Man made global warming and ocean acidification thoroughly and scientifically discredited.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Thank you for posting this OP, i found it very informative and from a certain point of view, quite perplexing in it's implications..that 'certain point of view' being one of a conspiratorial nature.

The Good Doctor has shown conclusively, using unambiguous data spanning not just the last century, but using ice core samples from both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, that temperature change, especially the ocean temperatures that essentially drive weather patterns on land, are not at all following the hyperbole put out by both the media and various government departments and NGOs employed by the Government to scrutinise these data.

The question is obvious.

Why not?

Are the reasons for the seemingly polarised opinion, simply financially inspired? Or in other words, is there vast potential, when manipulating these data for the opportunity to make significant monetary gain from claiming AGW is apparent?

Well...we know for a fact that there is indeed a financial incentive for 'massaging' these data sets to appear to provide evidence for AGW, not only financial incentives, but in reality, when factoring so-called Carbon credits and the sums of money involved in the trading of these carbon credits around the world between wealthy and developing nations, increased taxes on domestic fuels to operate our vehicles and heat and cool our living and working spaces, there is actually MASSIVE financial incentives to skew the data.

That is one possible motive, there are others.

What could (COULD) these other motives be?

One that comes to mind is so-called 'peak oil'. Oil and therefore the energy we derive from it, is a finite resource.
If we use it to the degree we currently do, it becomes depleted in tandem, at least the reserves and deposits we already know about do. This is easy to comprehend and is as obvious as taking a full glass of water representing the entire worldwide oil supply remaining (discovered deposits) taking a gulp and then seeing the water level in the glass has diminished. Very easy to understand.

With the increasingly diminishing amount of oil available for exploitation by us, what are the options if we wish our nations and societies to remain as they are, to continue to develop on an upward curve?

Well, it seems a fairly safe assumption, that we instigate a programme designed to be frugal with our remaining oil supply. If we reduce production of oil, yet increase it's per barrel cost wholesale an retail (after refinement, thru the gas pumps, at the electricity meter etc), the producers are actually being frugal with their golden goose, while simultaneously keeping financial income from the sales the same or increased. More money, for less raw material and less costs associated with extraction and refinement of that raw material since less is being produced for consumption.

This obviously makes the oil last longer, stretching the supply for a number of decades past that projected if consumption went on increasing at the previous, 'pre-AGW' rate...there is another reason for pumping the AGW hypothesis...to explain the higher cost to the consumer, for less energy used. If there was no AGW about to drown us all or bake our country to a crisp, or sweep all of us away in a mega hurricane or tornado...who would not be knocking down the governments door demanding to know why we are all paying significantly more money, for much less energy...a lot less bang, for a lot more buck?

Is there anyone that likes to pay more for less without a good reason?

The threat of death and destruction has always been a good motivator, and faced with that threat the majority of people will comply almost en-masse, with the increased prices for less energy if they thought it would save their lives of the lives of their children and grandchildren down the line.

There could be other reasons of course, although after looking at this data presented in this film, it seems it too will be a contrivance for whatever reason. The data, the original 'unadjusted' data does not lie, it does not manipulate and it cares nothing for profit, or peak oil, or politics...PEOPLE do all of that, for various reasons financial or otherwise, not the data.

Thanks again OP, i've grabbed the video to review more closely later and to refer back to when i get around to researching the data, the same data used in his presentation, not the 'adjusted' data put out by those who may have less than honest motives for 'homogenising' the data to suit a particular political or financial standpoint.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Alaska is now getting record snow fall www.dailymail.co.uk...

Global warming huh....

That's called weather. Jesus H how many times do we have state that Climate and Weather are different. Related but different.

