Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by burntheships

 

Do you see the black and green lines?
That's satellite measurements.

Not only that, but the rest of that graph is based on tidal gauges. That's pretty much exactly what intrptr was looking for on the last page in terms of a "yardstick" measurement for sea level rise from old piers. Tidal gauges are fancy yardsticks basically, usually placed on old piers:



And yet here they are having a totally insulated conversation with themselves about how all the data is based on models and projections yaddi yadda...

Originally posted by burntheships
This is hilarious, that is modeling....with manipulated data.
These phony charts prove nothing!

No it isn't (see above post).

And again, like I asked the first time - show us the actual satellite data that backs up what you say then. I just demonstrated in the last set of posts how your claims are gathered from totally BS op-ed articles that have no scientific merit, and actually distort the data 180 degrees from what it really says.

Both Kali74 and I posted different sets of real sea level measurements (not models) that completely refute your claims - so how do you counter this? By regurgitating the same mindless spiel over again (exactly like a cult/religious fanatic I might add). You're claiming it's faked, with absolutely no proof of course, and then referencing the exact same OP-ED we already established is completely full of crap lol. Meanwhile nobody is fudging any numbers - they're simply accounting for post-glacial rebound, which amounts to 0.3mm - which is less than the friggin' error bars on the graph:



So if you're seriously going to stick to your delusional story on this then PROVE your claims. I'm going to remind everyone what you wrote:

Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches and there has been no rise since 2006.

So where is it then? Go ahead and show us this incredible satellite data. You can't. Because you don't have any. All you have are desperate op-eds posted in financial magazines by corporate cheerleaders who clearly like to pick out cherries and leave the facts behind.

And all you're doing by constantly passing the ball back to these stooges is proving that "The Game" is indeed a real thing - except it is quite obvious you're the one getting completely played here.

Scientists and environmentalists have become reluctantly aware of this fact too (since climategate basically), which is why they've finally started talking about it and acknowledging that the average joe is much more motivated by semantics, propaganda and "feeling" rather than any empirical evidence or scientific facts. The scientists didn't come up with this idea of "the game" - they've simply been dragged into one by the shady tactics of the denial industry.

Your own posts are living proof of this. I mean look at this -

The link I left above is loaded with empirical evidence after empirical evidence after empirical evidence showing current human influence in climate change. So faced with all that data - what's the best response you could come up with?

Believers think the warming is man-made

Clearly you are just grasping for straws at this point.

reply to post by Kali74

Damn critical thinking getting me all confused.

I know, right? Unfortunately for a lot of people that obviously is the case here. It's the key to the whole fake debate. The professional deniers have been exploiting this loophole for over 20 years now.

Just wallop everyone over the head with how complicated and overwhelming the science is - I mean they can't even predict the weather next week, amiright? Then swoop in to the rescue with all these vapidly empty/yet totally full of it-memes, that are much easier for the intellectually lazy masses to swallow.

It doesn't matter that the whole of their argument doesn't add up, contradicts itself, debunks itself, completely unravels at the slightest hint of scrutiny and critical thinking. What matters is you do everything in your power to keep people from ever applying that.

For the right wing extremists (aka the target market) it's simple - their thought patterns are dominated by fear, so just mention the word "alarmism" 9,873,471 times, manufacture some phony email scandal, scare everyone silly over taxes and global governance, make caring about the planet and your children's future a "liberal elitist" agenda, and colour it all with "satirical images" of Al Gore prancing around like he's Jesus or somethin'.

Anything to provide more wonderful distractions from the facts.

The blog of Skeptical Science is just that, a blog. It is not a scientific body,
rather it is comprised of mainly students, only 2 or 3 "scientists" of which only
1 is actually in the field. So, excuse us while we chuckle at that source.

That blog is always posting lies, and ridiculous ones at that.


It is impossible to take warmists seriously when they fill their posts with
childish ad hominem.

"Warmists" should be undone by the hypocrisy of those who have been cutting edge
leaders of the AGW congregation...however, maybe this is just part of the "religion"

Lets see....what is the example set by the leaders? Al Gore sold his Current TV network
to Al Jazeera for $500 million. So what’s the problem? The problem is that Al Jazeera is
funded by Qatar which receives the bulk of its wealth from fossil fuels.

