Climate change data dumped

Je t contrails can block sun for over 20,000 square miles

That appeared on the web today.

Analysis of contrails from one large military aircraft circling over the North Sea showed the creation of a thin layer of cloud that, at its peak, covered an area of more than 20,000 square miles. The Met Office research suggests the collective impact of hundreds of vapour trails can cause a blanket of thin cloud, reducing sunshine for millions who live under busy flight paths.

Isn't it funny how all of a sudden a report from 2003 turns up with some excuse?
They say the con trails not only warm up the Planet, But cool it down as well, something really strange has been going on for the past few days, they admit first that Tony Blair knew the War in Ira was illegal and prove it with a letter from the AG, and then start talking about contrails, and all the fuzzy things in the sky that for years have been known as chem trails.

A whole new approach me thinks, Monday morning most of the UK is going to discover that our Government lied through it's teeth knowingly and deliberately, and now that all those lines in the sky are messing up our weather, this is going to be a busy week.

Looks like Al likes to use his own fakery to go along with that which bogus scientists provided him... Though apparently those bogus scientists were better at it.

Algore Photoshops Fake Earth

www.rushlimbaugh.com...

He took some NASA imagery of the earth and Photoshopped the following into it. And we've got a website here with both pictures: the original snapshot of the earth from NASA, and then the way Gore Photoshopped it. And here's what's on the picture that's Photoshopped: four hurricanes that were not there. The hurricane closest to Florida is spinning in the wrong direction. The hurricane off of South America is almost on the equator, which is physically impossible for hurricanes. All of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is removed, but snow cover over Canada and Alaska remains. Cuba, in Gore's Photoshopped picture of the earth, Cuba doesn't exist. It is not there. Cuba is totally underwater, which would require a sea level rise of over 6,000 feet, which means Denver would be underwater as well. If Cuber is under water, so would be Denver! Now, half of the Greenland ice sheet is gone, but it's out of the center; the thickest part, rather than around the edges, where it's the thinnest. It's a joke! This man is an absolute joke! He's Photoshopped a picture of the earth.

Poor Al.




newsbusters.org...

www.spiegel.de...



Edit: To add other website links.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Walkswithfish]

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by selfisolated
Its no wonder I just had 3 months off this forum...

stop being so bloody stupid. READ the article, PROPERLY.
The data was thrown away 30 years ago, at a time when 'climate change' was a bit of a non issue, in the same way people today REALLY care where their 'recycling' actually goes.

Indeed. I too tired of intellectual midgets, but for about a year.

Now, instead of endless moronic threads by "christians" about how the world hates "christians", we are treated to endless moronic threads about AGW. Change the record, will you? Or at least actually read the evidence instead of seeing what you want.

Yawn. You are irrelevant. Bye.

Was there any need to post that? What did you hope to achieve here? Do you honestly think someone is going to "change the record" as you've said in a couple of your posts because you say so? Lol, give me break.

If this thread is really such a yawn for you then why did you bother posting in it? What attracted you to this thread in the first place? It seems like someone is trolling for attention.

Calling someone irrelevant out of the blue like that seems childish don't you think? Your entire post is just pointless and moronic.

You've displayed very little intelligence here yet act as if you posess a superior one. Try offering something a little more constructive in future so us "intellectual midgets" can be enlightened by your wisdom.

I have to add this about the OP, sorry forgot, got a house full of mad people today.

The data they had, that they claim was thrown away, I was listening to Radio 4 here in the UK on Friday, they tried to have an interview with Professor Jones I believe? the guy accused of the false data? anyhow it tuned out he was too busy to be interviewed (yeah right) anyhow, the replacements where talking about the data, and they said that all the information used at the beginning, was collected from local sources, meaning people went to towns and cities, and went through their records, copying, and making notes from local records going back as far as Medieval times.

So they can destroy anything they like, but those records still exist, they would never be allowed to destroy or even remove the original data from the local sources, it just means the work needs to be done again, making life a lot harder for someone or many someones.

