Jump to content

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.


It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.

You have not been paying attention. I have not claimed that "Global Warming" is bogus. The title of this thread is "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science". While it certainly is necessary evidence for there to be temperature increases documented to claim humans are the primary reason, it is not sufficient. I assume from your knowledge of science that you are perfectly well aware of "necessary and sufficient".


In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.

And we (the USA) have. What is not often told in the media is that we have done more than any other country to combat ALL FORMS of air pollution. Thankfully, my home state of California lead the way as early as the 1970s. The evidence is seen in our skies in SoCal which are much clearer than back then, and also in the fact that where Stage III smog alerts used to be normal in SoCal summers, it is now rare for a summer to pass where even 1 Stage III smog alert day comes to pass.


The upshot here is that the rest of the world should start towing the line and imposing and enforcing the regulations we already have in the USA. To be explicit: The biggest polluter in the world, bar none with no arguments, is China. India is not far behind. Get those two onboard and we can talk. But passing laws in the USA which are based on flawed science is not going to impact the biggest polluters. It will only transfer wealth into the hands of the politicians pushing this bas science....namely, Al Gore. He has a vested interest in carbon credit trading schemes.


You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.

Then why, pray tell, are you still using a computer? Why are you not doing your part by moving into a cave and giving up all electrical appliances? Actions speak louder than words. Of course, I am being fascetious. The point is: It is wonderful to talk this line, but until you being to talk about balancing things like our quality of life and our economy right alongside this, then you are only speaking meaningless platitudes.... unless you have some plan that is workable to shut down all energy (read: pollution) producing activities. Your statement, while true, is trite and meaningless without solutions that address the entire issue of society doing what it does. Because the simplest solution would be to exterminate the entire human race.


But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.

Let me reveal something that I always put out there when this issue comes up for discussion: Way back in 2003 (before it was "chic" to be concerned about global warming, and before AlGore got his Oscar) I installed a 3.3 kW solar PV system on the roof of my Huntington Beach home. On an annualized basis I give more power to the grid than I consume. Furthermore, the property I am building (from bare ground) in SW Colorado will not only have solar PV but also a wind turbine...the current plan is to remain off-grid completely. So, I am walking the talk. What about you?


The point of me sharing this is to agree with you only so far as we need to be responsible actors with our environment. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the science which claims that the warming is "primarily" due to human actions, while NOWHERE does this politically-charged science EVER EVER EVER even estimate the sun's impact... nowhere do they try to explain the relative magnitudes of impacts. (In dyanmical system analysis, we call this identifying the gains of each input path). They simply leave it as "the globe is warming and it is all mankind's fault." Somehow, I know that is not true (because there is correlating data that shows the sun's impact over solar cycles), and therefore this is nothing but misapplied science intended to "scare" people into allowing government to force them to "do the right thing".


I did not need anyone scaring me to make the decision to install my solar PV system. All I needed was a simple engineering analysis with resulted in a Return On Investment. It clearly showed me that not only was it an environmentally proper action to take, but it made financial sense too.


I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.





Link to comment
Share on other sites



Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun). That is dishonest and bad science. You would never see the "priests and proselytizers" of AGW report any science like the following:


Watts Up With That


Correlation demonstrated between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere




"Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK's National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles - being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions."


This is but one reason why claiming "the science is settled" is a purposefully misleading statement which does not reflect how science really works. Why is it that the people who are trying to convince us of Anthropogenic Global Warming never talk about the sun's impact (which is clearly larger and the primary source of energy input to our closed system)?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun).

...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".


Or maybe its related to solar activity cycles;


Or maybe its related to cyclic cosmic ray activity relative to the solar system's orbit about the galactic center as it passes through regions of varying mean density in the outer spiral arm.


We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...


and we also know that the vast majority of scientific theories on the subject of global warming are being driven not by science but by political correctness.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.

If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?


You fail to mention that:


1. The idea of Anthropogehenic Global Warming has been around since the 1970s, and it was devoid of any political implications. Only in the past few years did the issue become a political "hotspot".


2. The simple fact that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has almost doubled since 1800, and that this increase is of roughly the same magnitude as our own industrial emission of CO2. These are two pieces of raw data which cannot be disputed.


3. Greenhouse gases are bound to create a greenhouse effect. You don't need complicated computer models to know this. It follows from the basic light absorption properties of these materials. And if you are still skeptical about it, take a look at the planet Venus.


