Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

I posted this in the Science and Technology thread but this ain't anywhere in the same universe as "science"

www.wnd.com...
It's always been clear that to Barack Obama, his only real enemies are his political enemies, including all conservatives, the entire GOP and everyone who resists "fundamental transformation." I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. It's from the president of the United States's "community organizing" non-profit group, Organizing for Action:

97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country.
Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change.

link.springer.com...


It appears to me that OBAMA, the President of the United States, is asking the public to participate in a harassment campaign against those scientist who do not belong to the global warming religion.

Can there now be any doubt that global warming is a religion with adherents using psycological force to convert the non-believers.

This cannot be science. Science is a process of evidence gathering, debate, more evidence gathering, disagreement with more evidence gathering.

Science is NOT using RICO laws and harrassment campaigns to silence anyone who dissents, no matter what their evidence.

Tired of Control Freaks

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Can there now be any doubt that global warming is a religion with adherents using psycological force to convert the non-believers.

Aye

The same "religiion" that says the world is not 6,000 years old, orbits the Sun and that your god didnt create all the animals in one day.

The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You must be an Oil Corp paid shill. Or a religious republican. /sarcasm

The true scientific method calls for a skeptism towards any theories, and this includes AGW. But now that left and right political parties have merged with the issue, suddenly this theory has become dogma. This news comes quite as a shock to me who hoped to have the freedom to keep an open mind about the issue.

S&F for the head-up.

What's obvious to me is, you have zero idea of what is and isn't science.

Ye olde double post

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
What's obvious to me is, you have zero idea of what is and isn't science.

Unfortunately for you, I do.

using weather mod tech so to generate artificial evidences in favour of global warming theory

That goes for a lot of people, including those who feel Global Warming is a completely done deal. If you;d look at the evidence, you'd see that the books have been cooked. I am not a complete "denier," but it is obvious that some of the so-called "facts" regarding Global Warming have been altered or mis-used. If you'd just look at what has been done, rather than condemn it in abstentia, you could not deny it either.

The whole idea of "hide the decline" has perhaps been forgotten, but it hasn't gone away. I have explained this so many times that I am not going to get fully into it yet again, but the basic idea behind "hide the decline" is that these "scientists" hid data that showed a drop in temperature because it was inconvenient. They would have had to explain it and they did not want to "waste time" doing so because their agenda was to show temperatures going up--not down.

The thing is--they were right! Temperature, as measured by contemporary and very accurate thermometers, was going up, but one of the measures they used showed temperatures going down, and it was obviously wrong. Well, no big deal, right? It was a "bad measurement" so they could have just thrown it out. But rather than do that they took the opportunity to just hide it by using an inevitable "down" peak in this multi-variate graph of theirs to have this errant line go INTO the down peak, but not come OUT of it. Thus they hid the decline and did not show what that variable did, a decline in temperatures in contrast to all the other measurements they used. They cheated.

Still no big deal, right? But what was this measurement? Tree-ring data. As you no doubt know because of your extensive study and knowledge of the Global Warming issue, "scientists" wanted to establish past temperatures to show just how much temperature had risen, but the problem was that there were no accurate thermometers back thousands of years ago, nor humans to record what they said.

So "scientists" came up with a method to use "proxies" to stand in for thermometers when there were no thermometers around, and the best one they could find was tree-ring data. The science of "dendrochronology" has been used for decades to measure time, but because tree rings vary in thickness based on the climate, these scientists determined that they could measure temperature by measuring the thickness of the rings. Now never you mind that tree ring thickness can be caused by moisture as much as temperature, and that it has no way of distinguishing the difference between a mild increase in temperature over 100 days versus a sharp increase in temperature over ten days (heating degree days) nevertheless they took a few core samples from a very few trees in Siberia and projected past temperatures.

So here is their situation. Contemporary tree-ring data shows a downward temperature slope while every other measurement they used, including accurate thermometers, showed an upward temperature slope. BUT their past temperature profiles all used tree-ring data. So IF the current tree-ring data was inaccurate (which it was) how could they use tree-ring data to "prove" past lower temperatures? This was a very inconvenient truth, so

these "scientists" performing "science" hid the decline.

And folks who believe in Global Warming persist in ignoring this and the many other instances of very poor science "supporting" Global Warming.