The Climate Crusader Profits from Big Oil


Who can take the AGW alarmist followers seriously when many of them are hypocrites?
Talk about inconvenient truths....

If AGW had their way we might see the launch of an inquistion soon.

reply to post by burntheships


Your reply is from a blog.

With no scientists. Just Tisdale.

Skeptical Science wins then.



I guess we'll apply your standards and simply dismiss your link as more pure B.S.

reply to post by burntheships

The blog of Skeptical Science is just that, a blog. It is not a scientific body,
rather it is comprised of mainly students, only 2 or 3 "scientists" of which only
1 is actually in the field. So, excuse us while we chuckle at that source.

Funny how suddenly sources "in the field" are important to you. Didn't seem to matter when The Heartland Institute had the mic.

But at least you've managed to hit on the crux of the issue. We're on the same page here - I agree somebody in this thread is definitely getting lied to. Someone's sources aren't telling the truth! So who is it - the warmists or the skeptics??

Skeptical science may be a blog, if you wish to call it that, but it also happens to be a blog that sources all of its claims directly to the peer-reviewed literature and instrumental data. That's what matters, and it's all there in that link. If you prefer I can post it myself. I happen to know another "blog" - AGW Observer - which makes this a total breeze. So your criticism is rather irrelevant - and I see it as little more than some lame attempt to once again deflect from the fact you have completely failed to produce any source data of your own.


So I'll ask a third time now - show us the satellite data that "proved" sea level rise has undershot projections and not even risen since 2006.

It's a simple request: show me the data and I'll concede maybe your op-ed sources aren't lying to you.

Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on, do you?

Originally posted by mc_squared

So I'll ask a third time now - show us the satellite data that "proved" sea level rise has undershot projections and not even risen since 2006.

It's a simple request: show me the data and I'll concede maybe your op-ed sources aren't lying to you.

Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on, do you?

You know it won't happen.

You'll get more B.S.

reply to post by atlasastro


That Bob Tisdale video is certainly absurd. Can't believe I wasted 12 mins of my life on that. He doesn't even seem to understand the difference between a climate forcing and an internal fluctuation. El Nino/La Nina simply oscillates heat back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. Tisdale seems to think it generates heat somehow lol.

He tries to justify this by correlating El Nino to warming sea surface temperatures. But then he claims it only counts for warming - La Nina has no cooling effect because it doesn't correlate. Talk about circular logic. Gotta love them climate deniers

reply to post by mc_squared


Thats what happens when take raw data from ENSO and think that putting it on an excel spread sheet makes you a scientist.



I doubt the OP even understands the video.

"the sky is falling, I read it on a blog!"

I have already added the proof pages back that the Colorodo university were caught
fudging the data...which is what warmists do, so their projections are "scary".

Ignorance much?

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of
en.wikipedia.org... _is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

reply to post by burntheships


since you won't bother to acknowledge nat geo, how about you have a look at the link below. It is a lecture by Prof. Callum Roberts. I'm sure he's a lot smarter than I but I wonder if your ego will allow you to admit that it might be the same case for you.

Please ats members that are following this tit for tat discussion, take the time to look at the show on the link below along with the nat geo stuff on Xray earth

There has to come a time where people put a sock in it and start to give the earth a chance to recover.

Apparently we reached the levelof global sustainability (my term) back in around 1977. ie that was the year when we past the point where the population were taking more from the earth than what it could give. But I also heard that we won't suffocate yet as there is enough oxygen to keep us going for many hundreds of years. Hence, the people causing there to be "an anchor being dragged behind the boat of progress" re fixing the planet will be able to hide in their lies and won't be around to face the consequences of their actions. That sort of sucks, doesn't it.

so have a look. Hope you enjoy
www.abc.net.au...

Originally posted by burntheships
The blog of Skeptical Science is just that, a blog. It is not a scientific body,
rather it is comprised of mainly students, only 2 or 3 "scientists" of which only
1 is actually in the field.

So, excuse us while we chuckle at that source.

That blog is always posting lies, and ridiculous ones at that.

It is impossible to take warmists seriously when they fill their posts with
childish ad hominem.