4. Global Warming - regardless of its cause - is a real trend. Data from the past 150 years prove that the earth IS becoming warmer. This warming began with the industrial revolution, and accelerated as our CO2 emissions increased. This correlation would be a pretty odd coincidence, if we assume that our CO2 isn't responsible for the warming.


5. Computer models of the effects of AGW predict a rise in temperature which is of the same order-of-magnitude as the observed trends. Different computer models give different figures, but they are all in the right ballpark when compared to the actual data. Is this another coincidence?


Now, I agree that the situation is not 100% resolved. Perhaps our computer model are off, and what we really have here is a couple of extraordinary coincidences. But this isn't very likely. The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.


You're right in one thing, though:


Science and politics do not mix well. The other side of this very same coin, however, is that you shouldn't judge a scientific theory by the way politicians use it.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".

Reference, please.


We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...

What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?


I'm suprised to hear such a statement from you, Darby. Very surprised.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours...Explain that one...

Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.

Dang! I forgot about that. The ChiComs are terraforming Mars and reducing their carbon footprint through exportation of carbon credits to Mars. A win-win! :)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?

The point is "Save the Polar Bears - The Polar Ice Caps Are Melting". Earth's response is, "Been there - done that. Several times. Stop screwing with my bears you twits."


The fruitbats have localized the situation of global temperature change to today and only today and crying, with a lot of hand waving - some stomping, a bit of general tantrumizing, lots of threats and occassional violence - that we have to do something about it without considering or even caring that the history of the planet is one of constant temperature change - some slow and others very rapid but always cyclic. We will have another ice age. We will have another hot age. Will have another mini-Ice Age and another mini-Hot Age. Many of them, in fact. We are currently at the mid-point between the last major Ice Age and the next major Ice Age. It's supposed to be getting hotter right now. The hot ages are the initiators of global bio-diversity and evolution. Without them the planet dies.


That we saw, a few years ago, a short term rise in temperatures is not at all unprecidented. In the 1940's it was global cooling, in the 1950's it was global warming, in the 1960's it was global cooling, in the 1970's it was global warming, in the 1980's it was global cooling, in the 1990's it was global warming and now in the 2000's we're back to global cooling. There might be a short-term pattern or two there - one a physical fact, the other a psychological tendency for the Drama Queens to come out and play the "gimme a trillion tax dollars more for global warming/cooling prevention - or gimme the money jus cuz" power trip game.


And the fruitbats demand excruciatingly long and expensive EIR's from everyone and anyone who is doing something that might in their view alter the temperature...but they'd cry bloody hell if someone filed a law suit and demanded that they file and get approved an EIR before their pet project to alter temperatures is approved...wouldn't they? Sure, their Sister Moonbeam-Starship Earth argument would be that they are doing it for the benefit of mankind (sing kum-bye-yah at this point) and we're supposed to shut up, sit still and buy the neo-flowerchild hokum hook, line and sinker without questioning their motives, knowledge or even their sanity. Right.


No one, and I mean no one, on the fruitbat team has given a single thought as to what the effect - assuming that we can affect temperature change - of their weather tinkering would be. They just mindlessly assume that it would work out as they want it to work out. It would never occur to them they they might be wrong, that the changes are natural and they they would bring about the very thing that they claim to want to prevent by tinkering with the weather.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?


You fail to mention that:

Just because I do not mention them does not mean they are not addressable with objective evidence that refutes (or at least causes one to question) the proclaimed AGW "conclusions". I will answer each of those points over the weekend when I have more time. But let me address this one first, because clearly you have not been seeing everything that has been going on, nor reviewing the science put forward by people refuting AGW:


The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.

Actually, the evidence is very much sketchy, when you look at all of it. As for it being "good science" that can also be refuted 12 ways to Sunday. Here is just some eye-opening information from the guy who was the former supervisor of the "AGW Chief Priest" NASA's James Hansen:




"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen 'embarrassed NASA' with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was 'was never muzzled.' Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears."


And with respect to "good science" here is what Theon is alleging about how some people performed their science:


'Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,' he added.


