Freezing Heat

Apologies if this has already been posted:

Daily Telegraph Article

al Gore is working for Rotschilds for long time. his involvment (proof in link below) can not be accidental. there are huge money in this buussiness:

aftermathnews.wordpress.com...

now, they are going to get cash from taxpayers worldwide as the energetic tax for the manufactures they are running. that is a whole joke. the countries will have to make the certificates (who is going to do it?- not you my friends) and than they will have to pay penalties for not keeping to the energetic limits.

all knows that the man has nothing to do with the warming (or freezing as it happens on the north pole) of the planet. we are producing only 4% of CO2,m hte rest is coming form the nature itself. by keeping to the Kioto, the whole world will lower the temperature by the end of century of 0,001 C!!

it is just a new bussiness they started. they are doing with us what they want and all we can do is to watch as they are bringing the NWO to us to just make it global.

I'm sure glad to see that Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is using the old copy and paste method to make last months figures into this months figures.

"Sir the Magic 8-ball says ask again later"
"Oh just copy and paste last months figures, nobody will know, they still think we're spending their tax money on science."

I saw that and am glad you posted ..I hope this story gets a lot of play in msm..because its outrageous the Fraud, and thats just what it is. Paying a carbon tax because someone deliberatly used a cut and paste, and said nothing is exactly what it is. The only heat I see is cooking the books, and lots of people getting blasted when they did not like what was served on the menu.
How about the previous months..and years..



[edit on 16-11-2008 by Sys_Config]

Uh-oh...

I think there needs to be a general call for independent verification of all temperature readings taken during the last decade at least.

I also have a prediction: sooner or later, someone will come into this thread and state that just becasue some readings are inaccurate (made up), we shouldn't discount Global Warming predictions, because they are still true.

I also predict this prediction will have a better track record than Hansen's.

S&F

TheRedneck

I love this line of thought.

"Global warming is false because it snowed yesterday!"

reply to post by TheRedneck

I also have a prediction: sooner or later, someone will come into this thread and state that just becasue some readings are inaccurate (made up), we shouldn't discount Global Warming predictions, because they are still true.

Just because some readings are inaccurate (made up), we shouldn't discount Global Warming predictions, because they are still true.

Sorry, Redneck. I just couldn't resist!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I love this line of thought.

"Global warming is false because it snowed yesterday!"

Yup, that's just as lovable as Al Gore's theory that Global Warming is real, because he says it is real, and if you don't like it, he's going to raise your "Carbon Tax".

reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

And from that you got "Global warming is false because it snowed yesterday!"?

I love that line of thought.
(Hint: try reading the article before you dismiss it.)
-----------------------
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

See? Now I'm more accurate than a room full of Global Warming activists!

TheRedneck


[edit on 16-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

If we really want to stop "global warming" we should make giant blue tarps and cover the oceans with them to keep them from evaporating. Water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas while CO2 makes up only .038%

Gimme a break.

This whole global warming thing is a crock for very few to make a huge profit.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by SuperSecretSquirrel]

If we really want to stop "global warming" we should make giant blue tarps and cover the oceans with them to keep them from evaporating. Water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas while CO2 makes up only .038%

You are correct that water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but the figures are:

www.junkscience.com...

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.

I think maybe you meant 3.8%, rather than .038%.
Anyway, in the same link, there is a great scientific explanation, with no political comments, on WHY the "greenhouse effect" does not have a major effect on the earth's temperature.
For those who are interested in scientific facts, not politics, I suggest reading the entire article. For those that just want a summary of the science, at the bottom of the link is the summary:

What are the take-home messages:

* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
* Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
* Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
* Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
* There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
* Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

I think maybe you meant 3.8%, rather than .038%.

Actually, I was thinking he was referring to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is presently at around 380 ppmv, or 0.038%.

TheRedneck

Actually, I was thinking he was referring to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is presently at around 380 ppmv, or 0.038%.

Duh, me bad. Senior Moment. You're right, another case of senioritis. Anyway, the rest of the argument still holds. Bottom line- leave the science to scientists, and not politicians. But then again, since Al Gore invented the internet, does that make him a scientist?

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

But then again, since Al Gore invented the internet, does that make him a scientist?

I would think that would make him an intern... now where's Bill Clinton when we need him?

Aw, Prof, see what you did? You made me make another bad joke... hey, mods, it was just a joke, OK?

OK?

eep...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by AlwaysQuestion
Apologies if this has already been posted:

Daily Telegraph Article

from the article you linked:

Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

there's a name for that: Fraud. plain and simple, if you're cooking data and aren't part of the elitist few, you'll get booted and probably never work in the field again.

if you're conveying an agenda, no problem, do it, get caught, do it again, get caught again, what gives. They're pulling their data from nowhere and cooking the rest as they go along.

Warming since 1990 linked to data collection

---------

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I love this line of thought.

"Global warming is false because it snowed yesterday!"

the burden of proof never was on my shoulders, so if you could please eliminate all fraudulently derived data related to GW and used to bolster the theory from the set and recompile the rest so we can have a reasonable discussion, it'd be very much appreciated. until then. i'll call

SSSNNAKE OIL


[edit on 2008.11.17 by Long Lance]

This is honestly one of the biggest conspiracies in the last 20 years. Forget the debate of whether global warming is real or not or whether it is man made or natural. Here is a person in Hansen that is the #1 global warming alarmist. His entire reputation is based on it being real and a problem. He is taking money to make appearances. He is in control of a large chunk of data that gets reported. He has been caught either deliberately doctoring data to support his claim or doing work so sloppy that he loses all credibility. He is either a policy maker or has a heavy influence and is producing this kind of work. This is also the guy that complain about being censored.

Does it matter what he is selling? He has abused his position and should be terminated.

Person of great influence.
Has a strong political belief.
Takes money to promote belief.
Controls data that backs up his belief.
Gets caught producing bad data... again.

Its like finding out that someone who has been campaigning hard for an auto industry bailout has stocks in one of the automakers and has been handling the accounting and cooking the books in order to get a cash infusion so his stock could go up. A person like that would be fired or indicted.

Here is a person that is supposed to be such an authority on the subject. Yet his office mad a massive error. He should have seen the results and known right away something was wrong and investigated. The mistake was so big that one can only assume that a person with his training didn't make a mistake but rather released the data as is intentionally. Its not like the real ranking was #5 and due to an error it became #1. We are talking #1 versus something like #70.