The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

originally posted by: smurfy
Who said it didn't, but since you haven't noticed, Global warming is out, Earth's temperature is variable at any place on the Globe, even heat waves in the Arctic are a natural occurence.
The same kind of variation also applies to Carbon Dioxide, it varies all over the globe too...and considerably so.

Er... You should actually go study climate science if you think that scientists, even back in they day, weren't aware of this fact... Another lie that anti-AGW people like to use is to point out that the climate changes naturally, therefore it can't be altered artificially or that natural and artificial changes can't work simultaneously (either in tandem or against each other).

You guys really need to stop debating science based on news blogs and actually open a science textbook.

BTW I would appreciate a little less of shock/horror caps when you accuse people of lying, that's so childish, but of course typical of thread killing.

Well I get exasperated with people trying to say that one term replaced the other in usage. It's fake news. They've both been used and each have a different meaning that applies to climate science.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: smurfy
Who said it didn't, but since you haven't noticed, Global warming is out, Earth's temperature is variable at any place on the Globe, even heat waves in the Arctic are a natural occurence.
The same kind of variation also applies to Carbon Dioxide, it varies all over the globe too...and considerably so.

Er... You should actually go study climate science if you think that scientists, even back in they day, weren't aware of this fact... Another lie that anti-AGW people like to use is to point out that the climate changes naturally, therefore it can't be altered artificially or that natural and artificial changes can work simultaneously (either in tandem or against each other).

You guys really need to stop debating science based on news blogs and actually open a science textbook.

BTW I would appreciate a little less of shock/horror caps when you accuse people of lying, that's so childish, but of course typical of thread killing.

Well I get exasperated with people trying to say that one term replaced the other in usage. It's fake news. They've both been used and each have a different meaning that applies to climate science.

Yet we have trotted out the science over and over for you but you still are full of nonsense. Utterly foolish to ignore the things I have observed you ignore. You are no Ante.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Oh, you poor thing. Come to New Jersey and help me shovel my damn roof.

Must suck shoveling snow in a toga and sandals!
Bring on the AGW.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Yet we have trotted out the science over and over for you but you still are full of nonsense. Utterly foolish to ignore the things I have observed you ignore. You are no Ante.

No you haven't. Your thread on magnetic pole shifts doesn't disprove AGW. Plus I'm not obligated to pay attention to every piece of information posted by anti-AGW people. Most of you repeat the same nonsense points that have been debunked ad nauseam anyways. I tune most of it out. Also, I never claimed to be Ante. I'm me. He is Ante. I have my own thought processes. If that doesn't gel with you then too bad. I don't care. Most of you just insult me on a day to day basis anyways.

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Are there really people who believe that plowing down forests, burning fossil fuels, etc... aren't harming the planet?

I doubt it. No thinking person wants to destroy the environment they depend on for survival. Also no thinking person who has looked without a bias outlook can believe all the propaganda about AGW either IMO.

No thinking person should believe the anti-AGW bias since it is funded and promoted by the same asstards who tried to deny the link between cancer and cigarettes. Same disinfo campaign tactics too.

PS: Global warming has been worried about by scientists since the turn of the 20th century well over a century ago.

Then they should not have to fiddle/lie about the temps.. Not the first time they have been caught or did you read the article ?

Back in the 1970s the big scare was another ice age. Funny I was alive, had already been to a war (not a kid) and I can remember many of the scientific discussions about a coming ice age... Now you can do an internet search and almost all the article say it did not happen that they really didn't say that... I will trust my own memory before I trust the propaganda machine of the NWO. youtu.be...

As an old bastard, I view all of the AGW/climate change has an underlying attempt to promote a leftist agenda. In the late 1960's Walter Cronkite said, on national TV, that the Vietnam War could not be won... national sentiment was changed to withdrawal. In the 1970's, Cronkite brought the idea of climate change with his global cooling and nuclear winter to his broadcasts. This was due to the SALT talks taking place at the time. Again a political component to climate change with his pushing of an agenda. This was in concert with a statement by a Wood's Hole Institute scientist's very narrow paper on changing temps in the oceans.

The United Nations took up the cause throughout the 1980's with them moving to global warming with Michael Mann's "hockey stick" warming charts. The UN was glad to promoting taxing Americans for "carbon use" with the help of Al Gore. Al Gore was glad to advance this money grab/distribution with his now failed Chicago Carbon Exchange. Gore's political affiliations made it easy to corrupt US agencies like the EPA, NASA, NOAA and the DOJ to echo the AGW mantra.

Obama wanted to continue the AGW scam by entering into the Paris Accords where he pledged $3 trillion dollars over 10 years to developing countries in Europe and Africa. This would've been continued if Hillary Clinton had been elected. It was only with the election of Trump did we find how politicized these agencies had become.