That's "good science"? Hardly. And now let me present some "from the horse's mouth" admissions to the kinds of things alleged in the above statement. Ones that, as an engineer, clearly cause me to question whether these people are doing real science, or only trying to confirm their own beliefs:




Scientific Colloquium


January 23, 2009






"Atmospheric Data Assimilation and Observing System Science"


Data assimilation is the process by which observations are combined with a prognostic model to provide the best estimate (analysis) of the current state of a physical system. Observational information, which tends to be irregular in space and time, can thus be made available in a regular or gridded form required for many applications. The process is far more complex than a simple interpolation of information from one point to another, as it depends on aspects such as the errors of the various observation types, imperfections in the prognostic model and the physical relationships between different atmospheric variables; e.g., pressure and wind speed.


Mixing raw data with a "prognostic model"? Least squares fitting is one thing (and acceptable science), kalman filtering is also acceptable science to get normalized data. But running raw measurements through a "prognostic model"? That hardly appears to be good science, especially if the assumptions used in the "prognostic model" have not been expressley stated, along with their realm of validity, with validation methods and data to back them up.


I am really hopeful that some of this data will open your eyes, and you do not simply reject it because it does not fit your current belief. You seem to me to be very scientific in your thinking, and I am hopeful you have simply not seen some of this data or these admissions before.


Coming up: More data that will show how the IPCC climate models predictions are at least questionable, if not incorrect, related to "stabilizing vs. destabilizing" systemic effects. In other words, feedback loops. Something I know a lot about, and am fully capable of backing what Dr. Roy Spencer (climatologist) explains about them.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another story that just came out today...written by none other than John Coleman, the gentleman who started the Weather Channel.




The whole thing is a very good read, but here are some highlights:


"The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming. "


This is not simply alternate alarmism. There have been stories quoting Gore saying he was recommending that CO2 be labeled a pollutant. Gases that plants need to survive, a pollutant? ONLY politicians could come up with that.... show me ONE scientist who would recommend that (other than the obvious political animal Hansen) and we can talk.


"These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures. "








"But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.




Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere. "


This is where the politics really started to mix with the science, although it was not overt. The thing that overtly disconnected the two was the "research funding". That has become much clearer in the past 10 years.


"Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. "


I can (and will if requested by any readers) post an analysis from Dr. Roy Spencer who shows just how TEENY TINY total CO2 is, in addition to how miniscule the CO2 buildup has been.


"Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting."


The UN gets involved. Let us remember that the UN is not a scientific organization! First and foremost it is a political organization, committed to achieve political goals...quite often NOT in accord with the best interests of the USA or their people. But that is politics on an international scale. No surprise there. But when the UN gets into the business of proclaiming scientific conclusions....BEWARE!


"And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. "


Here we have the "grandfather of global warming" (Revelle) pointing this (bold) out!!!


"Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. "


You see, the politics have been entangled with "science" (bad science) for so long, that people are generally not aware of just how long Gore has been using such platitudes as "science being settled" (that is unscientific, in and of itself) and "the time for debate is over". Moreover, Gore does not even listen to the Harvard professor who got him all starry-eyed and on his tree-hugger quest!


"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. "





Link to comment
Share on other sites



Thanks for posting the Coleman information.


Another concern that Coleman has expressed is how politicized university departments of enviornmental studies have become around the nation. He's quite alarmed over the fact that skeptical positions regarding global warming are not tollerated at all.


Students had better be on board with the politically correct position, pro manmade global warming, or their grades will suffer and getting into grad school just might not be an option if they can't get a professor to sponsor them. It's no surprise that there's only one point of view coming out of university research when students face that one-sided fact.


Research funding, of course, comes mostly from the federal government. Congress allocates funding through spending bills. As I looked at the line item funds in the bail-out bill today I didn't seem much in the way of funds being allocated for research projects that don't support the manmade global warming position. In fact the total line item funding for such projects was zero dollars. Professors are expected to engage in ongoing research for publication. With the available funds allocated for one predetermined outcome, professors who want to keep their jobs have but one choice as to what their findings will be. Thereafter the professors write the textbooks for the undergraduate division. The science expressed in the textbooks is based on their published research. Undergrads aren't expected to disagree with the textbooks, especially when their professor is the author their textbooks. [Loop to top of paragraph - Execute endless Loop]


It gives a whole new meaning to the term "political science".



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darby,


Thanks for posting the Coleman information.

