Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: tanka418

Why yes I have! They also move to new locations, get replaced, all sort of thing. But, nothing that would indicate that "adjustment" (intentional corruption) of the data is necessary.

Actually that would be one of the most logical reasons to make an adjustment.

Put a thermometer 3 miles apart and you will get two different readings that are consistently apart especially isf one is shaded more at times.

Oh well this is pointless because it seems you are one of those who stick to that mantra even when they have been informed to the contrary. You have your notions they just aren't based in logic.

originally posted by: tanka418
No, I saw that, and recognized it for the BS that it is...One doesn't "adjust" historical dat because they now have better equipment. The values in the existing dataset cannot be changed, to do so is corrupting that data.

AND THE COMPUTER SCIENTIST HAS SPOKEN! Data can NEVER be adjusted! All those climatologists need to go back and reuse those old numbers with the old data acquisition methods.

I didn't say that, and you know it! I said the temperature increase is natural. And, last I heard; ice in the Antarctic was increasing, while Greenland slowly melted.

Well this shows that you don't care about the nuances of what is going on.

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains

Sudden and Rapid Ice Loss Discovered in Antarctica

And yes I know about, and have recently experienced, record heat, and record cold as well, record dry, and now record rain. But, ya know, after all the dust settled with the record heat...the record wasn't very significant...it was mostly local and wasn't a record after all (in a more global sense).

Climate change is a gradual process. It isn't going to become uncomfortable overnight. It takes years of this before you start to get to that point.

Since the 90's you say...I've seen records that were made before my time that still stand...I'm 68.

Which ones are they exactly?

Yes I'm sure that all of that 'lines up"...very easy to do with "cooked data".

Uh huh. Dude you've already confirmed to me that your confirmation bias decides your opinion on climate change. I've presented information to you that shows that your opinion about how the data was changed was wrong. You ignored it. So I'm just going to leave it at this. You don't care about changing your opinion, so I'm done here.

originally posted by: Justoneman

But CO2 has been even higher long before we existed.

Yes, CO2 was very high 400 million years ago but the temperature was only 2C above current temps for two reasons: 1) (taken from your link) solar irradiance was at least 4% lower 2) From here there was a major sink of atmospheric CO2 then which would have lowered the temperatures and which is not happening now.

(I came yesterday evening to reply but the site was down).

Many extinctions have been linked to greenhouse gas induced warming, like the Early Jurassic extinction (due to 6C increase in temperature, anoxic ocean conditions, etc): Svensen H et al (2007) Hydrothermal venting of greenhouse gases triggering Early Jurassic global warming Earth Planetary Sci Lett 256 554-566

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Actually that would be one of the most logical reasons to make an adjustment.

So how, exactly, does a new DAS make historical data wrong? What property about something new makes old, established data incorrect?

There is never a valid reason to alter data! period!

Oh well this is pointless because it seems you are one of those who stick to that mantra even when they have been informed to the contrary. You have your notions they just aren't based in logic.

My "notions" are based in an education, experience, logic and rather sound science...something you should try! I have no "mantra" unless it is "look at the data". Something you might try, although, please use valid data.

And to you and Krazyshot; There is a very simple way of proving me wrong and "shutting me up"...prove your point using unaltered data...if you can do that, then you can expect no argument to withstand the reality. However, as long as you use known altered data, you are 100% wrong and have no chance of proving anything...simply because your data is cooked.

Raw data for the win!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

AND THE COMPUTER SCIENTIST HAS SPOKEN! Data can NEVER be adjusted! All those climatologists need to go back and reuse those old numbers with the old data acquisition methods.

Yes, absolutely use the old data. That way we know that there is no bias in the result.

As for the rest of your statement, about old DAS; you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

To reiterate: IF you cannot prove the same point using original / raw data, then you are wrong!

You might also try using European data, Russian data, Chinese data...just to see how much it agrees, but as long as you insist on using known altered data, you can not prove anything.

a reply to: smurfy

Interesting thanks. It's funny that CO2 is considered beneficial, until the climatologists decided it wasn't. Personally, living through a devastating winter in the Northeastern US, I would love to see some global warming. It would be a boon to northern hemisphere farming.

