The real hoax of climate change

originally posted by: Lumenari



Completely false.

Proven to be false over and over and over and over... but yet people believe it anyways.

Most cite the Cook report... the mythical "97% of scientists agree" hogwash.

Human nature at work.

Once a person takes a side in an arguement, they hate so much to admit they are wrong, they tend to ignore facts that negate their original position.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Phage

Are you saying none of the data has been altered, in any way, to support their arguement?

Yes. I have seen no indication that is the case.

Are you saying that the AGW "skeptics" don't lie about the data? Are you saying that the chart on the right represents global temperatures? Can you produce the source for that chart?

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Phage

Are you saying none of the data has been altered, in any way, to support their arguement?

Yes. I have seen no indication that is the case.

Are you saying that the AGW "skeptics" don't lie about the data? Are you saying that the chart on the right represents global temperatures? Can you produce the source for that chart?

NO! FALSE !!

What they show is "adjusted data".

In the Climategate scandal, the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was sued for the source data, to no avail, with the CRU, after LOSING legal arguments, made the spurious/laughable claim that they "lost the original data".

Similar situation with the Mann trial.

That is NOT science - RED FLAG FOR FRAUD and for the gullible...

a reply to: Mach2

Not really. Not when one has the capability for critical thinking.

Then came Jerry Taylor, Version #2. That’s the Jerry Taylor who – after doing what he describes as his own “due diligence” – has come to fully accept and endorse the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on human-caused climate change that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the past half-century-plus primarily as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically including carbon dioxide.

www.yaleclimateconnections.org...

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

www.nytimes.com...


I was "on the fence" for a while myself. Not anymore.

a reply to: M5xaz

In the Climategate scandal, the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was sued for the source data, to no avail, with the CRU, after LOSING legal arguments, made the spurious/laughable claim that they "lost the original data".

You are completely and utterly incorrect. Yes, I know that's redundant.
rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz

In the Climategate scandal, the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was sued for the source data, to no avail, with the CRU, after LOSING legal arguments, made the spurious/laughable claim that they "lost the original data".

You are completely and utterly incorrect. Yes, I know that's redundant.
rationalwiki.org...

Nope. Wrong again Phage.

The CRU ITSELF stated that had lost/destroyed/failed to preserve the original data in response to FOIA requests.
www.theregister.co.uk...

FAIL!!

a reply to: M5xaz

Your source:

McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.

Where's the part about being sued?


But strangely, that "lost data" is readily available from East Anglia, or it's original source. That which is not proprietary that is. But there isn't much of that sort.
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

Good amount available here, too.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Maybe it's just my nature but any time you get labelled a "denier" only serves to raise my skepticism. The truth only needs the force of law to prop it up when it's manufactured.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is the real hoax of climate change. If we just give most of our wealth and control of our lives to Governments they can change the climate. Why would anyone fall for such nonsense?

Nope. The real hoax is that people keep voting in people endorsed by and financed by corporate dollars, specifically coal and oil.

The government's role is to set standards and limits to CO2 output, and fine the crap out of violators. But when Kyoto was on the table and the 2000 election took place and Oilmen Bush and Cheney had the door open for Enron and such ilk to set energy policy, there was no way in hell that the U.S. would sign on to Kyoto.

What do we have now? Anti-regulation goons in key cabinet positions like EPA, Interior, Energy. So failing coal gets subsidies from the taxpayers so the CEOs and stockholders don't lose profits.

It would certainly be better if Corporate money and propaganda were banned from politics. Then maybe fossil fuel shills wouldn't get elected. Then the EPA, Energy, and Interior could put required limits in place and fine the hell out of violators.

Guess what? If fines were high your taxes could be lower. Yaaaa! Lower taxes! Tax the rich 1%. Maybe they would pay their employees better. Maybe the CEOs will take a salary cut and refuse bonuses to stay under $10,000,000 per year to stay out of a higher tax bracket. Win, win.

a reply to: Phage

I didn't post the chart.

What would be the purpose of lying about the data for the anti AGW crowd? If civilization, as we know it, is headed for destruction, that would be a pretty evil lie. I dont see where the profit would be.

I know, from previous threads, how hardcore you are on the subject. There is no room for debate as far as you're concerned.

My mind is still open on the subject.

