EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:52 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1347 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 90  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:47 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 619
2015 will likely go down as the first year to not see a monthly temperature anomaly below +0.70 on GISS. That is extremely impressive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/03/doe- ... icate.html

Fence sitters this information features one very important point Dr. Mann did is best to eliminate. Funny. "Scientists" attempting to eliminate information.

Quote:
US Govt Scientists Confirm: Natural Climate Change of Past Produced Warmer Temps Than Modern Era



Thank you, Obama!....US DOE researchers connect-the-dots...confirm for the public, once and for all, that natural climate change was bigger!, badder!, warmer! and cooler! than the meek modern era climate...science has spoken!!...the science is settled!!...the debate is over!!...it's a consensus!!...indeed, modern warming is very natural-like, just not as robust versus the past.....

Historical global temperature proxy vs modern temp 030515
(click on chart to enlarge)

This chart was recently produced by government scientists, as noted here and here.

This single chart compilation by govt researchers confirms what multiple studies have shown over and over again...natural climate change rules, regardless of CO2 greenhouse emissions.

Several obvious points from this research pictorial.

A. Past natural climate change has produced extreme volatility and variation.

B. Reconstructed temperature proxies reveal multiple climatic periods of acceleration and levels of cooling/warming that far exceed what the modern era has experienced.

C. Modern global warming is not extreme nor unique, even compared to the relatively recent period of the Minoan/Bronze age civilizations.

D. Current temperatures would not have to drop by that much for Earth to enter an ice age glaciation period.

E. Earth has been in an overall cooling mode for the last 10 million years.

These 5 scientific factual points are indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable and unequivocal. [Editor opinion: Any scientist, politician, bureaucrat or journalist/pundit who states otherwise is a definitive climate change denier - or, maybe 'anti-science' liar would be a more apt label for those denying what climate science has proven to be fact.]

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
The climate being warmer millions of years ago means exactly what? There were no humans alive and the premise of the comparison is more than stupid. At one point the planet had no atmosphere which could support life as we know it, so if we were to cause the atmosphere to be lost it would not be a problem?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:05 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
This has been happening so often its a little boring to report it.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/ind ... fraud.html

Quote:
Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. NASA FRAUD The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.

Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’


Yawn. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Yawn...... Okay he it is again. Same old, same old. Nothing new happening here.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/arrogant ... ning-noaa/

Quote:
Arrogant NOAA tells Congress to do its own science rather than questioning NOAA



Someone needs to give NOAA a lesson in our Constitution as well as basic science ethics.


More arrogance. More hiding. More side stepping oversight. More weasle like tactics out of the leftist government paid science community.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:23 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
This has been happening so often its a little boring to report it.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/ind ... fraud.html

Quote:
Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. NASA FRAUD The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.

Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’


Yawn. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


From the "noted" Principia Scientific? Too bad they could not arrange for a real investigation, which could explain why the satellite data does not show the differnece which was claimed to have been discovered.

http://www.desmogblog.com/principia-sci ... ernational

Now they are saying ALL of the instrument data from ALL sources have been changed because they all agree ...

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:25 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Yawn...... Okay he it is again. Same old, same old. Nothing new happening here.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/arrogant ... ning-noaa/

Quote:
Arrogant NOAA tells Congress to do its own science rather than questioning NOAA



Someone needs to give NOAA a lesson in our Constitution as well as basic science ethics.


More arrogance. More hiding. More side stepping oversight. More weasle like tactics out of the leftist government paid science community.


The Constitution says what about science exactly? It seems there is something missing in the logic here ... that's it there is no logic applied just political rhetoric.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:38 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
I suspected more would dribble out on this.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/e-mails- ... nder-rico/

Quote:
Emails obtained by the Competitive Institute and Independently verified by The Daily Caller News Foundation suggest Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whithouse consulted with a group of scientists who later sent a pointed letter to the White House and Department of Justice. The letter demanded the feds launch a Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO investigation into “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.”

CEI says it obtained emails under the Washington State and Florida open records laws. The scientists sending the letter tot he DOJ often copied their planning communications to Whitehouse on his private email account, along with a personal staffer and a Democratic lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It seems likely therefore that the organizer Jagadish Shukla worked with Whitehouse, possibly even on Whitehouse’s behalf, to organize colleagues in support of investigation or prosecution,” Chris Horner, an attorney with CEI, told TheDCNF.


Fence sitters anyone telling you this issue is not political is a damn lair. So, here we have a Democrat Senator, aids, and attorneys, conspiring with some in the scientific community to push for prosecution of skeptics and the fossil fuel industry. Let's silence those who disagree and take it one step more. Let's throw them in the gulag. These people are showing their true colors fence sitters. Are you sure you want to be associated with them and their agenda? Sooner or later they are going to not like something you believe in, and then your next.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
What do you think fence sitters?

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-wa ... terviewed/

Quote:
Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’


If you don't know who Dr. Curry is here is one of her lectures. Fence sitters judge for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4AAN0H ... e=youtu.be

Yes, my friends climate science has degraded into a political members only club that is willing to at least bully those who don't fall in line, and at worst prosecute them into submission. Doesn't sound like science to me. What about it fence sitters?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
I suspected more would dribble out on this.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/e-mails- ... nder-rico/

Quote:
Emails obtained by the Competitive Institute and Independently verified by The Daily Caller News Foundation suggest Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whithouse consulted with a group of scientists who later sent a pointed letter to the White House and Department of Justice. The letter demanded the feds launch a Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO investigation into “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.”