Their claim has to be a delaying tactic, giving them time to get these new treaties signed, what needs to be done is, there needs to be a push for court orders to stop any signings until the data can be retrieved, that would be the only way to stop them now, because they are about to sign us all up to the biggest scam the World has ever seen, a scam based on nothing if they don't have any data to back their claims of changes since the industrial revolution.

How can treaties be signed without the data to back up the claims?

In the end it's going to come down to pitch forks and flaming torches, marching to their offices to burn them out and put them on trial.

Got to ask the Americans, what do you think the World would have looked like, if Al Gore had took the White House in 2000?

reply to post by azzllin


Of course the data still exists, but they collected it and got rid of the data that did not support their theory... That is why there could be no peer review of their findings... They wouldn't let other scientists review their data and findings because they would have discovered how badly flawed and fraudulent their work was.

They only kept data which supported the theory of man made global warming, and even manipulated and/or fabricated data to support the theory, but consistently blocked any kind of peer review... Which is how scientists should present their findings on researched theory that offers any kind of conclusions.

Their computer models were just as fallacious when factors such as solar activity and other important factors were not used in their forecast future climate models.

Everything had to support their theory or it simply was made to, or removed from the equation.

That isn't science, it is fraud period.

Hopefully real scientists can now study the climate the way it should be done and perhaps we will have a real understanding in the future of how natural climate cycles work and exactly how great or minimal mankind's impact on climate really is.

But, it is likely because of this fraud that we will never be able to trust any climate science... And that is the real shame here.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by Walkswithfish]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I wish I could star your post a few more times.

...

I doubt many will say that recycling is a bad idea. Even fewer will say that reducing the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere is a bad idea. I hate that we put so many chemicals into the things we consume such as water, food and air. What I absolutely detest are the scare stories and damnright lies that are being fed to all of us. Man's affect on climate change is so small that it is negligible (yearly, we output less than 3% of the Earth's total output via natural processes). We affect our soil, we pollute the air in our cities but the land area we use is minuscule compared to the Earth's total size. All things considered, we use very little of the Earth. So little, in fact, that much of the Earth is yet to be explored.

As for Arctic ice level changes:

The Arctic Reaches Record Low Ice Coverage in 2007. The press trumpeted this every few days in the summer of 2007. Further down the page on the monitoring sites of major institutions was some additional news. Antarctic ice coverage at the same time was at or above the highest levels ever recorded. For example, see the University of Illinois Cryosphere Program. In each case, reliable measurements date only from the arrival of satellite data in the 1970s, another usually omitted fact. However, since the Northwest Passage was open to sailing vessels in 1903-1905 (Gjøa/Roald Amundsen), and again in 1940-42 and 1944 (St. Roch), it is possible this recent reduction in Arctic ice is not an indicator of warming. The return of Arctic sea ice in 2008 to levels at least 30% greater than 2007 received little attention.

Source: climatechangefacts.info

Visit that website, it is an enlightening read.

[edit on 29/11/09 by Rapacity]

Originally posted by altered_states

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
reply to post by altered_states

 

Then can someone please explain to me why the polar regions are melting at such a fast rate if global warming doesn't exsist or is it just a bunch of guys with bunsen burners making the ice melt?

Then can someone please explain how this has happened many times before and will continue to happen, I think the word is cycle.

It has happened before that is true - but not at the rate that it is happening now - not at the rate that one human generation can actually see it occur. Years past it happened over thousands of years. This is different.

reply to post by azzllin


This being the U.K, I wouldn't be surprised if one of our local kin hasn't quietly collected all this data as his own personal hobby. Were are the trainspotters and stamp collectors when we need them?

I totally agree with you, it is a stalling tactic.

I read in a recent article (I'll try to locate the link in a minute) that the original head of the CRU denied climate change to be caused by man. Indeed, my Environmental Sciences lecturer at Nottingham Trent University also denied man caused climate change but he had to teach it as part of the module (whether he believed it or not).

We've a lo of problems in the U.K at the moment and it's all adding fuel to the fire.

[edit on 29/11/09 by Rapacity]

Originally posted by mrsoul2009

It has happened before that is true - but not at the rate that it is happening now - not at the rate that one human generation can actually see it occur. Years past it happened over thousands of years. This is different.

And you know this how?