One thing I know is that many of the predictions that have been made never came about in the time frame predicted.

a reply to: Mach2

I know you didn't post the chart.

Continuing to sell oil and coal at an ever increasing rate would seem to be highly profitable.

Posting disinformation is not an acceptable form of debate.

An open mind is good, but don't let your brain fall out.

The models are actually doing pretty well, in general.

www.realclimate.org...

a reply to: Phage

Fact is CONTRARY to your earlier, FALSE assertion, source data was NOT being made available.

The CRU was fighting it, providing various excuses.

NO SOURCE DATA = NOT SCIENCE

When I say I don't see the profit, I was speaking from the perspective of a scientist, who understands the ramifications of the starvation, and death of a couple billion ppl.

It's a given that the huge energy companies are greedy bastards, that would sell their own mothers.

Anyway, at this time, I don't see the proponents of AGW doing a darn thing to shrink their own carbon footprint. I, on the other hand, do my best not to be a wasteful human being, whether it be water, energy, food, or the simple act of recycling.

When the big boys with all the power, and money do the same, I believe more ppl will listen. Do you not agree?

a reply to: M5xaz

Not excuses. Facts. Facts about what the data was and what its sources were. Facts about agreements made with the owners of some of that data.

Read what was actually said in that article. The data which could be provided was.

science.sciencemag.org...

But, as I said, I have seen no indication that any data was altered for any particular purpose.

a reply to: Mach2

Good on you, but individuals can only do so much. It takes governmental bodies to enable large scale action for a problem of this scale.. There is a great deal of resistance to that.

a reply to: Phage

Maybe if there was precedence of any government program being run efficiently, more would be on board as well.

Maybe if the leaders of the cause led by example, it would make a difference.

You are correct that individuals are limited in what they can do, but asking someone to bear the burden when not showing you are willing as well is never going to gain support.

Coming up with things like the Paris Accord, which gives the biggest polluters a decades long pass on an unbinding requirement is not going to fly either.

Do you at least see the point I'm trying to make?

People are not going to sacrifice standard of living, or pay higher taxes en masse, if they percieve it as unfair.

If you really want to change ppls mind, you have to prove to them it will be equitable, and effective. I have zero faith that it would be either.

I dont mean "you" personally, although you are knowledgeable enough to maybe come up with a better plan than i have seen so far.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Maybe it's just my nature but any time you get labelled a "denier" only serves to raise my skepticism. The truth only needs the force of law to prop it up when it's manufactured.

Excellent point!!

If you don't tow the radical view of climate change, you're called a denier.

Climate Change fanaticism is the biggest threat to humanity. You can control every aspect of people's lives in order to save the planet. You can even kill them and claim you're doing the compassionate thing.

Anyone that thinks giving all of your wealth and control of your life to the Government so they can stop or reverse climate change is a sheep.

There's nothing these corrupt Politicians can do but waste and spend money.

a reply to: Mach2

Maybe if there was precedence of any government program being run efficiently, more would be on board as well.

Trading SO2 credits seems to have been quite effective in reducing emissions at no cost to consumers. Government intervention seems to have helped reduce pollution of many sorts. But in the US, that seems to be changing.

If you really want to change ppls mind, you have to prove to them it will be equitable, and effective. I have zero faith that it would be either.

I think you have to start with acknowledgement of problem. The disinformation and money behind it doesn't help.

a reply to: Mach2

Great points. Specifically,

You are correct that individuals are limited in what they can do, but asking someone to bear the burden when not showing you are willing as well is never going to gain support.

This is the hypocrisy of Climate Change fanaticism.

There's things Governments can do like give bigger tax cuts to those who buy hybrid and electric cars. Do more research into clean tech. Get the Liberals in Silicon Valley to put the best AI with deep learning algorithms to give us more insight into the situation.

But to think that the Government can control cow farts, stop you from eating hamburgers, force you to drive electric cars, tell you how many children you can have and more is just insane!

Giving Corrupt Politicians all of our wealth and allowing them to control every aspect of our lives doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Phage

Nothing that costs $ comes at no cost to consumers, period. You know that.

IMO, even if ppl in the US accepted that AGW was a clear and present danger, as long as places like China, and India aren't subject to the same regulations, they are not going to be enthusiastic.