And you dare to call people who point out this blatant fraud "deniers"???? What's wrong with you people? Why are you not questioning the very basis of the Global Warming agenda? Why aren't you pulling out the graphs and looking at the statistics and pointing out the MANY areas where the "science" is suspect? There are dozens of books and articles that go into this issue and you act as if they have never been printed.

If you've read those treatments, read the books, read the articles, listened to the lectures, and refuted them all fine. Come tell us about it. But you haven't. You haven't studied the issue at all. yet you're telling us all about deniers and about "how science works" based on your faith in science alone.

And that's a problem.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You want to call Global Warming Theory religion because it can't possibly be science and then you cry about suppressing dissent, how using RICO laws as the vehicle of this suppression of dissent surely proves that you are right?

Well, dissent of whom? Science? You may have had a point worth exploring if it were Science being suppressed. Is the accusation that you are lobbing not more apt when applied to Senators, Representatives, a former POTUS's Cabinet members, oil companies, coal industry lobbyists, certain think tanks, dozens of bloggers, TV and talk radio personalities and just a mere handful of scientists whom, despite having utterly failed to disprove MMGW, have been given more authority both on the floors of Congress and Public Policy than they have come close to actually having earned through merit?

Please. Spare us the melodramatics. The use of RICO is completely justified because it's aiming at the perpetrators; the oil companies and their paid propagandists, not scientists.

I am a little confused, you link Springer an article of 2001 about some sediments of 1250, but you quote something about Obama and stuff

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

[snipped]

If this were about cutting down on pollution and having the POLLUTERS THEMSELVES pay for it then I have no issue with making them responsible for what they do, but the question becomes what are unacceptable levels of pollution and how many jobs do we lose before the agenda is met.

Anyway, you are brave to post this because you will feel the backlash of the people that already KNOW everything and you are just a 'denier' and stupid.

S&F

Science is not an outcome it's an observation
Science has become the new religion and it is as perverted as any other religion

East Anglia University proved how corrupt the people behind global warming are

It's been a standard for a long time"if people disagree with our opinion, harass them till they do"

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Care to offer any actual science that backs up your claim?

Screaming its a hoax and the data has been fudged is not going to.cut it.

Are you telling us that CO2 levels are not rising? Or something else?

Again I ask you, where is the science that disagrees with AGW?

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Can there now be any doubt that global warming is a religion with adherents using psycological force to convert the non-believers.

Aye

The same "religiion" that says the world is not 6,000 years old, orbits the Sun and that your god didnt create all the animals in one day.

The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

It's not science that is the problem here, but the bastardization of science to use as a political tool that's a problem. It's fake science.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Can there now be any doubt that global warming is a religion with adherents using psycological force to convert the non-believers.

Aye

The same "religiion" that says the world is not 6,000 years old, orbits the Sun and that your god didnt create all the animals in one day.

The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

It's not science that is the problem here, but the bastardization of science to use as a political tool that's a problem. It's fake science.

a reply to: Metallicus

What data is problematic?

a reply to: Raggedyman

How did EAU prove corruption? Climategate?

The problem with people in your camp is that you're all too happy being utterly intellectually lazy and are way too accustomed to running to hide under the warm cozy comfort of confirmation bias to ever bother with follow-ups and to join in the song of echo from time to time even years later.

What other possible excuse could you all have for not knowing that Climategate was a proven baseless smear tactic and that both law and science completely exonerated the accused?

a reply to: TheBulk

The only fake science being used as a political tool is the fraudulent denier BS that we're all neck high in.

I really like how people in here question science and feel to be so smart but not even care to check what the source of the op is about, i see a political piece and them a link to a scientific magazine and said damn that must be juicy, and felt a lill down when one is not related to the other.

What did you super scientist of non climate change felt? it would appear you people wont even read before starting to give slaps in the back to each other.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Can there now be any doubt that global warming is a religion with adherents using psycological force to convert the non-believers.

Aye

The same "religiion" that says the world is not 6,000 years old, orbits the Sun and that your god didnt create all the animals in one day.

The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

perhaps this will help you with that:

biblehub.com...

Yom does not just mean day.

I mean "back in the day" people had more depth to their study of things biblical.