Did you get it from bogus science reports?

Are you a time traveler?

By the way in case you missed it, apparently while all this fuss over global warming has been going over the last 10 years global warming has stopped?

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Of course they would be baffled if they were convinced that man made global warming was real, because if they did believe that then the warming could only continue right? So we should be boiling by now!

Too bad they couldn't eliminate the data that supports the following...

www.spiegel.de...

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

I used to work at a small airport in Pennsylvania. Every morning one of my duties was to record weather information. There was a box over in one corner of the airport away from everything, that had a thermometer, barometer and wind indicator. I also tracked a balloon with a theodilite to find the cloud height. All of this information was entered into a huge notebook and a form that was mailed to the NOAA once a month. I know the NOAA's forms were probably destroyed, but I wonder about the airport's notebook. These were large, bound ledger type books. The shelf where it was kept had books dating back to the 1920's. All with the same information. Taking this data was discontinued in 1991 when the airport got an AWOS (Automated Weather Observation Station) station. I'm going to see if I can find those books and plug the temp. numbers into an Excel spreadsheet to plot a graph.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009

Originally posted by altered_states

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
reply to post by altered_states

 

Then can someone please explain to me why the polar regions are melting at such a fast rate if global warming doesn't exsist or is it just a bunch of guys with bunsen burners making the ice melt?

Then can someone please explain how this has happened many times before and will continue to happen, I think the word is cycle.

It has happened before that is true - but not at the rate that it is happening now - not at the rate that one human generation can actually see it occur. Years past it happened over thousands of years. This is different.

There are indeed some changes going on, but in fact the changes are all over the solar system not just earth. Something is happening and science would serve us much better to study and find out what is really going on instead of this silliness on man-made changes.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009

Originally posted by altered_states

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
reply to post by altered_states

 

Then can someone please explain to me why the polar regions are melting at such a fast rate if global warming doesn't exsist or is it just a bunch of guys with bunsen burners making the ice melt?

Then can someone please explain how this has happened many times before and will continue to happen, I think the word is cycle.

It has happened before that is true - but not at the rate that it is happening now - not at the rate that one human generation can actually see it occur. Years past it happened over thousands of years. This is different.

Ok then you might want to delve in a bit history and learn a thing or two about climate altering catastrophes, here are a few links to help you on your way
palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...

you will find that we contribute a really small fraction of carbon emissions compared to them babies and yet it took them approximately 1 million years of non stop 24/7 with the worst kind of carbon emission known to man to cause major global event. Sorry but they/them/al boreites cannot pull the wool over my eyes.

reply to post by altered_states


Yep. When Krakatoa blew up in the 1800's the dust it released caused what was called a "mini ice age" that lasted several years.

reply to post by KeeperOfGenisis


Because winter just started in the Northern Hemisphere.

Second line.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by aravoth]

Originally posted by altered_states
I wonder what story AL BORE will come up with this time

That he is sorry he invented the internet.

I think now is the appropriate time to share this Gem of philosophical uberness. Listen well...... all of you......

Originally posted by Granite

Originally posted by altered_states
I wonder what story AL BORE will come up with this time

That he is sorry he invented the internet.

Oh yes another taxation /money making scheme

Oh deary me I think a few people might want to look at this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=7611355#pid7611355

nevermind

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by fatdad
Russia today news channel is running an hourly story of how they fiddled the data to fit the global warming agenda...

Ah well, if Putin's Russia says so, then it must be true then. Your level of objectiveness leaves me breathless. Truly, a giant...

If the story isn't originally run by Newsweek & MSNBC than its nothing worth talking about.

It should be noted that Russia stood to benefit from 'global warming'. Largest nation in the world, and its frozen. I think it was here a couple years ago posted that Putin made a statement saying it would be good for Russia.

Minnesotans are FOR Global Warming ("If We Had Some GLobal Warming"):



[edit on 29-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

What is crazy is the silence from much of the main stream U.S. news media. One would think that journalists would be going into a frenzy trying to connect the dots linking the GW scam to major academic, corporate, and political institutions.

Well...unless of course...much of the U.S. media is involved in tthe man-made global warming scam....