As I am sure you suspect...it gets better. The AGW house is truly crumbling right now. Too bad the new administration is ignoring the writing on the wall and pressing forward with its bad-science-based agenda. And they bashed Bush for ignoring reality? It is to laugh.


So here is the latest person to step forward and call BS on AGW:


Forecasting Guru Announces: "No scientific basis for forecasting climate"


Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they "violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting", but that "The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose." This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice.


No doubt the AGW zealots will put this on heavy "ignore and do not address"...


What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia's CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.




In today's statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:




1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth's climate.


2. Improper peer review process.


3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.


4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.


5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.


7. The climate system is stable.


8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.



Number 7 is my favorite from a technical standpoint, since it deals with feedback loops. Something I work with day in and day out...and something that many "climatologists" can only barely do the LaPlace math for...


To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre's data, we started with 1850 and used that year's average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This "successive updating" continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.




We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.


The process they describe here provides hard-to-refute evidence that there are stabilizing (negative feedback) loops built-in to the climate system. Dr. Roy Spencer has written about this at length, and points out that the IPCC climate models (all of them) consistently model cloud effects as a positive (destabilizing) feedback gain. If this were true, the world would have gone divergent long before man showed up because of all the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by volcanos.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of volcanos...


I just mentioned the effect of volcanos. With Mount Redoubt in Alaska ready to blow its top, it is time to review some correlating data that shows what happens when two sets of events align: (1) When solar radiance plummets and (2) Volcanoes around the world begin to become active again. This chart says it all:




Hard to ignore these trends, which stretch back in TIME quite a bit. So we just came out of a year with VERY LOW solar radiance (as evidenced by the low number of days with sunspots). And all one needs to do are a few googles on volcanic activity, or the threats thereof, around the globe... and using this past data we can understand why some scientists (not the AGW crowd) are saying we are entering a new, drastic cooling trend.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: And speaking of volcanos...


Before I begin- I am a triple graduate- Law, Arts, Science.


AGW should be called what it is:


Nazi science.


It is EXACTLY the same blend of politics, corporatism (don't think carbon trading is for the little guy- it's not), anti-humanism and ecology movement twaddle that gave birth to Nazism.


Back then there was the ecology movement, which sprang from the pan-germanism and pagan revival of the turn of the twentieth century which was manured by World War 1 and blossomed afterwards. AGW masquerades as science, but it has all the cult overtones of classic Nazi (ie bad) science. At the heart of AGW is a hatred of humanity, hatred of technical achievement, and a desire to tear them down. It is also extremely telling to me that the AGW proponents always rely on simplistic sloganeering and dumbed down argument -another Nazi hallmark- and that the voice of reason, which in such a complex area must be technical and detailed, is therefore greatly disadvantaged.


There could be no worse collection of people to entrust anything to, let alone the future of civilisation, than the parasitic ne'er-do-wells of the tenured academic scientist, the politician, the journalist and the tycoon.


This same matrix of manipulation has given us


political correctness


- a movement more intolerant than any prejudice it claims to correct, more racist than the old deep South with its ruthless hatred of white males


the new paganism


- a scientistic rather than scientific attempt to pasteurise and homogenise faith, and with it destroy all cultures not spawned in savage tribes, street gangs or wrong-headed fundamentalist dogma


outsourcing our critical thinking to the mainstream media


- the least thoughtful and accurate group of public identities on the planet now convey our "facts" to us, and no scientist wishing to prosper can fail to learn how to market themselves- to the guaranteed detriment of science


the death of the nation state


- it was too health to die a natural death as desired so they flat out killed it


the death of individuality


- no longer is pluralism and Jeffersonian free thought even tolerated, let alone encouraged


conspiratorial government


- when the architects of fear are allowed to use negative reinforcement based control mechanisms on humanity, we have government by the pedophiles (eg unconvicted co-conspirator in the Franklin case BARNEY FRANK), for the pedophiles


THEY LIVE, WE SLEEP has unfortunately proven to be a prophetic film. As has THE ARRIVAL. It's just that the "aliens" are a segment of our own species wallowing in sociopathic behaviour, most of which deviously wears a mask of concern for the "cattle" they see us as.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: And speaking of volcanos...


Nice post Doghead. I, for one, am glad you returned to the site. Your candor and straightforward demeanor are refreshing.


AGW should be called what it is:


Nazi science.