By the way -1 is warmer than -2 and it will snow more heavily the warmer it is! I have no intention of telling you why since the excercise in researching about atmosphere and water will do you good.....

originally posted by: manuelram16

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid

Only to the Climate Change Church,
Fact: there are hundreds of scientists that don't support the CCC

FACT: There are thousands more that DO support Climate Change research. I don't know what the CCC is; sounds like some silly Conservative slur.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"IPCC has 50+ years of peer reviewed papers"

Yep that figures, you global warmers have problems even with dates, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. How does one peer review papers on global warming when IPCC and NOAA have continually stonewall FOI requests for models and data which should be public domain.

Climate Change research has existed a LOT longer than the IPCC has. I didn't think I'd have to make that distinction, but then again I AM talking to a denier. Any little hole in someone's argument is immediately blown completely out of proportion to make it seem like the hole is much worse than it is. I guess I should have seen that coming...

If you don't trust the source to be completely honest, their "facts" don't matter. And regardless, these "facts" are simply theory. Yes...a theory of the majority, but still just a theory. Man made climate change is neither a fact nor has it been proven.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Finally somebody goes and takes copper wire, and tells the truth, the whole truth, without adding nor taking anything off.

S&F - darn good presentation

a reply to: MysterX

I always loved your ATS work man.

I'm at half of the video...will do the rest back home. The doctor is not shy about stating "data manipulation". I like his direct approach without too much dancing around fire.



I actually went and did a bit of first hand checking on temperature records for Heathrow area (first thing that popped out while selecting Europe)...they have online data from 1982 onwards. I checked max temps from 1982 to 2015...It really does appear that there is no significant change in max temps. Few spikes here and there...but nothing you can pinpoint as a trend.

If AGW meme is true...there should be a slow but constant growing trend, since CO2 is constantly rising. Yet...the data doesn't show it.

edit:

the link where I was checking...Weather online

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: manuelram16

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid

Only to the Climate Change Church,
Fact: there are hundreds of scientists that don't support the CCC

FACT: There are thousands more that DO support Climate Change research. I don't know what the CCC is; sounds like some silly Conservative slur.

FACT: about half of ATS does not believe in AGW or CC so get over it and act civilized, not like members of a cult.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Why do some people automatically trash talk a video just because it is hosted online at You Tube? They have to be stored/viewed somewhere?! WTF anyway...

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

The chiefs are fools of course ,but the beat cops are the best on the planet.
We should rethink our reliance on THINK TANKS themselves for national policies they tend to be militant and lack wider vison.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

LMAO.

So, a Professor of Geology is now an expert on Climatology.

LMAO.

I guess you'd go to a dentist for open heart surgery.

LMAO some more.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Climate Change research has existed a LOT longer than the IPCC has. I didn't think I'd have to make that distinction, but then again I AM talking to a denier. Any little hole in someone's argument is immediately blown completely out of proportion to make it seem like the hole is much worse than it is. I guess I should have seen that coming...

It was harmless fun, don't take it so seriously but lets get something straight, the IPCC isn't interested in researching climate change, their goal is to introduce a carbon tax too offset global warming. So when global warmers use the phrase climate change its practically an admission that they know they are fighting a loosing battle.

The undeniable truth, the only constant in climate is change.

originally posted by: whateverpedia
a reply to: imd12c4funn

LMAO.

So, a Professor of Geology is now an expert on Climatology.

LMAO.

I guess you'd go to a dentist for open heart surgery.

LMAO some more.

Actually, the last four times I went to the hospital, 3 times, the Doctors could not diagnose the problem and the other time, after one doctor tried to repeatedly inject novocain into cartilage to no avail, he gathered three other doctors who inspected my injury and it took all four doctors huddling on the other side of the room to figure out a fix that was pretty much goofy as hell.

So, I don't trust the allopathic doctors whatsoever. Maybe a surgeon, but that's it.

There are scientists on both sides of this debate, i choose to believe those calling this a hoax. You can analogize all you want but can't change my mind. I only wish you would change yours.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: amazing

Not the establishment huh?

So democrats using climate change to push energy agendas, and the EPA using data to make strict laws, is not an establishment using this so called irrefutable "evidence" to control a populace through legislation, this is just the work of scientists?

