Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

This post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...
are the best posts I've ever seen about why climate change isn't man made. Both are worth a read, no matter what side of the argument you are on.

the religion of climate change;
they believe in things they cannot see or prove.
they ridicule and attack all evidence to the contrary.
they sell carbon credits as a means for sinners to repent.
they warn of dire consequences and horrible punishment for not believing.
they constantly try to convert non believers while your leaders get rich off of your non paid volunteer labor.
you are a cultist religion.
www.facebook.com...

The climate change scam is a money scam.

Plus, they can capture/convert CO2 from "polluting" sources but not natural sources as easy.

It's the Sun/Banking/Profit complex at work with Agenda21

a reply to: Pistoche

please explain why the raw data had to be "adjusted" to be considered accurate. Then understand that having to adjust the raw data indicates that it was open to manipulation.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Pistoche
a reply to: KrzYma

Yes, the results you see from those graphs are over millions of years, never in earth's history has the temperature risen this quickly in a mere 50-100 years time (coincidentally since industrialization came into full force).

Millions of years,really?

I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

you should take a look at data what a single volcanic eruption puts in the air before you start taxing us!

haha... I see the Greenpeace people screaming... stop the volcano, stop the volcano !

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?

Your right!

We have found ourselves in a moral conundrum based upon "crony capitalism".

All I can say is "Follow the Money.".

a reply to: Mary Rose


" Man-made global warming re-named climate change is a pretext to try to justify a carbon tax. The fact that scientists will go along with this fraud is a very good example of what's wrong with science today. Science is not free to seek the truth. It is controlled by vested interests. "-


Precise and to the Exact Point . A Truth Denied by some , to others an Obvious Reality . The Manipulators and Propagandists have done their Work well concerning the " Global Warming " AKA " Climate Change " Imaginary Boogeyman in the forefront of the News today . It's All about the " Benjamin's " Indeed people . Facts Speak Louder than Shallow Words.....

originally posted by: Pistoche
a reply to: seeker1963

If you don't understand how warming, convection and circulation of warm air affects the atmosphere and oceans of the world leading to colder weather patterns locally (ie the arctic), while having an AVERAGE higher annual GLOBAL temperature, there is not much more educated people can do to convince you. It would mean you'll have to understand complicated 5th grade math involving averages (whooaaa! complex!). There is nothing scientists can do about that.

I agree and it is ironic that nature has some natural averaging indicators but the skeptics choose to ignore them and instead revert to the usual cherry picking of single incidents.

For skeptics who don't know what natural averaging mechanisms are, here's a couple:

ALL (NB ALL ) glaciers worldwide are a measure : these advance in winter and retreat in summer. If they retreat more than they advance then the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature is higher. Guess what the vast majority are re-treating.

Flora and fauna is moving northwards north of the equator (they are probably moving southwards south of the equator as well but the vast majority of land is north of the equator).

Several years ago a study was made of the claim by skeptics that variability of the sun was responsible for climate change. The paper was very detailed and did indeed back up the claim....for historical climate. However, the current climate ran contrary to what it should "naturally" be doing. The bottom line and scary conclusion was : climate warming will slow down due to the suns variability which will result in an assumption that the climate is not changing until around the years 2012-2014 . This is a false sense of security and the climate will warm quite rapidly after that time. The sun will give us a reprieve until 2012-2014 which we would do well to take advantage of.

We have done nothing, the politicians have been swayed by the skeptics.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

you should take a look at data what a single volcanic eruption puts in the air before you start taxing us!

haha... I see the Greenpeace people screaming... stop the volcano, stop the volcano !

I did.

Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.

- Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?

I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.

Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?

I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.

Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.

You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?

You choose to only follow one end of it.

If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?

But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?

I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.

Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.

You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?

You choose to only follow one end of it.

If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....

There you go, being wrong again!

Of course money flows out of both sides.. but doesn't it seem suspicious that most of the vocal deniers are on the Heartland Institute's payroll — the same fake-science-whorehouse that has been serving big tobacco interests since the 90's? Or that one of their most notable "experts" with op-ed pieces in WSJ, Forbes, etc isn't even a scientist but rather a lawyer? (James M. Taylor) Or that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (even if you dispute the 97% figure), who receive funding from a multitude of sources, aren't deniers?

a reply to: amazing

How much "extra" "man-made" CO2 is in the air right now as compared to no "man-made" CO2 ?

Why can't the Earth re-absorb all the "extra" CO2 ?

What absorbs CO2 ?

How many different kinds of "identifiable" CO2 are there ?

Does CO2 dissipate by itself ?

Does CO2 have a half-life ?

Does temperature affect the "impact" of CO2 ?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.

you should take a look at data what a single volcanic eruption puts in the air before you start taxing us!

haha... I see the Greenpeace people screaming... stop the volcano, stop the volcano !

I did.

Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.

- Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.

according to what measurements? also those volcanoes we don't even know of ? like those under the oceans ?

originally posted by: spirited75
the religion of climate change;
they believe in things they cannot see or prove.
they ridicule and attack all evidence to the contrary.
they sell carbon credits as a means for sinners to repent.
they warn of dire consequences and horrible punishment for not believing.
they constantly try to convert non believers while your leaders get rich off of your non paid volunteer labor.
you are a cultist religion.
www.facebook.com...

Ok so I can't give you 10,000 stars but I will buy you a drink if we ever meet, in this life or another. Boy is that true how could anyone argue that.

You will still deny global warming/climate change when you live in NYC and the sea lvel is up to your ass while ice caps in Antarctica/Arctica are melting *right in front of our eyes* and people in countries such as Australia are dying in staggering numbers due to skin cancer (incr. UV radiation due to ozon hole).

I guess it's the nature of ignorance...because I cannot think of a better example of IGNOR(e)-ance.

Also..hint: If you lack so much scientific basic understanding that you seriously think the aging/expanding of the sun has anything to do with climate change....you should not have an opinion. It's embarrassing to read.

Hint2: The issue of global warming/climate change is on the table LONG before Al Gore came even to the scene, there was already concerns/research about possible climate change when Al Gore was not even born.

WHY for God's sake must global warming be a political issue at all? Oh wait! It's because IT WAS MADE into a political issue..and now guess by whom and by why? It was made into a political issue by LEFT/RIGHT politicians of your wonderful bogus "two party system" where people are divided into two whether they like it or not.

OBVIOUSLY, there are only two outcomes...those who believe that man-made global warming may be real, which NOW are labelled the liberals, hippies, anti-american, whatever...and those who reject man-made global warming...which NOW are normally at the side of the conservatives : ) That this entire game is hideous, un-constructive and that no-one ultimately profits from having made this a political issue you obviously don't even realize?