Originally posted by peck420
Canada is trying (more so the people than the politicians) to move away from an oil based economy, but it is decades away from achieving that
Yes, exactly - the people are trying and meanwhile crooked politicians like Harper are overstepping democracy to prevent it from happening.
As I already explained to Fort Anthem above, the technology completely exists to get us off carbon emissions - the only thing missing is the drive to
implement the infrastructure. To make that happen you have to send people to work to do it. So it would "destroy our economy" my butt. It
would destroy "their" economy, not ours.
Also how is setting these targets nothing but a "feel good answer"? That's like saying if you want to lose weight, restricting your calorie intake
is nothing but a feel good answer.
this should be on the front page
we all need a good laugh and this is it
Unfortunately it’s not on the front page because it takes the micky out of the agenda our government (i.e. those who e.g own newspapers and who
thereby decide elections) have decided what is right for us. I.e a fear mongering, news selling agenda that creates more corrupt opportunities for
them & their rich “friends” through not only Carbon Credits, but government supported projects.
So you’ll be lucky to find it in the middle pages. Maybe that’s why I don’t remember reading anything about it; or maybe that’s because
nothing was said at all?
Unfortunately (ever since the start of the human brain) the best form of propaganda has been to report the truth about what you want people to know,
and nothing about what you want unknown. Because ultimately nobody can truly “fight” what they don’t know, and nobody can be made to feel
guilty, about not reporting every single fact, on every single issue.
I don't deny that these scientists distorted, manipulated, and deleted data to advance their global warming agenda.
Who is denying again?
Did you hear that? Apparently, you "unquestionably subscribe" to the idea that some scientists/organizations have manipulated data to promote
nightmarish man-made global warming and are a "braindead denier" for thinking such thoughts. Such vehement and aggressive language, the sort of thing
I would expect from a religious apologist. The NOAA was recently accused of 'manufacturing' data - manufacturing the data to support the illusion of
global warming. Apparently they knowingly released incorrect temperature data from their satellites to the public. They knew that they were deceiving
the public and carried on doing it for years. Surely that is the epitome of fraud. And it is government fraud too, since the NOAA is an agency of the
US government. The AGW-deception appears to have failed, although die-hards will continue to push it until their last breath of course. See:
edit on 12-12-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)
Now any reasonably critical thinking person might of course first consider the possibility this was just some sort of sensor malfunction. Considering
the temperatures were so clearly out of whack, and they came from a device that is hurtling through space at 27,000 km/h, exposed to highly charged
particles and all that jazz - it might be a safe place to start any logical investigation.
But naturally, not in braindead denier world, no sir. Because on planet climate lobotomy it's automatically a
Of course those who actually do question things might also ask - if this is some devious conspiracy where NOAA (as you put it) is
"manufacturing" data, then why did they "knowingly release" this info on their website? Seems like a pretty sloppy way to cover stuff up
But again braindead deniers don't have time for annoying rquestions like that. So, quick - to the tinfoil-mobile!
Meanwhile, if someone were to actually dig a little deeper, like a real skeptic might - they'd probably also ask how exactly this compromised
data relates to the global warming "illusion" anyway?
And if they did some actual research into the matter themselves, instead of as usual just trusting some braindead denier blog to spoonfeed it to them
- they would discover this data is part of a niche branch of study called the Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, and it is NOT part of any analysis that monitors GLOBAL temperature trends, nor is it incorporated into one.
In fact anyone experienced with this debate, even certain braindead denier doorstops who repeat the same moronic memes over and over again, should
know by now that responsibility falls on RSS and UAH. And they guage their temperature data using
microwave sounding units that are completely separate systems from the faulty IR sensors
involved in this latest pathetic manufactroversy. So even if someone was "manufacturing the data", they're manufacturing the wrong data,
since it doesn't actually end up in any mean global database. It's simply used for scientists who study local concerns centered around the Great
And how about those Great Lakes then? Because apparently this entire conspiracy was uncovered by some intrepid anonymous skeptic who was following:
“a rather dubious report in the media that the Great Lakes temperatures have risen 10 to 15 degrees, I found it was downright laughable.”
(Just a few examples of media hysteria
here and here and
Of course once again, someone who actually questions things might wonder: aren't those temperatures also measured by other sources like
surface buoys as well? And indeed if they just checked one of the links the braindead denier blog labelled above as "media hysteria", they would
find a big picture of one sitting in the water, doing it's temperature measuring
So...while we're here...do you want to pause now and blame some buoy in the middle of a lake as being too close to air conditioning units while
you're at it?