Unfortunately I believe that the weather linkage to sunspot activity is much more likely and thus we may well be headed towards another ice age.

Another big joke are the climatologists models. All of their extrapolations have routinely failed. I'm hardly surprised given the complexity of the system.

It's amazing to me, even after they have been exposed as liars and cheats, that the so called science is still being exploited to enslave us all to a global carbon tax. Are people that brainwashed?

You do know that slight die off (5% in Toracian warming) segued into the greatest period of flora and fauna in the history of our planet right? Tropical climate covered the earth. I can't wait!!!

a reply to: Agartha

originally posted by: Metallicus
Yes, I realize I will get slammed for posting this article disputing the climate agenda data, but I wanted to take the opportunity to post my view of what climate change is really about and that is control of the population by the elite.
...
Okay, I'm finished...you may now begin bashing me.

Ah, woe is you, who garner 100 stars and counting for parroting some nonsensical article on a random website.

Surely you shall suffer the wrath of - oh wait.

What's with people couching things like they're a victim, or bravely standing in the face of a cruel and twisted world, like this?

I don't really feel like listening to a lengthy podcast of what are likely lies, just like I don't want to listen to a lengthy video about some other topic. Can you perhaps highlight the relevant points?

There are no relevant points. It was awful.

a reply to: Greven

a reply to: Agartha

Indeed it's possible they are wrong, just ask yourself those few questions :

i'm pretty sure a lot of these 'studies' were made using data that may have come from the same source?

Do we know for sure they didn't get their data the same way?

Is this possible like in a post just before yours that they all use a common mathematical equation that is flawed?

It is also possible they have it all right about the warming, but how can they be sure if there is no precise temperature data from everywhere on the globe for more than 160 years?

Do you think something as old and as big as the earth has 30 years cycles??

And honestly,

WHY DOES CARBON TAX (money money money..) HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT?? WILL THEY GIVE THIS MONEY TO THE EARTH SO IT CAN BUY ITSELF CONDITIONNED AIR IF IT BECOMES TOO HOT??

Peace out

a reply to: cuckooold

How many times do ATS members get castigated for using wikipedia?
...but somehow rationalwiki.org gets a free pass - must be the inclusion of the word "rational" - no agenda here

and even Forbes which denies global warming gets stuck into Mr Adams.

On the contrary...Forbes are fully on board the gravy train - not very scientific were you?

Mar 30, 2015
www.forbes.com...

Ted Cruz Uses The Galileo Gambit To Deny Global Warming Steven Salzberg , Contributor Fighting Pseudoscience Follow on Forbes Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. The word in Washington lately is that Senator Ted Cruz–who just announced that he’s running for President–is supposed to be a very smart guy. Some of this comes from Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who said last year that Cruz was “clearly among the top students” at the prestigious Harvard Law School. Dershowitz is very liberal, while Cruz is very conservative, so one assumes that Dershowitz wouldn’t say this if it weren’t true. Perhaps Cruz was an excellent law student. But when it comes to science, Cruz is no whiz kid. On the contrary, he seems to be woefully ignorant. We know this because despite his lack of expertise, he doesn’t hesitate to make sweeping pronouncements about scientific matters. In just the past week, Cruz has weighed in on two major science issues, and he’s been wrong on both. First, in an interview a few days ago with the Texas Tribune, Cruz stated that global warming isn’t happening. This wasn’t the first time he’s made that claim, but this time he threw in what’s known in skeptical circles as the “Galileo gambit,” a well-known ploy of conspiracy theorists. He compared his global warming denialism to Galileo thusly: “Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.”

a reply to: boymonkey74

other half told me they have decided not to have kids because of what is coming.

So "ice samples," "what is coming" "no kids"
So the anectodal hearsay evidence of 1 best mate causes you to condemn the human race for "bleating". They dont get a say in your utopian..cough..cough scientific dictatorship.

Care to address the actual premise of the OP, or is that too hard

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: CornShucker
I wasn't questioning paranoia.
I'm still left not understanding the motives to fake global warming though, so can you enlighten me?
Thanks

Thank You for such a cordial response. They seem to be in short supply in this thread.