Tell that to the thousands of unemployed coal workers and other positions in the energy sector.

But That's not entirely the point. First we must agree on truth. Some will always use the truth to further their own greedy needs. We can't always control that. But truth most first be established.

a reply to: glend

And you know this how? Because the right wing media says so? Carbon taxes aren't the only solutions proposed by IPCC, nor are they IPCC's goals. IPCC wants to just reduce carbon emissions.

PS: Planning on sourcing that graph?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the right wing media says so?

IPCC was created by UN. A body that also sanctioned baby food to Iraq that resulted in the death of 450,000 children under the age of 4 1/2 (UNICEF figure) for undeniable WMD that didn't exist. They no more interested in righteous than Satan himself. The ex-head of IPCC (Rajendra K. Pachauri) that recently resigned because of allegations of assault, sexual harassment, stalking and criminal intimidation. That gives a clue to the morals of the whole push for climate tax. Climate Gate (hacked CRU emails) is another. People are already suffering from global economic downturn, they cannot deal with current taxes to support an over bloated two tier sheltered workshop ( government bureaucracy) much less a three tier government bureaucracy.

source..
The dark blue line in graph is from Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N. A. S. Beveridge, N. J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton. "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675. doi:10.1029/94PA03354

The blue line in graph is from(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J. R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N. I., Barnola J. M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V. M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M.. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436. doi:10.1038/20859
You can inspect other data sources for the graph from here

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the right wing media says so?

IPCC was created by UN. A body that also sanctioned baby food to Iraq that resulted in the death of 450,000 children under the age of 4 1/2 (UNICEF figure) for undeniable WMD that didn't exist. They no more interested in righteous than Satan himself. The ex-head of IPCC (Rajendra K. Pachauri) that recently resigned because of allegations of assault, sexual harassment, stalking and criminal intimidation. That gives a clue to the morals of the whole push for climate tax. Climate Gate (hacked CRU emails) is another. People are already suffering from global economic downturn, they cannot deal with current taxes to support an over bloated two tier sheltered workshop ( government bureaucracy) much less a three tier government bureaucracy.

This is all circumstantial evidence and isn't proof of any wrongdoing. You can paint the UN as the most evil organization in the world, but that still isn't proof that they are complicit in any coverups regarding climate change.

source..
The dark blue line in graph is from Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N. A. S. Beveridge, N. J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton. "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675. doi:10.1029/94PA03354

The blue line in graph is from(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J. R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N. I., Barnola J. M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V. M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M.. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436. doi:10.1038/20859
You can inspect other data sources for the graph from here

You know there is a more up-to-date graph on that page too right? How come you chose the graph that doesn't even go up to 2004?

Hoax or not, nothing will be done about it until a one world government emerges. So any argument for or against is futile, imho.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know there is a more up-to-date graph on that page too right? How come you chose the graph that doesn't even go up to 2004?

What is data source for the reconstructed data you have displayed? Hint, they don't say!

You like cherry picking data that supports your beliefs and try slam any information that doesn't. I know this because I was once in global warming camp (long before you) and have been party to attacking those that stood in the way of my beliefs as well. But when I actually took the time to research both sides of the argument I realized I was wrong. 500 parts of CO2 in a million hasn't caused any recent global warming. That is a lie that they cannot prove scientifically.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Dr. Easterbrook cherry picked and misused data from the IPCC to get to his conclusions. He is also a speaker at conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute, which, if you know anything, is one of many such organizations created by the Koch brothers to push their deceitful, distorted ideas on Republicans who don't do their research. The Koch brothers make most of their money from oil and gas and spend much of their money buying politicians and putting out propaganda. This is conflict of interest in the extreme, yet you prefer to accept a probable liar and ignore most scientists who are trying to make the best of a complicated set of data. I'll say that it is quite conceivable that climate change is being used by the elite for nefarious purposes, but they will use anything for their nefarious purposes, hoax or not. In this case, it just happens to not be a hoax.