Climate change is at best a pseudo-science. This is most evident by the EPA fining a Kentucky farmer for filling in a tracker rut on his property...no true science there just money grab.

originally posted by: Harpua
[

This is a solid post.

I get that people can have some reservations about this issue since science can be self correcting, but when they refuse to acknowledge the millions of dollars spent by oil companies hoaxing the public when there are internal documents that show they've known about it for decades, its simply dishonest. The most recent lawsuit in CA, Chevron admitted that the commonly accepted climate science was real, but now down play how much humans might be affecting it.

"The plaintiffs are the coastal cities of San Francisco and Oakland. They’re suing five major oil companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP) to pay for the cities’ costs to cope with the sea level rise caused by global warming. Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

"From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change"

www.theguardian.com...
Chevron and likely the others take their work from the IPCC...it's the same bible.

Dana Nuccitelli writes in The Guardian blog, as does George Monbiot while Nuccitelli is a prolific alarmist who can be a bit elusive with showing true stats, even if the stats themselves are nothing short of speculation, when he needs to make a point that only promotes his perception of 'truth' against all others.
Not a good way to discuss things.

I don't think it wrong that you show the link, I do think though that the source should always be carefully perused.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Are there really people who believe that plowing down forests, burning fossil fuels, etc... aren't harming the planet?

I doubt it. No thinking person wants to destroy the environment they depend on for survival. Also no thinking person who has looked without a bias outlook can believe all the propaganda about AGW either IMO.

No thinking person should believe the anti-AGW bias since it is funded and promoted by the same asstards who tried to deny the link between cancer and cigarettes. Same disinfo campaign tactics too.

PS: Global warming has been worried about by scientists since the turn of the 20th century well over a century ago.

Then they should not have to fiddle/lie about the temps.. Not the first time they have been caught or did you read the article ?

Back in the 1970s the big scare was another ice age. Funny I was alive, had already been to a war (not a kid) and I can remember many of the scientific discussions about a coming ice age... Now you can do an internet search and almost all the article say it did not happen that they really didn't say that... I will trust my own memory before I trust the propaganda machine of the NWO. youtu.be...

As an old bastard, I view all of the AGW/climate change has an underlying attempt to promote a leftist agenda. In the late 1960's Walter Cronkite said, on national TV, that the Vietnam War could not be won... national sentiment was changed to withdrawal. In the 1970's, Cronkite brought the idea of climate change with his global cooling and nuclear winter to his broadcasts. This was due to the SALT talks taking place at the time. Again a political component to climate change with his pushing of an agenda. This was in concert with a statement by a Wood's Hole Institute scientist's very narrow paper on changing temps in the oceans.

The United Nations took up the cause throughout the 1980's with them moving to global warming with Michael Mann's "hockey stick" warming charts. The UN was glad to promoting taxing Americans for "carbon use" with the help of Al Gore. Al Gore was glad to advance this money grab/distribution with his now failed Chicago Carbon Exchange. Gore's political affiliations made it easy to corrupt US agencies like the EPA, NASA, NOAA and the DOJ to echo the AGW mantra.

Obama wanted to continue the AGW scam by entering into the Paris Accords where he pledged $3 trillion dollars over 10 years to developing countries in Europe and Africa. This would've been continued if Hillary Clinton had been elected. It was only with the election of Trump did we find how politicized these agencies had become.

Climate change is at best a pseudo-science. This is most evident by the EPA fining a Kentucky farmer for filling in a tracker rut on his property...no true science there just money grab.

Thank you ....You said it better than I would have simply because much of that I have forgotten.. Thanks

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Must suck shoveling snow in a toga and sandals!
Bring on the AGW.

It would suck if I were wearing Armani.

Let me be the first to promise this:

Give me money - as much as possible - and I promise that the entire earth will run at a beautiful 72 degrees F and there will be no more storms, earthquakes, or even ANY unpleasant anything.

You have my promise. Now start sending me money so I can implement your future happiness.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
Yet we have trotted out the science over and over for you but you still are full of nonsense. Utterly foolish to ignore the things I have observed you ignore. You are no Ante.

No you haven't. Your thread on magnetic pole shifts doesn't disprove AGW. Plus I'm not obligated to pay attention to every piece of information posted by anti-AGW people. Most of you repeat the same nonsense points that have been debunked ad nauseam anyways. I tune most of it out. Also, I never claimed to be Ante. I'm me. He is Ante. I have my own thought processes. If that doesn't gel with you then too bad. I don't care. Most of you just insult me on a day to day basis anyways.

It is all your fault for not understanding the facts. I can't help those that won't help themselves and study ALL the data and they regurgitate the fragments that attempt to describe a losing position from every angle conceivable BUT the actual data.

a reply to: Justoneman

Lol. Yeah right. I have the majority of the world's opinion, every country's leadership, and the world's scientists on my side. You just have crazy conservatives and the oil industry on your side. I don't like making appeals to populism but you are slightly outclassed here. Maybe you should rethink your attack against me and open up an actual scientific journal to deny some ignorance?

