Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Breath-taking climate denial nonsense, this time aimed at NASA


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:53 AM

The difference between you and I and all deniers are, as I see it, one of ideology vs. facts. No amount of facts will persuade anthropomorphic climate deniers.

Like I said, I'm a little slow when understanding the difference between natural climate change and accelerated anthropomorphic climate change. Perhaps you could educate me and all the rest viewing this thread.

#32 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:03 AM

Having lived through it I can certainly attest to the extreme heat.

This Is Just the Beginning': Forest Fires, Deadly Storms, Record Heat Reveal a Changed Climate (VIDEO)

The past two weeks have witnessed the worst forest fires in Colorado history, a deadly Mid-Atlantic storm that left 23 dead and 4 million without power, and a record-shattering heatwave across the East Coast and the Midwest that has not been seen since the Dust Bowl. More than 2,000 heat records have been broken in the past week. As the words "extreme weather" flash across TV screens, where are the other two words: "global warming"?
Democracy Now! hosts a discussion about the politics of news reporters linking climate change to their coverage of extreme weather events with The Guardian's U.S. environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg and Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at the Weather Underground website.
"I think it's important for the public to hear that what we're seeing now is the future," Masters says. "We're going to be seeing a lot more weather like this, a lot more impacts like we're seeing from this series of heatwaves, fires, and storms. And we'd better prepare for it. We'd better educate people...
http://www.huffingto..._b_1647103.html



#33 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:53 PM

A thought just came to mind. After you are finished explaining the difference between the two, explain how such a worldwide scam between countless numbers of individuals, governments & agencies, other organizations, educational and non educational institutions could possibly be accomplished ? You know it's difficult too get a small group of people to agree let alone thousands. How could such a scam be accomplished ?

Edited by ohreally?, 09 July 2012 - 01:54 PM.


#34 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:25 PM

In reply 31 it should read accelerated anthropogenic climate change not accelerated
anthropomorphic climate change.

#35 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:45 PM

A thought just came to mind. After you are finished explaining the difference between the two, explain how such a worldwide scam between countless numbers of individuals, governments & agencies, other organizations, educational and non educational institutions could possibly be accomplished ? You know it's difficult too get a small group of people to agree let alone thousands. How could such a scam be accomplished ?


I have no particular interest in spoon feeding you the fundamentals of the topic. I suggest that you spend some time in the library; which is what you should have done before you formed an opinion on the subject.

How did “The Great Global Warming Scam” come about? Simple: “follow the money”.

Contrary to popular belief, the western developed world has had an over production of scientists for more than forty years. Every year our vast international university system churns out thousands of new scientists who have no science related jobs to go to.

The largest single employer of physicists in the world is Wall Street; the largest single employer of chemists is the New York City taxi fleet. An article in the society journal of “The American Chemical Society” recently reported that fewer than 20% of their members had jobs that were in any way related to chemistry.

Of the small proportion of scientists who do manage to find jobs, most would feed their grandmothers into a wood chipper to hold onto it.

Therefore, our society is faced with the situation of having a huge pool of very highly educated people, desperate for work, but with minimal career prospects.

About twenty years ago, a group of enterprising “scientists” opened up a whole new career field: “global warming”. Governments world wide started throwing buckets of money at the field; currently, research grants are being distributed like candies at a diabetics convention.

The unemployed scientists grabbed onto this like drowning men to a life raft; each research grant comes with the promise of employment. Since the research grants are all predicated on the premise of the reality of “global warming”, the unemployed scientists all became true believers.

As is said behind closed doors: “97% of scientists believe in global warming, because 100% of scientists know that they will be unemployed if they don’t”.

In response to these facts of life, almost every research paper in “climate science” is trimmed to fit the premise; and this conformity ensures that their research grants, and their employment, will continue.

The reality of this situation is proved by the fact that “climate scientists” refuse to make public either their data or their research methods. They suppress the details of their work, because they know that if it is scrutinised by real scientists, it will be shown to be bogus.

Over the years the scam has taken on huge dimensions: it provides employment for thousands of scientists; it provides huge subsidies and profits to “green” industries; it provides a bottomless tax pool for bankrupt governments.

Given the dollars involved, this scam is not going to go away any time soon.

#36 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 05:51 PM

Do you just make this stuff up ? I see much opinion and ideology, precious little regarding facts.
By the way you still have not explained how such a worldwide scam can be coordinated.



Like I told you. Almost everyday I can find a new article showing global climate change is happening.
Here's two for example. The second includes a recent study. http://usnews.msnbc....study-says?lite
http://www1.ncdc.noa...erson-et-al.pdf

This US summer is 'what global warming looks like': scientists

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.
These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.
Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.
And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years.
http://phys.org/news...sts.html#ajTabs


Since the beginning of this year there have been 40000 record high temperatures in the contiguous states.

Edited by ohreally?, 11 July 2012 - 05:53 PM.


#37 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:06 AM

Something new to read. The denier comments are unremarkably familiar.