Someone who actually asks real questions might again try to look into this matter a little deeper, and in doing so discover various additional local
news stories like this one, that shows people swimming and
frolicking in water normally too cold for anything of the sort:
Minneapolis (AP) — Don Kermeen grew up along the shores of Lake Superior, and early on he learned a lesson about the mighty lake: "For most of
the year, you don't swim in it unless you're in a wetsuit."
Not this summer. Superior and the four other Great Lakes have been at or near record high temperatures for the 30 years such measurements have been
taken - and there's still a month left before the lakes typically hit their warmest levels of the year.
"It's been awesome," Kermeen, the co-owner of Superior Shores Resort in Ontonagon, Mich., along Superior's southern shore, said this week. "I
think every single guest I had yesterday was out swimming. I don't care if they were a kid or in their 60s, they were out in that water."
So what is it now - are all these bathing Minnesotans suddenly in on the data manufacturing too??
It gets even better though, because anyone who lives around the Great Lakes, like I do, knows about the phenomenon of
Lake Effect Snow. In a nutshell it means when cold air (which blows in from the NW in the
Great Lakes region) meets warmer lake water, it picks up all that moisture and dumps it back on land. People who understand real science
instead of braindead denier blog science recognize this means the warmer the water,
the greater the snowfall. In fact one of the "hysterical" media links from
before, posted on August 4th, 2010 - even made the following prediction:
The warm water of the lake could mean a good shot of lake-effect snow when the Arctic air finally arrives in late autumn.
Thus if the Great Lakes did indeed reach record warm temperatures this year, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find ourselves now technically in
late Autumn, and seeing stuff like this dominating our news stories:
So while braindead denier automatons probably sit there looking at these images and gurgling to themselves "hyuck hyuck...what happen to global
warming?...oooops climate change...hyuck", anybody who actually questions things and does real research - sort of the way a "religious
apologist" like myself just did in this post, they would probably come away pretty satisfied that the story checks itself out. That in fact there's
no conspiracy here - only a mundane sensor problem which ultimately had no effect on the robustness of Great Lake temperature data, let alone global
But of course that's not the case in braindead denier world...
Because the BDD just sees something on a blog and automatically goes "ZOMG - Satellitegate!!! Sat-ell-ite-GATE! It's a scandal! They added
the suffix 'gate' to the end of it - that means it's a SCANDAL everybody!!! Anyone who questions this any further is just religiously
indoctrinated. Quick, no time to investigate..."
Impressive. Six times you said 'brain-dead denier' in that post. I think that beats all of your previous records when it comes to unnecessarily
provocative and childish name-calling.
You're right, the purportedly malfunctioning satellites were recording ludicrously high-temperatures but I think the issue at hand is that they were
being fed into climate models consequently leading to data-output of questionable authenticity. The article states "U.S. physicist Dr Charles R.
Anderson agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models
and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias" and "this may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years
originally identified. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have
become either degraded or seriously compromised. (Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to
favourably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda".
According to Anderson, even after these 'malfunctions' had been reported to them they had to be practically arm-twisted by outsiders of their
organisation into admitting it and half-heartedly taking minimalist action over it by removing the visibly-offending data from their web-site.
I'm sorry, but to say that this was merely just a case of satellites accidentally becoming malfunctioned over such a long-duration of time apparently
without any realising it must be the understatement of the decade. It stinks of criminal irresponsibility at the very least and appears to demonstrate
that NOAA bureaucrats hold the American people's need for truthful, accurate and reliable information about the climate in sheer contempt while they
go about vigorously promoting nightmarish man-made global warming mythology via every available media orifice. Who now can trust any of their
satellite-data any more when everyone is being kept in the dark about what problems might exist and what has been done, or is being done to fix
I don't expect any of this to wane your belief in CAGW, though.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hippomchippo
So, because some members of a movement are uninformed on basic chemistry, the entire movement isn't true?
It means they are uninformed morons, that can be fed a line of bull# and will just go along with it, it means they lack the basic education to even
begin to make an accurate evaluation of the premises of 'warmism'
Al Gore recently remarked how the interior of the earth was at a temperature of millions of degrees. - same goes for him! and that is why he refuses
to debate anyone - he would be shown up to be the total scientific illiterate that he is!