CEI says it obtained emails under the Washington State and Florida open records laws. The scientists sending the letter tot he DOJ often copied their planning communications to Whitehouse on his private email account, along with a personal staffer and a Democratic lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It seems likely therefore that the organizer Jagadish Shukla worked with Whitehouse, possibly even on Whitehouse’s behalf, to organize colleagues in support of investigation or prosecution,” Chris Horner, an attorney with CEI, told TheDCNF.


Fence sitters anyone telling you this issue is not political is a damn lair. So, here we have a Democrat Senator, aids, and attorneys, conspiring with some in the scientific community to push for prosecution of skeptics and the fossil fuel industry. Let's silence those who disagree and take it one step more. Let's throw them in the gulag. These people are showing their true colors fence sitters. Are you sure you want to be associated with them and their agenda? Sooner or later they are going to not like something you believe in, and then your next.


It seems and suggests there is evidence?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:39 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Fence sitters here is the lynch pin of the entire debate.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/theres-b ... -alarmism/

Quote:
There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

And comparatively nothing for skeptics.


Quote:
Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University 225 million over 10 years for research. In 2000, Ford and BP gave 20 million to Princeton to start a climate and energy research program...

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out 8.5 million in environmental grants. ExxonMobil gave 1.2 million to the Nature Conservancy.

According to The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “10 million in cash and land contribution from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over 79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”


79 billion.

This is why some in climate science cheat. This is why they conceal. This is why they refuse FIOA requests. This is why some refuse to submit their work for replication. This is why some insist on casting a huge blanket of fog over what they do. This is why all of the computer models are far too sensitive. This is why they work backwards from a preconceived notion. This is why some want to prosecute skeptics. This is why skeptics are bullied out of the profession. They are getting big money for their trouble.

Follow the money fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:59 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters here is the lynch pin of the entire debate.

http://junkscience.com/2015/11/theres-b ... -alarmism/

Quote:
There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

And comparatively nothing for skeptics.


Quote:
Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University 225 million over 10 years for research. In 2000, Ford and BP gave 20 million to Princeton to start a climate and energy research program...

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out 8.5 million in environmental grants. ExxonMobil gave 1.2 million to the Nature Conservancy.

According to The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “10 million in cash and land contribution from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over 79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.


79 billion.

This is why some in climate science cheat. This is why they conceal. This is why they refuse FIOA requests. This is why some refuse to submit their work for replication. This is why some insist on casting a huge blanket of fog over what they do. This is why all of the computer models are far too sensitive. This is why they work backwards from a preconceived notion. This is why some want to prosecute skeptics. This is why skeptics are bullied out of the profession. They are getting big money for their trouble.

Follow the money fence sitters.


Just how much money does a climate scientist get when one of us gets say $1000.00 tax credit for installing an energy efficient appliance? How exactly does that work since we do not send them a check or anything.

Perhaps the best explanation is that you and Jo Nova again willfully tried to mislead people on the amount of money to follow.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
So, fence sitters I've laid out the cast for why the big wheels in climate science do what they do. Big, big money.

But, why do some on this board do it? They're not getting big money. They use their own time and equipment to continue the fraud. Why?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/27/s ... te-change/

Quote:
Jim Jones, the People’s Leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior. After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of a U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan, Jones and his followers were on the news every day for weeks. Jones, who built his cult around a “doomsday” scenario-convinced his followers that the world was past due for an apocalyptic ending very soon.


The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

Sound familiar fence sitters?

I've been referring to them as cultists for years. Glad someone else picked up on that observation.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/27/s ... te-change/

Quote:
The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

There are other similar traits, but here are four:

1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.

2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.

3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body. Not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling”body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the IPCC are quoted as holy scripture.

4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Quote:
By now it’s been all over the news that 2015 was the hottest year ever. If, in fact, 2015 was the hottest year of all time, there should be enough calamities happening to inspire a dozen movies. Instead, the opposite is occurring.

1. Record Ice

There was record sea ice in Antartica. In truth, a global warming expeditionary ship got stuck in the ice. Artic sea has been making a nice comeback, and the Great Lakes had record ice with only three ice-free months. If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.

2. Record Snow

The 2014/2015 winter saw record snowfall across the country. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists said that global warming would make the snow disappear, and children wouldn’t have any idea what snow is.

3. Record Cold

The winter saw many cold records crash. Remember the Polar Vortex?

4. Rising Oceans

Al Gore and company predicted that oceans would rise twenty-feet by 2100. So far the oceans are on track to lift by 12-inches. Many tidal gauges are showing no rise in sea level and practically none show any increase over the past two decades.

5. Polar Bears

Polar Bears are thriving. If this had been the hottest year on record, the Polar Bears would be in danger of disappearing.

6. Moose

When the moose population in Minnesota dropped observers were quick to blame global warming. Then a study was completed which found it was wolves that were killing the moose.

7. 99% of Scientists

99% of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming. The 99% figure came from a study where only 75 scientists said they see global warming occurring. In another poll, over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in catastrophic, man-made global warming.

8. Nature and CO2

Nature generates much more CO2 than humans. In 2014, [NASA] launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels globally. The assumption was that most of the CO2 would come from the over-industrialized northern hemisphere. They were surprised to learn it was coming from the rainforests of South America as well as Africa and China.

9. It’s Not the Warmest Year

Looking at the satellite data, it has not been the warmest year ever. The figures show there has been no global warming for almost two-decades. Continuing to use the ground weather station data which is influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect provides the reason for scientists calling it the warmest year on record.

10. Hypocrisy

Look at the lifestyles of those who preach global warming. If the main purveyors of global warming believed their propaganda, they would modify their lifestyle. They all own multiple large homes, yachts and private jets. Some individuals, such as Al Gore, profit from Carbon Taxes and other “green energy” laws.


Pretty compelling case fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1347 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 90  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group