The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

page: 3
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


You make a good point.

The more I dig into MMGW the more skeptical I am of both sides of the coin.

Bad science on both sides of the fence.




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
here's another book thats worth a read " The real Global Warming Disaster" by Christopher Booker. im only about half way through at the moment but is very good so far. he may not be a climate scientist with various phd's, but he looks a little more into the politics behind it all...



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Yes, but they don't raise the acidity of the water and soil! Years of Co2 in the air gets cycled through rain and water, and soil.

In greenhouses they manage the soil and water pH. We can't do that in natural places.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

It was a blunder, but only because they decided to use it for an excuse to cripple the world with taxes to institutie a banking cabal world takeover, before they looked into the validity of the science.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


right or wrong but the only thing I see it's just another expert selling a book like all others, in order to pay his taxes from the Socialist Elite GREENIES or whatever...it's just about money, this war between those peoples are fooling only us and just us... and you are right WE DON'T NEED MORE CONTROL, MORE LAWS, AND MORE TAXES TO PAY FOR SOMETHING WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER...AND MORE PEOPLE SELLING BOOK TO TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD DO !!! because if tomorrow mother nature don't want us anymore she can clean herself easily and put our stupid ego to another dimension
we realy need to keep this in our mind



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ibiubu
 


I agree with you 100% and all I have to say is this -

Anything coming from an acronym agency, especially NOAA and EPA, should be taken with a very small grain of salt. It's almost always about money and nothing else.

Who funds those agencies and institutions?

Jackpot.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The problem is with people who believe in Global Warming, are the ones who are probably wrong, because to be honest, all they want to do is point the finger and blame someone for an increase in heat, and varying weather patterns, more earthquakes etc.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I have been reading about the life and work of James Lovelock..i belive he has it all sussed...fantastic man!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I have been reading about the life and work of James Lovelock..i belive he has it all sussed...fantastic man!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Woot!

Lets get back to the dumping and the drilling cause nothing man does is big enough to change the enviroment!

I think there are some rivers I need to dam and some wetlands I need to drain too, glad I can do this and fill the air with diesel fumes and not have to worry!

Thanks OP!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
You know what? This may well be true, but I am not liking how the topic title tries to absolve the climate hacks of responsibility in doctoring their data. They deliberately doctored data to get the results they wanted for their political agenda. Has everyone forgotten that? They admitted as much in the hacked emails.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


This is actually the crux of it. A global bait and switch, MMGW gave everyone a flash point to push through other environmental standards without anyone actually knowing. Ask any layperson about GW and they may give you an answer of them not believing it or not buying it, but they will also say that its ok though because we need to pollute less anyway (even though the main thrust has been entrusted to GW). So even if someone comes up with irrefutable proof global warming is not occurring or is not influenced by man, the environmental standards will be upheld as something self contained - regardless if it was built on misinformation.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by expressyourself
 


here's another book thats worth a read " The real Global Warming Disaster" by Christopher Booker. im only about half way through at the moment but is very good so far. he may not be a climate scientist with various phd's, but he looks a little more into the politics behind it all...



Funny thing you should say that, or quote Booker saying that. Der Spiegel recently published a lengthy dissertation on the AGW/Climategate debates and discussions being entertained or promoted by various governments or government-funded organizations.

Included among the scientists quoted is the 'father of the two-degree' target/limit that the AGW advocates cite as the basis for their draconian "solutions:"


All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
'Clearly a Political Goal'
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."
But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated." Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

Der Spiegel:Climate Catastrophe, A superstorm for Global Warming research

The article covers pro- and anti-AGW research and proponents, and provides factual bases supporting the idea that AGW is far from settled, or anywhere near a "scientific consensus," so much as it is a political and funding-driven consensus.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

There is a new book out by Dr Spencer, who has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a CLIMATOLOGIST,


Oh...now that a lone PhD is a denier ...academic credentials all of sudden matter?

If a PhD was all it took wouldn't you have stopped being a denier long ago with the mountains of PhDs that disagree with Mr. Spencer?

He may have a PhD, but he is an idealouge all the same.

Oh BTW - He doesn't believe in evolution either...


The greatest irony of Roy Spencer is that while he presents himself as a voice of skepticism and doubt, he has actually aligned himself with organizations that promote the opposite of doubt. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that's based on a "Biblical view" rather than science.

www.squidoo.com...

Oh ....and when he was confronted by other scientists in a roundtable with the NY Times...he admitted his studies were flawed..



Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Dr. Christy said. "We still have this modest warming."

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.


www.nytimes.com...

But I guess the book title "I was wrong, fudged the numbers and admitted it" doesn't sell many books....

[edit on 21-4-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


But I guess the book title "I was wrong, fudged the numbers and admitted it" doesn't sell many books....


Did Mann, Jones and Hansen collaborate on a book?

Or are they offering contributions to an IPCC compendium of the imaginary bases of the "scientific consensus?"

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

Lets get back to the dumping and the drilling cause nothing man does is big enough to change the enviroment!



I think its quite ignorant to assume that those who don't believe in AGW support dumping and pollution, or what I call the "real pollution". Many of us support efforts to curb actual pollution, yet disagree that CO2 is a "pollutant", as the EPA has declared.

Why is it that I never hear AGW believers speak out about cleaning the Pacific "trash island" that is twice the size of Texas? Wouldn't that be a bigger priority for protecting sea life than a modest increase in CO2?

I guess they can't figure out a way to tax and control us by fixing that mess.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
In case anyone is still skeptical that Billions, if not Trillions is being transferred from our governments to NGOs and "green" industry with literally no pay back to the citizen, take a perusal as to what's happening in Ontario:

WindConcernsOntario.org

A once very properous province has just condemned itself to 3rd world stature by religiously following the green pied piper. No accountability, rural lands turned over to the wind industry to do as they please, rural communities sacrificed, citizen and local rights stripped away by the Orwellian "Green Energy Act". This is happening right now.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Gamma MO]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Unnoan
 


We can play our fiddles while Rome burns, arguing if the fire is arson or a lightening strike but it doesn't change the fact the city is still burning and we better do something about it. Both sides point at the other and argue but can't we still carry some buckets to the fire while we argue?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CDippa

Originally posted by Helmkat

Lets get back to the dumping and the drilling cause nothing man does is big enough to change the enviroment!



I think its quite ignorant to assume that those who don't believe in AGW support dumping and pollution, or what I call the "real pollution". Many of us support efforts to curb actual pollution, yet disagree that CO2 is a "pollutant", as the EPA has declared.

Why is it that I never hear AGW believers speak out about cleaning the Pacific "trash island" that is twice the size of Texas? Wouldn't that be a bigger priority for protecting sea life than a modest increase in CO2?

I guess they can't figure out a way to tax and control us by fixing that mess.


If you want to dicuss the trash pile island that would be a different thread.

My only ignorance was to assume that my sarcasm would not be taken literally. I do know there are all manner of people views on this particular subject. And if someone wanted to they could tax and control us on the trash pile as well.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTheOne
The problem is with people who believe in Global Warming, are the ones who are probably wrong, because to be honest, all they want to do is point the finger and blame someone for an increase in heat, and varying weather patterns, more earthquakes etc.


wow, just want to point out this comment is so useless and uninformed, you might as well have said nothing. no one who believes in global warming (or cooling for that matter) give a flying crap about pointing any damn finger. We just want alternative sources of fuel so America doesn't have to be in the Big Oil company's pocket.

if that's your only reason as to why people who think all the pollution and garbage is hurting the earth is so they can point blame, you have no future in debating this type of thing in this forum.





new topics
top topics
 
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join