Arctic sea-ice levels at record low for June

Sea ice in the Arctic has melted faster this year than ever recorded before, according to the US government's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).
Satellite observations show the extent of the floating ice that melts and refreezes every year was 318,000 square miles less last week than the same day period in 2007, the year of record low extent, and the lowest observed at this time of year since records began in 1979. Separate observations by University of Washington researchers suggest that the volume of Arctic sea ice is also the smallest ever calculated for this time of year.
Scientists cautioned that it is still early in the "melt season", but said that the latest observations suggest that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to shrink and thin and the pattern of record annual melts seen since 2000 is now well established. Last year saw the second greatest sea ice melt on record, 36% below the average minimum from 1979-2000.
"Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometres (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the
http://www.guardian....a-ice-melt-rate


Edited by ohreally?, 12 July 2012 - 09:06 AM.


#38 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

This is “science” by press release, and as such is completely meaningless.

The process followed by real scientists is to gather data, analyse it, produce a result, then provide both the result and the data to other real scientists for verification. If real scientists confirm the result, then the result is considered credible and then published.

However, in the oxymoron that is “climate science” this process is ignored and announcements are made directly to the press; the data is suppressed, and no real scientists are allowed the opportunity to verify it.
Accordingly, until such time as these announcements are verified by real scientists, this nonsense can confidently be filed under “BS”.

However, real scientists have examined the historical data that is available in the public record; here is what they have found:
  • The current heat wave is the result of a slow moving high pressure cell over the continent. These cells are a normal occurrence every summer, and randomly vary in size, duration and effect.
    In other words, the current heat wave is nothing exceptional.
  • The decade of the 1930’s was considerably hotter than anything experienced to date. This extended period of heat and drought caused the “dust bowl”.
    So the statement that thousands of new heat records have been set is not supported by the historical record; it is a mystery as to where exactly these new records were set.
    I suggest that you read “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck; it tells all about the extremes of weather of the period.
  • The windstorm known as a “derecho” is a relatively common phenomenon. The only difference between this one and previous ones is the path it took; ie: it went through an area of relatively high population.
  • While the current wildfires are large and destructive, the 1800’s saw numerous wildfires of far greater magnitude and intensity. The major difference between then and now is that now there are numerous people living in the fire prone areas, whereas in the 1800’s they were largely unpopulated.
  • The extent of Arctic ice is unrelated to global warming. The formation and melting of Arctic ice is a function of warm water currents, and their circulation.
    These water currents follow non linear random chaotic patterns, and so far no real scientist has been able to model or predict these currents, or their effects.
  • Arctic sea ice levels are within historical ranges; the range of ice in the 1920’s and 1930’s was considerably less than it is now. So, historically, the recent variations in Arctic ice levels are unremarkable and within historical variation.
    Note that the statistics quoted in your post refer to a data collection period of around 30 years, and ignore the historical data going back hundreds of years.


#39 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 05:00 AM

This is “science” by press release, and as such is completely meaningless.

The process followed by real scientists is to gather data, analyse it, produce a result, then provide both the result and the data to other real scientists for verification. If real scientists confirm the result, then the result is considered credible and then published.

However, in the oxymoron that is “climate science” this process is ignored and announcements are made directly to the press; the data is suppressed, and no real scientists are allowed the opportunity to verify it.
Accordingly, until such time as these announcements are verified by real scientists, this nonsense can confidently be filed under “BS”.

However, real scientists have examined the historical data that is available in the public record; here is what they have found:

  • The current heat wave is the result of a slow moving high pressure cell over the continent. These cells are a normal occurrence every summer, and randomly vary in size, duration and effect.
    In other words, the current heat wave is nothing exceptional.
  • The decade of the 1930’s was considerably hotter than anything experienced to date. This extended period of heat and drought caused the “dust bowl”.
    So the statement that thousands of new heat records have been set is not supported by the historical record; it is a mystery as to where exactly these new records were set.
    I suggest that you read “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck; it tells all about the extremes of weather of the period.
  • The windstorm known as a “derecho” is a relatively common phenomenon. The only difference between this one and previous ones is the path it took; ie: it went through an area of relatively high population.
  • While the current wildfires are large and destructive, the 1800’s saw numerous wildfires of far greater magnitude and intensity. The major difference between then and now is that now there are numerous people living in the fire prone areas, whereas in the 1800’s they were largely unpopulated.
  • The extent of Arctic ice is unrelated to global warming. The formation and melting of Arctic ice is a function of warm water currents, and their circulation.
    These water currents follow non linear random chaotic patterns, and so far no real scientist has been able to model or predict these currents, or their effects.
  • Arctic sea ice levels are within historical ranges; the range of ice in the 1920’s and 1930’s was considerably less than it is now. So, historically, the recent variations in Arctic ice levels are unremarkable and within historical variation.
    Note that the statistics quoted in your post refer to a data collection period of around 30 years, and ignore the historical data going back hundreds of years.


Talk about ignoring data. You do a grand job.

Whom are these real scientists you allude to existing but never name ? Names please ?

#40 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 05:11 AM

It does not seem to occur to you that for there to be a press release there has to be data to behind the release. You just implying this release and all other release are fabrications ?

By the way when you quote you must cite from where the quote is taken. For all I or anyone knows the quotes could be taken from press releases.

Edited by ohreally?, 16 July 2012 - 05:15 AM.


#41 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:31 PM

Here are some links which provide some useful information; while I have no illusions that they will affect your ideologically based dogmatism, we can only hope.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit..../stevemcintyre/
http://joannenova.co...max/#more-22725




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users