Originally posted by Nathan-D
The article states "U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees
Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias
It says he previously worked for the Navy and Lockheed Martin. That's impressive and all, but also quite amusing considering here we have yet another
"skeptic scientist" who has no actual background in climatology, but conveniently enough comes instead from America's military-industrial complex.
Dyson Freeman, Hal Lewis anyone?
Meanwhile go to his blog and read his About Me
A recurring theme is the importance of individuality and the fight for individual rights against the onslaught of the Nanny State and
Shocker! A global warming skeptic who happens to be an outspoken right-wing advocate of
both the personal and the economic rights of the sovereign individual.
So once more all we really have here is yet another fervent conservatarian who like most people has an opinion about something, and likes to blog
about it. And even though he has NO professional background in climate science, or how climate data is processed, he's now being touted by some other
blog as a prominent skeptic.
This has as much merit as me trying to convince you global warming is real because Dr. Charles R. Anderson the gynecologist like, totally believes in
it you guys!
Meanwhile this Charles R. Anderson clearly doesn't understand how global temperature trends are even determined, otherwise he wouldn't write this in
It is a wonder to me how one can use data from IR sensors to contribute to the global temperature record if the temperature measured is either
that of the ground or of the top of a cloud or just total nonsense.
That's because data from IR sensors doesn't contribute to the global temperature record Chuck! RSS and UAH use microwave sensors because,
amongst other things, they can penetrate through cloud.
So I really don't care what kind of credentials this "Leading Physicist" has. That one statement alone completely disqualifies him from being at
all competent in this debate. He is simply just another uniformed blogger running his mouth about things he doesn't even understand, putting his own
spin and his own agenda on it - and people like you are just sponging it all up unquestionably.
So if you want me to stop calling you a braindead denier, then just stop mindlessly regurgitating all of your talking points from them. That's all
there is to it. I wouldn't be nearly as big a jerk about it if it wasn't for the fact you have had this sort of thing explicitly shown to you about
a zillion times by now and you continue to refuse to acknowledge any of it. So would you prefer a more politically term? "Reality challenged"
In the meantime:
Who now can trust any of their satellite-data any more when everyone is being kept in the dark about what problems might exist and what has
been done, or is being done to fix them?
So you know what? Then don't trust it. But you want to genuinely talk about trust, then don't make me lol by trying to bring people like
Nanny State Anderson or Joanne Nova or Marc Morano, or any of these blog science stooges into the conversation either.
You're right - people suck. They lie, and cheat and say or do anything they can to get their agenda.
Then most importantly there's also this crazy thing called the basic laws of
physics, that have actually been around long before NOAA or Al Gore, that aren't under any legitimate debate, and that predicted this is
exactly what would happen before anyone ever muttered the word "carbon tax".
So the basic self-evident facts completely add up, before anyone even needs to mention the idea of trust. And I'd love to see you refute that pure,
simple, unfiltered logic - without having to run to one of your tainted blogs that actually do nothing but prove how far some people will go to hide
and derail it.
Real-world measures suggest moderate to strong negative feedback, currently unnamed and un-quantified, mitigates the Earth's thermal response to
additional radiative forcing from both human activity and natural variation.
Justification for amplification factors >2.5 for unmitigated positive feedback mechanisms is not evident in empirical measures. It is not clear
whether any amplification factor should be applied or even what sign any such factor should be. Nor is there evidence to support such large λ values
Division of real-world measures continue to exhibit the same surface thermal response derived by Idso for contemporary local, regional and global
climate, for ancient climate under a younger, weaker sun and for Earth's celestial neighbors, Mars and Venus.
In the absence of support for amplification factors and in view of their erroneously large λ values it is apparent that the wiggle fitting so far
achieved with climate model output is accidental or that these models contain equally large opposing errors in other portions of their calculations
such that a comedy of errors produce seemingly plausible results in the short-term. In either case no confidence is inspired.
On balance of available evidence then the current model-estimated range of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide should probably be
reduced from 1.4 - 5.8 °C to about 0.4 °C to suit observations or ≈ 0.8 °C to accommodate theoretical warming -- and that's including ΔF of 3.7
Wm-2 from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a figure we suspect is also inflated.
The bottom line is that climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin. The
median estimate 3.0 °C warming cited by the IPCC for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is physically implausible.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.