I am not as willing to be so blunt as you in calling it what it is. But that is my own shortcoming. I still have further to travel down my personal road. ;) But yes, I do know that the covert intentions behind AGW (just one tool in their bag) are as you say. It is clear that evil intentions will always use and promote what seem like virtuous goals to achieve their less than virtuous intentions. Their achilles heal is their hypocrisy. Pay attention not to what Al Gore says and how he tells others they should live their lives. Rather, pay attention to what he does and how he lives his life. That is truth, and it shall enlighten those who think AGW is real to his underlying intentions. "By their actions shall ye know them."


I am a man of science. While I can usually ignore the playing of politics to control people, where I cannot accept it is in using lies and co-opting science to achieve these ends. That is why I shout about the BS that is AGW. On another website, I have a single thread where I have collected and will continue to post the evidence that falsifies the bad science behind AGW (and let me again restate, the lie is that mankind is the primary force behind warming...not that warming was not occurring).


May your path remain lighted by your conscience, your search for truth, and the unveiling of lies.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: And speaking of volcanos...


I guess there is a lesson to be learned here:


When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.


Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA. Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.


It's a real shame that this thread has come to this. And on the "real science" board - no less. Pity.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: And speaking of volcanos...


When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.

If you would, please, could you define "lose it"?


Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA.

Have you paid attention to the whole "carbon credits" scheme in Europe? The reason AGW is a problem is because many see it as a co-opting of science (which is what it is, sorry you refuse to see the evidence that falsifies it) as a means of socialist control over people.


Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.

Perhaps if you were to educate yourself about financial issues, and contrast them to how we do things in science, you may begin to see the problem we are headed for.... and the financial incentive for the people pushing AGW (Al Gore). I suggest you read this paper:




And allow me to quote from part of it that addresses the "science" of AGW (which is what they are using to push the carbon credits scheme as a fiat currency)...


But the question remains unanswered: 'What's the evidence that man-made CO2


makes much difference to our climate?' So far no one can answer it without using


the words 'IPCC', 'consensus', 'mainstream', 'expert', or 'computer model'.




Dr. David Evans pointed out the lack of evidence in The Australian on July 18,


2008 (see Appendix II). Despite the widespread coverage of this article, to date no


one has refuted it by providing empirical evidence. Replies fall into four categories.




1. 'The IPCC says so, and there is mainstream consensus.' — There is no


consensus, it wouldn't prove anything if there was, and the IPCC is a UN


committee that was set up to find evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse




2. Computer Models — Models are made of assumptions built on estimations,


amplified by conjecture. They are a series of calculations and thus theory, not




3. Laboratory Theory — Test tube experiments don't match real world


measurements. The 'greenhouse effect' has almost no effect in a real


greenhouse (the warming is almost entirely due to convection), which


undermines the idea that greenhouse gases have much effect in the real




4. Irrelevant Evidence — Proof of global warming is not proof that CO2 is the


cause. Icebergs would melt even if a team of UFOs were heating the planet


with ray guns.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: And speaking of volcanos...


And let me also quote the salient points put forth by Dr. David Evans in his article included as Appendix II. First, his lead-in:


I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian


Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting


model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in


the land use change and forestry sector


The reason this is significant is because he was a scientist who was convinced of the evidence of man-made CO2 causing global warming... but now, as a good scientist should do, he changes his opinions based on the facts in hand at the time. Now let us see how he points out the facts and the data that support them:


There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of


the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:




1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for


years, and cannot find it.




2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant


global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has


occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures


(though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone


that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global






3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming


trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the


past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are


corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on


thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to


vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature


data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based


data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three


global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or


satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.




4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a


million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the


accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important


about which was cause and which was effect.




None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them,


though they would dispute their relevance.


And with what contrarial data doe the "alarmist scientists" dispute the relevance? None that I can see. Please pay particular note of #4. I can show you other graphs of the same ice core data that shows CO2 is the lagging effect, and that the temp changes preceded the CO2 rise. That is what we call falsifying evidence. If you still choose to ignore this, then I am not sure there is much hope for your adherence to science.


What is most important is that this is not you or me debating whose science is "better". Rather, this is a scientist who was orignally convinced of the trace data...but now after more data has come in has rightfully stepped forward to tell others of how this new data falsifies the old theories. This is someone who should be paid attention to, for it is clear he responds to data, not political trends and taskmasters.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...