MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: luthier


What things are gone?

The list is far to long to list. Bacteria, microbes, fish, birds, mamals..etc. Extinct.

Oh and yeah china and asia now pollute many times over what we ever did. So migratory animals are greatly affected.

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: luthier


"All the people against climate change are also mostly oblivious to the fact there is a much more serious enviornemntal problem going on which is the destruction of the life cycle. Now this has all happened before with space artifacts impacting the earth.... it has not happened with an animal on the planet conscious enough to know better creating the problem. "
yeah... because you know what everyone against climate change knows and does not know... And I'd wager that if you were to interview everyone participating in the climate change debate there would be many different sides, not just two.

But everyone knows as per american politics everything always at all times breaks down into black or white stereotypes.....

Didn't you get the "you are with us or against us" memo?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

Who said we're defending pollution?

Of course, I have to ask you when you decided that the gas you exhale that plants need like you need oxygen became pollution ...

All the people against climate change are also mostly oblivious to the fact there is a much more serious enviornemntal problem going on which is the destruction of the life cycle. Now this has all happened before with space artifacts impacting the earth.... it has not happened with an animal on the planet conscious enough to know better creating the problem.

Excuse me while I laugh.

You must be willfully ignoring the things I have been writing on this thread in order for you to write this statement:

All the people against climate change

Because if you were paying attention you would have surely read the part where I wrote about global warming distracting from the very real and verifiable pollution concerns.

There are real and verifiable pollution concerns, but none of those are global in scale and offer TPTB the opportunity to impose taxes on you for simply being alive.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: luthier


What things are gone?

The list is far to long to list. Bacteria, microbes, fish, birds, mamals..etc. Extinct.

Oh and yeah china and asia now pollute many times over what we ever did. So migratory animals are greatly affected.

I will refer you to infinityorder ' s post on animal extinction. All long before man.

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The people pushing the man-made global warming trend angle aren't concerned with temperature figures of any kind. The only numbers that interest them have a $ in front and a lot of 0's following.

So are the deniers. They already have indusry with lot of money and they dont want to give way to new industry. Both sides have their agenda. One wants to keep poluting and producing the other wants to make money off peoples compassion.

There is no way to deny we have caused the extinction of literally millions of microbes, plants, animals, and bacteria. All those things contribute to climate.

Stop crying with this bs.

Before man ever took a single breath, 99.9% of all the life forms in this planets history had become extinct.

This is what life does, it dies and gets replaced by a more suitable form.

Oh I get it, when nature kills 99.9% of all species it is fine....when man kills 0.01% of all species we are evil and must starve to death and die....

Do you even think or research before you type this bs?

We kill at least .01 every year. Between 200 -2000 species. Its funny that you use a timeline of billions of years compaired to a hundred.

If we stopped using fossil fuels 7 billion would die? Thats real science for you.

Stop barking that bs.

a reply to: luthier
ice ages happen from a variety of circumstances.
Less solar wind allow more cosmic rays. Cosmic rays
help create cloud formations which cool the earth and
may trigger magnetic changes,which can lead to more volcanic activity.
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

Who said we're defending pollution?

Of course, I have to ask you when you decided that the gas you exhale that plants need like you need oxygen became pollution ...

All the people against climate change are also mostly oblivious to the fact there is a much more serious enviornemntal problem going on which is the destruction of the life cycle. Now this has all happened before with space artifacts impacting the earth.... it has not happened with an animal on the planet conscious enough to know better creating the problem.

Excuse me while I laugh.

You must be willfully ignoring the things I have been writing on this thread in order for you to write this statement:

All the people against climate change

Because if you were paying attention you would have surely read the part where I wrote about global warming distracting from the very real and verifiable pollution concerns.

There are real and verifiable pollution concerns, but none of those are global in scale and offer TPTB the opportunity to impose taxes on you for simply being alive.

I get it i am not for carbon taxing. I am as libertarian as it gets.
If you dont think any pollution is of global concern you are fooling yourself.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: luthier
ice ages happen from a variety of circumstances.
Less solar wind allow more cosmic rays. Cosmic rays
help create cloud formations which cool the earth and
may trigger magnetic changes,which can lead to more volcanic activity.
youtu.be...

Thats exactly what i said. I know.

a reply to: luthier

You cannot preserve everything that is or was and new things will be. That is the nature of evolution.

Since we have only been paying attention for such a brief span of time, you cannot say with any certainty if what we are observing are normal rates of extinction or not for many of those species. There is simply no way to know what all the niche species were in the extinct biospheres of prehistoric times. Your kidding yourself if you think we have the complete fossil record of every one.

We still don't know every living species out there today.

a reply to: luthier

Pollution is a local concern. A factory does not pollute globally. It pollutes locally. China's factories are China's problem.