"Warmists" should be undone by the hypocrisy of those who have been cutting edge
leaders of the AGW congregation...however, maybe this is just part of the "religion"

Lets see....what is the example set by the leaders? Al Gore sold his Current TV network
to Al Jazeera for $500 million. So what’s the problem? The problem is that Al Jazeera is
funded by Qatar which receives the bulk of its wealth from fossil fuels.

The Climate Crusader Profits from Big Oil

Who can take the AGW alarmist followers seriously when many of them are hypocrites?
Talk about inconvenient truths....

If AGW had their way we might see the launch of an inquistion soon.

edit on 8-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

LOL so you don't know what an ad hom is then? because pointing out that al gore sold his channel to al jazeera is an ad hom.
it's also a red herring, since it doesn't matter!
you must be desperate for anything to attack the idea of AGW that you would go after that issue lol.

everything you posted is an ad hom, it doesn't invalidate the arguments because of the things you listed.
nice try i guess.

Originally posted by burntheships
"the sky is falling, I read it on a blog!"

I have already added the proof pages back that the Colorodo university were caught
fudging the data...which is what warmists do, so their projections are "scary".

Ignorance much?

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of
en.wikipedia.org... _is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

edit on 9-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

you know you might be taken more seriously if you posted something that you didn't whine about other people doing.

more ad homs and insults.
where is the link to the wiki page of people who support the AGW argument? oh right.. they couldn't be listed on wiki, they number in the hundred thousands.

reply to post by demongoat


The graphic on the very same page she linked should have spoken volumes. The hypocrisy does indeed abound, if only there were intellect to match.
...alas.

So let me get this straight... if man-made climate change is a no good dirty hoax, that must mean that we can still keep drilling and polluting the planet exactly as we have been doing, big oil can keep making billions and no one has to change--- and best of all man can cause oil spills and smog and deforestation... and not have to feel any real responsibility?

Awesome. That makes total sense. It doesn't sound at all like the head in the sand approach. Doesn't sound at all like an approach that would be fueled by greed and backed by Big Oil.

It's those greedy elitist scientists that are the problem. Evil scientists and stupid environmentalists always bullying the little powerless guy known as Big Oil.

Thank God we have right wing truth seekers like FOX News to set us straight!!!

Pour me another cup of that Kool-Aid! That stuff is TASTY!

reply to post by demongoat


There is a large sand pit ahead,
I suggest you bury your head in it.
Hurry, the sky is falling....

/sarcasm

No, its not...the sky is not falling.
Warmists only cling to a shroud ....

Climate scientists back that up....
Sound science proves there is no empirical evidence to
support AGW....

"there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations"

This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

www.news.harvard.edu...

reply to post by spiritualzombie


News flash....Global Warming is Mann Made...
Michael Mann made, the hockey stick graph that
was an epic hoaxer fail...

"Warmists" who blindly follow the International Global Cabals
might as well be dancing on the may pole of carbon tax and spend.

Ususal for such a big dollar bag.

Mann is moon bat crazy, yet he still has many followers.

reply to post by burntheships

Willie Wei-Hock Soon iss a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Since 1992, Dr. Soon has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Soon is also a receiving editor with the journal New Astronomy. [2]

Soon is a prominent climate change skeptic who has received much of his research funding from the oil and gas industry.

According to David Suzuki:

"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."

source

Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and formerly Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory.

She is an Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University and past contributing editor to the World Climate Report.

Baliunas is associated with many groups skeptical of climate change including the George C. Marshall Institute where she is Senior Scientist and chair of their "Science Advisory Board."

She has been a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a now-defunct group originally controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA) and described "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use." [2]

Baliunas has co-published numerous scientific papers with fellow climate change skeptic Willie Soon including a controversial paper in 2003 that suggested the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas's paper to be published.

She was the Enviro-Sci Host for Tech Central Station. In 1997 Baliunas received the Petr Beckmann Award for her "devastating critique of the global warming hoax."

source

Both have done work for the Western Fuels Association together and separately as well as various conservative think tanks that Exxon, Chevron etc... continuously funnel large amounts of money into to support climate change denial. Both have topped 7 figures in research grants given by oil companies. As I've said many times before, backed with reliable sources, the money isn't 'warmism' it's in denialism.

Click here for more information.

The truth hurts.

Great video relating to propoganda like that displayed in the OP.