But hey, I'm not surprised you had to make this conversation about me. It's par the course when it comes to these threads. It's easier to character assassinate then actually respectfully debate someone with opinions you disagree with.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

Lol. Yeah right. I have the majority of the world's opinion, every country's leadership, and the world's scientists on my side. You just have crazy conservatives and the oil industry on your side. I don't like making appeals to populism but you are slightly outclassed here.

But hey, I'm not surprised you had to make this conversation about me. It's par the course when it comes to these threads. It's easier to character assassinate then actually respectfully debate someone with opinions you disagree with.

Do you now? LOL

NOT

www.naturalnews.com...


You have got to be Krazyshot. No other way to describe people like you.
ETA

I wasn't making it just about you. It was a comment about people LIKE you...

a reply to: Justoneman

Hmmm... That looks like a news source to me and not a science outlet. See. This is what's wrong with you guys. You can't differentiate sources. News != scientific journal.

BTW, your source is just reposting from a known anti-AGW propaganda source; and it has been explained why that data has been altered. This is why I tend to ignore these claims. This isn't a science discussion. It's just a circle jerk of trying to find little "GOTCHA!" moments against climate science and then fallaciously trying to make the leap that that automatically disproves the science. Nope. Try again.

I want to see your experiments and data you collected that show that an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere won't lead to increased global temperatures over time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

Hmmm... That looks like a news source to me and not a science outlet. See. This is what's wrong with you guys. You can't differentiate sources. News != scientific journal.

BTW, your source is just reposting from a known anti-AGW propaganda source. This is why I tend to ignore these claims. This isn't a science discussion. It's just a circle jerk of trying to find little "GOTCHA!" moments against climate science and then fallaciously trying to make the leap that that automatically disproves the science. Nope. Try again.

It is an opinion from a science mag that differs from your's that is PROVING hard data exists from Hansen himself to support my position. You won't even need to read it for it to trigger you apparently. I caution you have a helmet and chinstrap on to keep your skull intact if you do read it.

a reply to: 727Sky

20° C temp anomalies in the Arctic and Antactica don't fit your narrative, do they?

cci-reanalyzer.org...

One day you'll realize that the fraud happened the other way around, and sadly you chose to be part of it. My condolences in advance.

a reply to: Justoneman

I have read. You aren't the first person to post that link (well the link that Natural news is reposting). This again circles back to you guys making the same fallacious points over and over again.

PS: If you think I'm triggered then you suck at social cues. I really don't give a # if you want to stick your head in the sand and trust the news over actual scientists who study these things.

Though, since you can't talk to me like an adult I'm going to continue ignoring you going forward. You clearly have nothing productive to say anyways.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: 727Sky

20° C temp anomalies in the Arctic and Antactica don't fit your narrative, do they?

cci-reanalyzer.org...

One day you'll realize that the fraud happened the other way around, and sadly you chose to be part of it. My condolences in advance.

The cold temps are still nearby they have moved to a new location that is not the North and South Pole of our youth. The changing mag pole is pulling the water circulation (in our atmosphere) to new locations.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

Lol. Yeah right. I have the majority of the world's opinion, every country's leadership, and the world's scientists on my side. You just have crazy conservatives and the oil industry on your side. I don't like making appeals to populism but you are slightly outclassed here.

But hey, I'm not surprised you had to make this conversation about me. It's par the course when it comes to these threads. It's easier to character assassinate then actually respectfully debate someone with opinions you disagree with.

Do you now? LOL

NOT

www.naturalnews.com...


You have got to be Krazyshot. No other way to describe people like you.
ETA

I wasn't making it just about you. It was a comment about people LIKE you...

This article highlights the key point. It's wrong to put science on some high pedestal and use phrases like "I believe the science" or "science self corrects". The truth is that all science is performed by scientists, also known as humans. We all know that humans can be corrupted, blinded by politics or greed or power or the pretty girl who is all in for AGW.

What we have in front of us is conflicting data from humans with different agendas or beliefs. Neither is the absolute truth because we still have millions of years of development before we truly understand.

I know, with this attitude one can't really believe in anything. That's ok, we have little reason for belief at this point. Just look at the nutrition discipline as an example and how the 'science' changes every year.

More proof for the global deniers ruining my field choice:

here we have a NOAA scientist report that supports the facts the leftist are denying.

www.insidescience.org...

Here we have proof of duping of the public (for Krazyshotwho must be duped and needs to learn the facts or is a bot for the NWO)

www.dailymail.co.uk...


More scientific data to deny is true for the leftist here

www.skepticalscience.com...