the facts or subject them to rigorous investigation. (Anthony Watts notes how few journalists bothered to contact him before reporting the claims about him that are made in the fake memo.) And it shows us that warmists like Gleick have no compunction about falsifying information to promote their agenda, and that many other warmists are willing to serve as accomplices after the fact, excusing Gleick's fraud on the grounds that he was acting in a "noble cause." It shows us that "hide the decline" dishonesty is a deeply ingrained part of the corporate culture of the global warming movement.

Gleick wasn't just an obscure, rogue operator in the climate debate. Before his exposure, his stock in trade was lecturing on "scientific integrity," and until a few days ago he was the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. So this scandal goes to the very top of the global warming establishment, and it compels honest observers to ask: if the warmists were willing to deceive us on this, what else have they been deceiving us about?

Between Climategate and Fakegate, the warmist establishment now has zero credibility, and we must call all of their claims into question.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/23/
fakegate_global_warmists_try_to_hide_their_decline_113225.html

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 2:58:55 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "When will you learn that it is not a question of belief. It is a question of facts."

No, that's what the scientists use. When we're talking about YOU, it's a matter of belief. Or blind faith, to be more precise.

"The fact is that the pseudoscience of AGW has been discredited and debunked irrevocably and there is nothing that AGWers can do to change that."

So why do you immediately go on to spam two pages of verbiage that avoid saying ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the science?

What is it about a simple thermometer that has you wetting your pants?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 2:59:42 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "the warmist establishment now has zero credibility"

"Not about belief", hmm?

Hypocrite.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2012 3:01:51 AM PST
A customer says:
Treehugger© - "when someone believes global warming is a hoax they will ignore the science and look only for evidence to back up their beliefs "

Case in point just then. Two pages of empty drivel attempting to undermine the credibility of the science establishment and not so much as a temperature reading by way of science.
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 26 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  103
Total posts:  650
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions