"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data Prove No Significant Warming!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




You're going to call me a liar when you have the exact ramges and results I copied to check?


I'm not calling you a liar. I understand that your mentality would assume such, though. I'm simply stating that your concept of significant is wrong and doesn't imply what you want it to. You want to imply global warming isn't happening with this data and it simply can't be done. "No significant warming" only appears over short time periods like a few decades and even then no significant warming doesn't mean the same thing as no warming, like you feel it should. The graphs obviously show an upward incline, the numbers show an upward incline.

You won't understand why you are wrong here because you don't want to.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Yes, you are. Denier!


The assertion you make in your OP is completely untrue


Yet , you obviously didn't take the time to actually use the figures I used and calculatred the trends.
If you had, you wouldn't have just parroted your sister's ignorant assertions to the same effect.

It's always so easy for ATS members to post replies without actually using the links provided, then post utter rubbish.


You want to imply global warming isn't happening with this data and it simply can't be done.


That's NOT what I'm implying; I'm illustrating how your holy models are completely wrong and misleading.

Face it:

CO2 is through the roof over the last 20 years.
Temperature trends, calculated through AGW priests skepticalscience own tools reveal no statistically significant warming over the same period.

Your "models" don't model.
Your "predictions" can't predict any better than a 1970s TV weatherman.
Your apsotles' projections are either wrong, without any basis, or contrary to truth.

AGW is a false religion, and the MSM is starting to call you out on it.

Time to roll out the prayer mats and plead for a Gore-y weather disaster, so you can proclaim, "See, I told you so!"

jw
edit on 30-3-2013 by jdub297 because: quote



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 






Acknowledging science is religious fanaticism? Hilarious. I explained why you're wrong and you go full spittle and refuted nothing I said.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Why would they invent Global warming? I mean can someone give me a good reason?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
Why would they invent Global warming? I mean can someone give me a good reason?


Gore “can’t remember” if he worked with Ken Lay on the Carbon Tax Credits Plan in 1997?

AlGore



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by truthinfact
 

I'd be happy to explain why they would invent it.

Please turn back a page to this post www.abovetopsecret.com... The global warming officials and scientists will give you a few reasons in their own words.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You can say what you want, and believe what you want.

However, I can walk across the Rio Grande, and not even get muddy, or even wet.
If I wanted to I could walk for many miles into Mexico and not get my feet wet or muddy, -in- the river. Not on the banks, not on flood control embankments, the River.

We are so far from normal in our rainfall here in the EL Paso, TX / Juarez, Mexico it's not funny.

Deny and decry all you want, it's going to be a worse year for draughts than last year.
Frankly I suspect we'd be lucky to escape another 1930's Dust Bowl.

I don't care what people deny, the fact is, the Rio is dry.

M.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sorry Charles but those emails are cherry picked and taken out of context. I'm sure you could read the full emails somewhere.


Writing on the Washington Post's website, Juliet Eilperin quotes an email exchange that she said was about "whether the IPCC has accurately depicted the temperature rise in the lower atmosphere":


In one round of e-mails, researchers discuss whether the IPCC has accurately depicted the temperature rise in the lower atmosphere. An official from the U.K. Met Office, a scientific organization which analyzes the climate, writes to the Climate Research Unit's former director Phil Jones at one point, "Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]"


Later, the official adds, "I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

Astoundingly, Eilperin does not tell readers that these email exchanges took place in February 2005 and were about the first draft of a chapter of the IPCC report released two years later. The emails depict the authors of the chapter hashing out what should be included -- exactly what you would expect this process to look like.

After providing comments on the draft, then-Met Office official Peter Thorne wrote: "I'm pretty sure we can reconcile these things relatively simply. However, I certainly would be unhappy to be associated with it if the current text remains through final draft - I'm absolutely positive it won't."

So were his concerns addressed in the final draft? If only we had reporters who asked these questions. For his part, The Hill's Ben Geman simply repeats what Eilperin reported, while admitting that he hasn't even "been able to view the newly released emails."


media matters
edit on 30-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
We need to be taking better care of this planet, it cannot care for us if we keep destroying it's ability to. All I can see they are going to do with the money is to try to patch it while continuing to destroy the environment. We need to start building stuff to last so we aren't constantly rebuilding things. We need to figure out why the government has all those crazy emission laws that cause cars to get worse gas mileage, seems to me that if a car got fifty miles to a gallon instead of thirty miles to a gallon, it would be more environmentally friendly. I think their environmental concerns are all a scam myself.

The whole country has become an environmental nightmare. None of this will get better by taxing us though. I think the more violent weather is caused by a warming of the atmosphere though, I examined both sides evidence and am pretty sure what I am seeing. It is going to get worse now even if we stop polluting. It is feeding itself. If we don't change our ways it will wipe us all out, except maybe the top one percent who will still have a lousy future. Money can't fix this, the only fix is to stop our destruction caused fully by greed and Ego. I know that noone will listen because what I say will effect everyones way of life, most people will pay a tax and feel better about themselves. This is like giving to a fake charity that pockets all the money. Science will burn up the money and focus on one thing when the main problem is the chemistry changes that we are making all over the place. Destroying most of the people and returning the world back to the other inhabitants seems to be the only cure possible. I am sure I am not the only one to think of this. Did they purposely mutate the bacteria to destroy us? Seems there is technology to do this.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

Thank you for writing, those are points that need to be dealt with. But may I ask a few questions first? When you say "Cherry picked," are you saying that there are only a few damning e-mails out of the whole bunch, so the damning ones are less important? If they are taken out of context, would the context say something different from the e-mail? Where do I find this context? To be honest, I'm having a tough time that anyone making those statements means something entirely different.

Astoundingly, Eilperin does not tell readers that these email exchanges took place in February 2005 and were about the first draft of a chapter of the IPCC report released two years later. The emails depict the authors of the chapter hashing out what should be included -- exactly what you would expect this process to look like.
I think you're referring to a quote I didn't use. The closest to that that I mentioned was:

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”
Do you really think that is normal give and take? If it is, why the "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" label on normal give and take.

All of the rest of the quotes go to answer the questions: 1) Is pure science the motivation behind these studies? And 2) If not pure science, then what is the motive?


IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




When you say "Cherry picked," are you saying that there are only a few damning e-mails out of the whole bunch,


No, I'm actually saying there were no damning emails at all.



If they are taken out of context, would the context say something different from the e-mail?


Yes they say something entirely different than Forbes, WSJ et al, claim they say.



Where do I find this context?


foia2011.org



I think you're referring to a quote I didn't use. The closest to that that I mentioned was:


I was pointing out something from the Forbes article you linked. The second paragraph...


Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”


Below I quoted the entire email, do you see how context makes a difference now? From the foia2011 site I linked above.



Tim Barnett wrote:
> hi gabi.....some suggestions in haste
>
> for the oceans...daily averaged near surface (10m?) wind stress 1950 on
> (at least). also daily averaged heat budget components at the ocean
> surface. stuff like this for baroclinic components of change. i assume
> sea ice is a given. hi freq data to look at storm track changes.
>
> over land....add daily snow cover and major river flows into the oceans if
> the models have them. add soil moisture, probably monthly. with will
> have lots to do with hydrological cycle. start from 1950 at least
>
> global...let's see those clouds. they are supposed to be 'the' key
> climate variable, models do them poorly and we have new satellite data
> sets to see just how poorly or how well.
>
> runs....beyond D&A...yes i agree we need a whole set of runs with
> different future GHG forcings. since the memory is in the ocean and that
> partially determines the response time (what's in the pipeline) we need
> emission reduction scenarios to see what track we are on as we begin to
> reduce co2. e.g. how much do we need to reduce emissions to ensure Lake
> Mead does not go dry? in the future there will be lots of stress on 'what
> do we have to do NOT to exceed some threshold"
>
> yes continuous runsREDACTED
>
> the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models
> that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really
> different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
> modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's
> preempt any potential problems.


'Gabi' is talking about running models of future impacts, here specifically, what reduction scenario's to run to see what will prevent a lake from drying up. Climate scientists have never stated anything but future models can be problematic, that is why very specifically they aren't doom prophets... mostly they say that they don't know for sure but based on this, this, this and this models we think... x will be the result.

That isn't to say they have no idea what they're talking about, just that it has been an evolving science as far as predicting EXACTLY what they future will look like and when it will start to be a serious problem. This email was written in 2005 and in that very short time since, due to the scientists talking to each other about uncertainties with models as shown by these emails, the models have become so much better and the scientists much more comfortable with results they feel more confident and comfortable about.

So rather than lying bastards (as they appear to be from snippets), these emails in full, expose a huge amount of integrity on the part of climate scientists.



rest of the quotes go to answer the questions: 1) Is pure science the motivation behind these studies?


Yes it is. The money is in denying AGW. The scientists and programs that deal with research on AGW and climate change, make very little to comfortable wages. No one is getting rich off of AGW and no AL Gore doesn't count because he was already rich



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

You may be very well be right in your statements, but it concerns a note I didn't post or offer as evidence of anything. I wish you'd deal with my comments, not somebody else's.

You'll also notice that some of the statements I offered were not from the e-mails, but from speeches, so the FOIA business and Climategate doesn't apply.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sorry it's late (bout of insomnia).
I'll try address the ones you quoted.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

You've earned a lot of respect from me. What do you say we both go to bed, have a good Easter tomorrow (well, today) and try later?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sounds good, Happy Easter to you.


ETA: You can read Ottmar Edenhoffer's full speech here again, context provides clarity vs Forbes preying on fears of globalization.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Acknowledging science is religious fanaticism? Hilarious. I explained why you're wrong and you go full spittle and refuted nothing I said.


That's because you "said" nothing. You regurgitate and propagate what others in the AGW faith refuse to acknowledge: In ALL of science, there must be room for doubt!

Falsifiability is the true hallmark of every hypothesis; yet AGW advocates treat any inquiry into the bases of their dogma as a threat.

Get over it.

Rene Descartes (ever heard of him?) as the most famous mathematician of his time, was driven by inquiry into even the most basic of assumptions and every "consensus." (See: "Discourse on the Method," Descartes, 1637.)

Likewise, Karl Popper showed that persistence in the subservient faith in observation and induction (such as that professed to guide the IPCC AR4 claims) is doomed to failure, "Consensus" is NOT science!

AGW adherents seem to abhor and fear the most basic of logic principles:
In science (and logic), there are no number of positive outcomes of an experiment that can confirm a scientific theory. All it takes is a single counterexample to show the theory is false.

Yet the AGW.alarmists are ridden with fear and reduced to curses and assaults when shown that AGW fails the test of falsification!

I do not doubt that the climate changes, never have.
I do not doubt that Man can alter his environment.

But there is absolutely NO proof that man is catastrophically changing the climate through the emission of CO2.

The screams, wails and vituperation of the faithful can already be heard:

"It's getting warmer everywhere!"
"We're putting more CO2 into the environment!"
"We don't know of any other causes!"
"There's a "consensus!""
"Therefore, it must be US!"

B.S.

Happy Easter.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 31-3-2013 by jdub297 because: quotation marks



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Just a side note before I reply to your post... You have the Right, obviously, to say whatever you want, take any tone you wish. However, I wish you and the others who do the same, would consider how unbelievably insulting you are by labeling anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of the Theory of AGW, as religious fanatics. Speaking for myself, you insult my actual spiritual faith by asserting or rather accusing me of worshiping something that I don't. There's nothing rabid or fanatical about my thoughts or how I speak on the subject. Maybe you didn't realize this or maybe you don't care, either way I've said my peace on it.



That's because you "said" nothing.


I said a lot, you just don't understand why what I said is significant.

The rest of your post is just more vitriol. There's no one hopping up and down and screaming in this thread, besides you. There's no one hurling insults around but you.

Happy Easter to you as well.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL subject line... was to hide the backbiting of other scientists, remember these were personal emails.


From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil


link



Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”


global governance here does not refer to something like a one world government, it simply meant acting together to deal with (govern) the problem.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
Why would they invent Global warming? I mean can someone give me a good reason?


Happy Easter!

I'm glad you asked that question.

Back at the first "Earth Day," so-called environmentalists were decrying the sad state of the Earth and the problems Mankind had created. There was a popular book of the time called "The Population Bomb."

In this book the author, Paul Ehrlich, "proved" that world population was growing too fast for Earth to sustain. People were overwhelming the Earth's ability to adapt, and that as a result, India would be starved-out by 1980; and that by 2000 the UK would be reduced to a set of flooded islands with a few million starving survivors struggling to exist.

Concerned governments, agencies and "researchers" lamented that "The Earth is dying, and we're causing it. If only we had more money, we could fix this."

As a result, the U.N created dozens of organizations (NGOs) and took in billions of dollars of additional funding. Despite their efforts, millions continued to starve in rural India, Africa and other "Third-World" (as they were called) countries.

A few years later, a young NASA scientist testified to Congress and to several respected publications that the people were causing the Earth to warm at such a rate and to such an extent that by 2000, there would be no Acrtic ice and that New York would be underwater..

Concerned governments, agencies and "researchers" lamented that "The Earth is dying, and we're causing it. If only we had more money, we could fix this."

As a result, the U.S., U.N., U.K. and E.U. gave more money to identify the causes and solutions.
The U. N. created the IPCC to study this and the U.S. created its own "global warming" agencies. The U.K devoted most of the resources of the meteorology office and related university to study and fight the problem. (The MET and CRU at Hadley Center). Together, these agencies created a series of "reports"
(AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4) that confirmed that, yes, the Earth was warming, we were causing it (because they couldn't think of any other reason for it), and that if they only had more money, they could fix this.

Jim Hansen, that NASA scientist, has received millions in additional funding, has written numerous books on the subject, and concludes that the Arctic ice will be gone by 2030 and NYC will be underwater.

He now is joined by thousands of concerned researchers who have reached "a consensus" that the Earth is dying and we're causing it. And, if they only had more money, they could fix this.
Concerned governments and agencies also lamented that "The Earth is dying, and we're causing it. If only we had more money, we could fix this."

These governments and agencies have struggled against the Global Warming problem, and consumed additional billions of dollars of science and economic resources to do so.
Over time, the most readily apparent result of these government actions and diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and research funding, and lost economic opportunities has been the evolution of "Global Warming" into "Climate Change," then into "Extreme Weather Events."

As a result, concerned governments, agencies and "researchers" lamented that "The Earth is dying, and we're causing it. If only we had more money, we could fix this."

Over this year and the next, these agencies will develop, refine and publish "AR5."

Can you guess what it will say?
Can you guess what concerned governments, agencies and "researcher" will say?

By the way, one of the early members of Ehrlich's environmentalism-inspired researchers, was a young German scientist named Fritz Vahrenholt, who became one of Germany's greatest "green power" authorities.
Last year, Dr. Vahrenholt went "on the record" about man-made global warming:


For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position.

Based on the past natural climate pattern, we should expect that by 2100 temperatures will not have risen more than 1°C, significantly less than proposed by the IPCC.

Whether this mechanism is understood or not, the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?

The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Dr. Vahrenholt is now also known as a "Denier," and will not be recieving much international funding, anymore.

jw
edit on 31-3-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Nearly your entire post here is BS.
Climate science does NOT claim that earth is dying.
The only thing Climate science claims is that the earth is warming and causing climate change and that Co2 released as a result of human activity is the dominant forcing of that warming.
James Hansen never gave 2000 as a date for the arctic icecap melting.
NGO's aren't necessarily through the UN.
Climate science is underfunded by governments.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join