I do not need to be taxed for a factory in another place. You do not need to be taxed for a factory in another place. The people in that place need to take care of it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You cannot preserve everything that is or was and new things will be. That is the nature of evolution.

Since we have only been paying attention for such a brief span of time, you cannot say with any certainty if what we are observing are normal rates of extinction or not for many of those species. There is simply no way to know what all the niche species were in the extinct biospheres of prehistoric times. Your kidding yourself if you think we have the complete fossil record of every one.

We still don't know every living species out there today.

Your partly right. We can not say how many species we have on the planet. We can however say how many are effected by man made habitat destruction. We cant say exactly how many in total but we have and cetainly do have record of thousands of species destroyed from industry. We luckily have a science called biology, those biologists research food chains, habitat, climate change (natural or otherwise because yes we have changed microclimates in the rainforests for example).

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The people pushing the man-made global warming trend angle aren't concerned with temperature figures of any kind. The only numbers that interest them have a $ in front and a lot of 0's following.

So are the deniers. They already have indusry with lot of money and they dont want to give way to new industry. Both sides have their agenda. One wants to keep poluting and producing the other wants to make money off peoples compassion.

There is no way to deny we have caused the extinction of literally millions of microbes, plants, animals, and bacteria. All those things contribute to climate.

Stop crying with this bs.

Before man ever took a single breath, 99.9% of all the life forms in this planets history had become extinct.

This is what life does, it dies and gets replaced by a more suitable form.

Oh I get it, when nature kills 99.9% of all species it is fine....when man kills 0.01% of all species we are evil and must starve to death and die....

Do you even think or research before you type this bs?

We kill at least .01 every year. Between 200 -2000 species. Its funny that you use a timeline of billions of years compaired to a hundred.

If we stopped using fossil fuels 7 billion would die? Thats real science for you.

Stop barking that bs.

um....

No fossil fuels no cars yruks ships tractors combines...etc...

Yes billions would starve obviously.

Who do you think feeds the world? Hint a major source if the worlds food is Americas Midwest "farm belt".

Without transportation, like fossil fuel powered ships, it would spoil long before it arrived.

Without fossil fuel powered farm equipment, it would not even be possible to produce.

Without fossil fuel powered trucks it could not even reach a port to not be shipped since there aren't any ships.....

What bs are you talking about?

Oh I assume you meant well reasoned, thought out replies.

Bs Indeed

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

Pollution is a local concern. A factory does not pollute globally. It pollutes locally. China's factories are China's problem.

I do not need to be taxed for a factory in another place. You do not need to be taxed for a factory in another place. The people in that place need to take care of it.

Thats pretty ignorant. Your telling me migration doesnt happen? You dont eat chinese shrimp in a restraunt or do you always ask where the food is from? So nothing travels in winds and currents? What about toxic goods brought to the us from china?

No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.

a reply to: luthier

I am well aware of biology. Thank you very much. I am married to a man who has dual degrees in biology and microbiology.

Please condescend more. It is quite entertaining.

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The people pushing the man-made global warming trend angle aren't concerned with temperature figures of any kind. The only numbers that interest them have a $ in front and a lot of 0's following.

So are the deniers. They already have indusry with lot of money and they dont want to give way to new industry. Both sides have their agenda. One wants to keep poluting and producing the other wants to make money off peoples compassion.

There is no way to deny we have caused the extinction of literally millions of microbes, plants, animals, and bacteria. All those things contribute to climate.

Stop crying with this bs.

Before man ever took a single breath, 99.9% of all the life forms in this planets history had become extinct.

This is what life does, it dies and gets replaced by a more suitable form.

Oh I get it, when nature kills 99.9% of all species it is fine....when man kills 0.01% of all species we are evil and must starve to death and die....

Do you even think or research before you type this bs?

We kill at least .01 every year. Between 200 -2000 species. Its funny that you use a timeline of billions of years compaired to a hundred.

If we stopped using fossil fuels 7 billion would die? Thats real science for you.

Stop barking that bs.

um....

No fossil fuels no cars yruks ships tractors combines...etc...

Yes billions would starve obviously.

Who do you think feeds the world? Hint a major source if the worlds food is Americas Midwest "farm belt".

Without transportation, like fossil fuel powered ships, it would spoil long before it arrived.

Without fossil fuel powered farm equipment, it would not even be possible to produce.

Without fossil fuel powered trucks it could not even reach a port to not be shipped since there aren't any ships.....

What bs are you talking about?

Oh I assume you meant well reasoned, thought out replies.