I'll try to explain my position and it would probably be helpful if I dropped words like hoax and fake from the conversation. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific community firmly believes in the assertion that there is climate change occurring that can be linked directly to mankind's efforts to advance. Please notice that I'm focusing only on the scientific community.

There are two examples I'd like to use that include a preexisting scientific consensus.

#1. Up until the 1980s the scientific consensus was that bleeding ulcers were caused by excess acid in the stomach brought on by irritants like spicy foods, too much coffee. alcohol and factors like worry or stress. In the second half of 1981, Barry Marshall MBBS's (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) rotation at Royal Perth Hospital took him to the gastroenterology division. That was where he met Robin Warren AC.

A yearly clinical research project was considered part of his training and he asked if there was a gastroenterology project he could start. That's when he heard that Warren had a list of patients showing curved bacteria present on their stomach biopsies and he needed an assistant that could do follow-up to see what clinical diseases, if any, they had. He noticed that one of the people on Robin's list was a woman he'd seen, with severe stomach pain but was still with no diagnosis. They referred her to a psychiatrist and started an antidepressant. Other than some redness in the stomach and the bacteria on the stomach biopsy that Warren was investigating.

What had interested Marshall in the first place had been the implications of a previously undescribed bacteria capable of living in the harsh, acid-filled stomach environment. He was aware that recently published research described Campylobacter jejuni, a newly discovered food-borne cause of gastroenteritis and colitis.

------------------------------------------

Sorry about that... It's best I continue in a new post...

here's the latest crackpot theory from the NASA climate scientists, it lasted a whole 2 minutes before it was debunked, but ya gotta write off that trip too the Bahamas somehow.

Giant Flying Boulders May Be Caused By Climate Change

If you see a 1,000 ton boulder dropping from the sky, the cause could be climate change. That’s a new theory by the man who many regard as the “father of global warming.” we should be looking for falling rocks instead of rising waters

So are the world islands submerged yet? I remember 20 years ago when they said Florida was facing certain doom. Hawaii was always safe for some reason, it was always Florida. Is America's appendix still there? I've clearly been too busy worrying about global warming to check myself.

a reply to: Vector99

Hawaii was always safe for some reason

Some reason? Some really brilliant remarks today.

a reply to: CornShucker

What worked in Marshall's favor was that, as a trainee general physician, he was coming aboard with a fresh, general perspective rather than someone steeped in the "scientific consensus" regarding gastroenterology. He'd seen pictures of Campylobacter jejuni and could see that they were similar to the bacteria that Warren was curious about in the stomach biopsies.

To shorten the story a bit... Marshall's family moved to Port Hedland in July 1982 and he took all of his references and textbooks with him. He continued to work when he could on the project and finally was able to confirm that patients from different areas exhibiting the same symptoms all had the same bacteria in their stomachs. He was also able to show why bismuth had been such a reliable stomach treatment over the years.

The chance to prove that antibiotics could be used to cure peptics ulcers eluded him because he's had no luck in trying to induce ulcers in tests with swine and he couldn't get permission for tests with humans. As has happened in other cases, out of frustration he decided to deliberately ingest the cultured bacteria. He was shocked by how quickly and severely he became ill. When a biopsy showed the presence of H. pylori, his wife convinced him to start the antibiotics immediately because not only had he proven his point but the bacteria is infectious. (She and their children hadn't volunteered to be test subjects)

Barry Marshall & Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology in 2005.

Now... Was there a conspiracy among the surgeons world-wide to make money from the painful surgery to remove parts of the stomach? Of course not. But nobody was looking for anything new, either. "The science was settled" when it came to bleeding ulcers. They were caused by the factors I listed earlier.

In fact, I couldn't help but notice that the Wikipedia page for Barry Marshall shows a subtle example of the kind of condescension of the "Smart People" I've written about.

Marshall's 1998 comment that "(e)veryone was against me, but I knew I was right." is bracketed by these two sentences:

It has been claimed that the H. pylori theory was ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach.
-- his statement here --
On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.

(Back to CornShucker):
So even when you are right those who are part of the established consensus consider themselves right unless or until someone else manages to break their stranglehold on fact. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of patients had been going under the knife for a dangerous procedure that can be cured with round of the right antibiotics.