Bs Indeed

I think you said 7 billion. And its a bs argument. So the guys keeping alternate tech out of the market through massive lobby power have kept other means from being viable. All those diesel combines run fine off veg refuse oil which is what they were designed to run off during german depression.

Of course we cant stop overnight and thats where your argument looses. It will take brave people like elon musk, bucky fuller, tesla designing things that change our habits.

a reply to: luthier

It is a local concern.

This is why there are, or should be, standards imposed on goods brought from countries that refuse to impose standards. Also we have our own standards on foods caught in our waters.

However, I must ask you - if China is such a problem, how is punishing the US even more going to address that? Curtailing what we do isn't going to change what China does. What you're saying is that if you have a big tumor in the right lung, you ought to cut off part of the left lung to make it better.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You cannot preserve everything that is or was and new things will be. That is the nature of evolution.

Since we have only been paying attention for such a brief span of time, you cannot say with any certainty if what we are observing are normal rates of extinction or not for many of those species. There is simply no way to know what all the niche species were in the extinct biospheres of prehistoric times. Your kidding yourself if you think we have the complete fossil record of every one.

We still don't know every living species out there today.

Koala's and cheetahs come to mind here....they are self exterminating.

Cheetah's have basically no genetic diversity, o e illness will kill all.

Koala's can o ly eat 1 plant eucalyptus.... This is obviously not a good thing for any animal.

Many species put themselves out of the life cycle, others don't adapt to changing conditions, others are wiped out by plants or animals that they can't defend against, others by natural disasters.....

Why is it these folks only think it is bad if man, a work of nature, which gave us a big brain and tool using mentity and body, does it?

I don't get this.

Us killing a species is no different than a volcano or a t Rex killing a species.

The species is gone because it couldn't adapt.

Us doing it or any other cause is no different.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: jrod
Already posted day ago here.

This is just an example of the anti climate change crowd cherry picking data points.

It is cute how a lot of the resident anti man made climate faithful are up and already claiming victory over the climate debate because of this story.

Human ignorance is truly infinite.

Ignorance huh, how come my NASA meteorologist friend nearly died because they wanted him to shut up about the data manipulation? They didn't dare risk firing him, so they tried to kill him instead, when that failed, he got the message, shut up.

Don't take this the wrong way but your friend telling you something is not really helpful. Do I believe you? Maybe. Can it be proven? No..

My NASA meteorologist friend was open with everyone about "climate change" being a fraud before the "incident".

Can I prove it, no, not without risking his life again. Can I prove it was them who tried to kill him, no, but it was done with a super secret high tech weapon, and I lived as a military spouse at the place it was tested and know it is real. If his wife had not been present he would have died immediately instead of being revived.

I know this sounds nut job, but after spending over 50 years as a military brat/spouse who most of my life, people "forgot" I was in the room or thought my probing questions were innocent conversation making. So I have been privy to top secret stuff since childhood and have quietly, in the background heard the talk of white house military staff and congress persons etc; all while appearing to be an innocent child or good wife.

I KNOW without a doubt that the government regularly lies to the American people, and even on a quite grand scale. Can I prove any of those lies, no. There is only one I was a party to myself and it was so long ago I can't prove that one. I was a teenager working for JAG as "summer hire" and the secretary went on a typing "strike" of sorts. I typed up, illegally I might ad (because the stuff was top secret and I had no clearance), but was required to type up true accounts of things that happened, and then type up the false explanation that went to the press and family members of affected personnel.

Climate change has been an excuse to control the populace
and extort money from the populace
for the government. Of that, I am quite certain, but could never prove.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Climate deniers, please read this peer-reviewed scientific paper describing why scientists think anthropogenic climate change is real:

"Climate Change: Evidence and Causes"

dels.nas.edu...

Remember, most of the claims of deniers have been addressed over and over again.

Here is the table of contents for reference:
Climate Change Q&A
1 Is the climate warming?
2 How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
3 CO2 is already in the atmosphere naturally
,so why are emissions from
human activity significant?
4 What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?
5 What do changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature—from the
surface up to the stratosphere—tell us about the causes of recent climate change?
6 Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
7 Is the current level of atmospheric CO2
concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history?
8 Is there a point at which adding more CO2
will not cause further warming?
9 Does the rate of warming vary from one decade to another?
10 Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?
11 If the world is warming, why are some winters and summers still very cold?
12 Why is Arctic sea ice decreasing while Antarctic sea ice is not?
13 How does climate change affect the strength and frequency
of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes?
14 How fast is sea level rising?
15 What is ocean acidification and why does it matter?
16 How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century?
17 Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?
18 What are scientists doing to address key uncertainties
in our understanding of the climate system?
19 Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’
and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?
20 If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return
to the conditions of 200 years ago?
The Basics of Climate Change

dels.nas.edu...