The other case is Robert C. Atkins. I followed his struggle from the very beginning. The medical establishment ridiculed him beginning the day after his 1965 appearance on The Tonight Show to promote his weight loss plan and the diet he recommended. You rarely saw his critics refer to him as a doctor even though he was a cardiologist.

The scientific consensus was that dietary fat was bad for you and a major contributing factor for a wide range of health problems.

Vogue magazine published an article about the details of his diet and maintenance plan in 1970. In fact, until the release of "Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution by Bantam Books in 1972, many just referred to it as the "Vogue Diet".

The high protein/low carb diet has four stages:
Phase 1: Induction This is where you find out if you're serious. NO carbs for two weeks.
Phase 2: Balancing Now you begin to eat from the foods that are on the "Free" list and limit your carbs to a specific maximum (which is different for men and women).
Phase 3: Pre-maintenance Your choice of foods expands some now. There are fruits, starchy vegetables and whole grains now. You monitor your weight as you experiment with how many grams of carbs you eat and keep your weight off. If you start to gain, you have to pick what you cut back.
Phase 4: Lifetime maintenance You move into this phase when you reach your goal weight, and then you continue this way of eating for life.

I know that this diet works because I lost 50lbs in 4 months back in the early '90s. That IT job had really messed me up. No time for a balanced, healthy lunch, either sitting at a computer or driving to a customer site and at night my nerves were too shot to want to do anything physical. I was told that between my weight and my blood pressure I was a prime candidate for a heart attack or stroke.

The thing of it is, I never went hungry! Meats and cheese are fine but no bread. There are a bunch of veggies and fruit on the "Free" list. Our family physician couldn't believe the difference in my blood-work. My cholesterol went back to where it should be, my blood sugar was stable again. The diet WORKS, you just have to be willing to have the willpower to follow the plan.

In April 2002, Dr. Atkins suffered cardiac arrest and his critics jumped at the chance to point to the dangers of high levels of fat with the Atkins diet. His doctor went on national television to make clear that he'd been suffering from a chronic infection and the heart attack had nothing to do with his diet.

I've made the example hundreds of times that medical doctors and his critics play on misconceptions because of what they consider to be "settled science", but nobody in their right mind thinks you can walk around eating a stick of butter like a popsicle and be healthy! What they did to the man amounts to slander. I know now that I can keep my weight within a certain range the rest of my life. If I need to lose weight I just go back on the diet for a while.

When he died in died April 17, 2003 (aged 72) it really p*ssed me off that about a month later there were doctors all over television talking about how that Atkins guy just might have been on to something. They had to wait until after he died rather than admit he'd been unfairly treated while he was still alive to hear it.

In both of these example there is a very, very big difference between the battles between the men that battled the "Settled Science" and the current Climate Change war of words.

In my examples nobody was forcing expensive antibiotics down anyone's throat or forcing entire nations to go two weeks with no carbs without knowing what the impact would be.

Everybody needs to wake up and educate themselves. I'm not going to put certain links in this post because I've already undergone one round of online attacks from the outside that wound up requiring my ISP to come replace my cable modem. I did good to stay online ten minutes before the DoS attacks came back. They were pinging me hundreds of times a minute to force me offline.

Next page:

a reply to: CornShucker


This climate stuff involves a lot more stuff than you've been told. Do you like working in a cubicle? How would you like living in one? Single family homes aren't part of the "S*stainability" plans. You like living in the rural areas? Tuff, it's more
efficient to have "high density" population areas.

There's much, much more, but I'll leave it to you to do the research. I'm not some mumbling nutjob. Some of the things they are planning to force on us are going to totally change this country as we know forever if somebody doesn't find a way to stop it.

Oh, one last thing I forgot from the list... There's gonna be "Global Climate Reparations" coming out of American taxpayer's pockets on top of everything else.

I don't want to end up spending the last few years of my life in an assigned "cubbyhole" in my regions "hive". I'd rather die before it gets that far.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

Hawaii was always safe for some reason

Some reason? Some really brilliant remarks today.

What's the secret reason? Is Hawaii above sea level? Tell me please smart guy.