Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don_L said:
The real forces behind climate change politics just showed up in Copenhagen. President Chavez brought the house down.
Click to expand...
And Chavez’ remarks invalidate the scientific research of tens of thousands of climatologists … how?
 
StAnastasia said:
Don L, do you like truth? I do. I haven’t seen any evidence that the majority of climate scientists “get caught in deliberately deceiving the entire basis [sic] for that consensus.” I thought it was a couple of scientists at one university out of thousands of institutions. It’s a grave accusation you make. Sorry, I can’t stand it either.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Geee, wait a minute. You’ve been very critical of people that disagree with you. Now you can’t stand someone that sees things differently. I think I’ve just made up my mind. And, you’ve never bothered to answer post 700.

Now I can see where you are coming from, and it’s not science!
 
StAnastasia said:
Don L, do you like truth? I do. I haven’t seen any evidence that the majority of climate scientists “get caught in deliberately deceiving the entire basis [sic] for that consensus.” **I thought it was a couple of scientists at one university out of thousands of institutions. ** It’s a grave accusation you make. Sorry, I can’t stand it either.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

So, no, the fact that we’ve got manipulation going on at one of the three main global temperature datasets is much more serious than if it was just one of thousands of institutions.
 
paully said:
Geee, wait a minute. You’ve been very critical of people that disagree with you. Now you can’t stand someone that sees things differently. I think I’ve just made up my mind.
Click to expand...
Paully, have a sense of humour! 😉 I was just echoing Don L’s tone. Of course I can take people who see things differently, unlike most anti-AGW posters on this thread. Critical thinking involves seeing both sides, while this thread presupposes a unilateral vision of “the truth” from the very start! :eek:
 
StAnastasia said:
Paully, have a sense of humour! 😉 I was just echoing Don L’s tone. Of course I can take people who see things differently, unlike most anti-AGW posters on this thread. Critical thinking involves seeing both sides, while this thread presupposes a unilateral vision of “the truth” from the very start! :eek:
Click to expand...
🙂
 
StAnastasia said:
Paully, have a sense of humour! 😉 I was just echoing Don L’s tone. Of course I can take people who see things differently, unlike most anti-AGW posters on this thread. Critical thinking involves seeing both sides, while this thread presupposes a unilateral vision of “the truth” from the very start! :eek:
Click to expand...
Okay. I’m 20 but am still in high school because of a serious learning disability in math. I also have a reading comprehension disability. But I’ve stuck it out. It’s weird to be able to write pretty good, but have low reading comprehension. Our whole class has to do a paper from the icecap website. The people that believe in AGW and the people that don’t believe in AGW have to pick an article and back it up or show it to be wrong. I was just looking for a little (name removed by moderator)ut from any of their articles. I understand you not wanting to help.
 
paully said:
Okay. I’m 20 but am still in high school because of a serious learning disability in math. I also have a reading comprehension disability. But I’ve stuck it out. It’s weird to be able to write pretty good, but have low reading comprehension. Our whole class has to do a paper from the icecap website. The people that believe in AGW and the people that don’t believe in AGW have to pick an article and back it up or show it to be wrong. I was just looking for a little (name removed by moderator)ut from any of their articles. I understand you not wanting to help.
Click to expand...
Paully, congratulations on sticking things out – that shows courage and strength of character! It’s not a matter of “not wanting to help”; I’m not equipped on short notice to weigh in on this matter from a scientific perspective. Keep up your research on all the angles of this problem.

StAnastasia
 
paully said:
I was doing some more reading last night after homework. Methane is 20 times more affective than CO2 in trapping outgoing radiation. It then said that a large part of methane is now coming from animals raised for humans to eat. PEEEEW, I remember when my family drove through Nebraska a long while ago. It stunk. Maybe if we cut down on eating meat we can help combat any warming if it is occurring.

I could do it. 👍
Click to expand...
I believe this is the single biggest impact an individual can have - reduce (or better yet eliminate) consumption of meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, fish… a simple thing to do today. We have a group here on CAF - Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans - concern for the environmental impact of one’s diet is a compelling reason for many of us who are part of this group. 😉 — Personal choices can and do make a difference.
 
StAnastasia said:
Paully, my family have already made the switch away from beef, both for this reason and out of general health concerns. It would be interesting to know how much methane chickens contribute as compared with cows or pigs.
Click to expand...
don’t forget about dairy…😦
 
4elise said:
don’t forget about dairy…😦
Click to expand...
4Elise, I admire you, but I think we would have a revolt on our hands if we made our two children switch suddenly to soy milk and tofu. We do what we can, one bit at a time. One small Honda we keep running; bicycle to school and church, weather permitting; 1200 square foot house, two children, staycations, comprehensive recycling, solar heating, etc.

StAnastasia
 
qui_est_ce said:
Except for the fact that people who disagree with AGCC are marginalized in Copenhagen.

Interestingly, many appear to have gone to Copenhagen:
Let’s go plant a few trees!:christmastree1:
Click to expand...
Many of the protesters are actually protesting that not enough is being done by countries to address the issue - many there speaking for countries without the economic clout to be heard otherwise (the same ones that the Holy Father asks us to speak up for)

I think the entire thing (not surprisingly) has become too politicized - and given that it is difficult to be hopeful that people will work together when their self interest is not first - I believe the only way most people will act (change) is if they think it will help them, sadly. 😦

Landing on this scandal to say therefore it is all bad science is an over simplification isn’t it?

To those who do not believe that any actions by man are causing climate change - and therefore nothing we can do will make a difference - of the things that are recommended, i.e. is it the cap and trade that is most objected to? Is it a move to renewable energy (and what it will cost) that is most objected to? Is it because it will cost more that people most object to?
*
Live simply that others may simply live. * We can simplify our lives so that others around the world may have a life - that is what I’m striving for. I believe everyone here on CAF cares about our brothers and sisters - but sometimes we have to be open to making changes that might be a challenge - to be as someone else here shared - to be*** radical followers of Jesus Christ***

Blessings,
 
StAnastasia said:
4Elise, I admire you, but I think we would have a revolt on our hands if we made our two children switch suddenly to soy milk and tofu. We do what we can, one bit at a time. One small Honda we keep running; bicycle to school and church, weather permitting; 1200 square foot house, two children, staycations, comprehensive recycling, solar heating, etc.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
One step at a time! Come on over to the Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans group for some recipes!
Just FYI (sorry off topic:blush:) I have a 30 year old son who isn’t too happy that his mom doesn’t cook the way she used to! He even made a turdunken for his in-laws last Thanksgiving! 🤷
 
qui_est_ce said:
The size of the portion of emails is irrelevant. The Harry Read Me file is enough to make my hairs stand on end.

East Anglia is not the only university studying climate change, it’s a major one. I find it interesting that anywone would trivialize the significance of this scandal. Just off–hand dismiss it with denials. No explanations except to demonize those who question the science as “hysterical” and “distracting.”

(from my post below)

Climate Change alarmists have lost all credibility for many, many persons who seek truth.
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)
More are under investigation
Click to expand...
“December 14, 2009
Click to expand...
DOE Litigation Hold Notice
Click to expand...
DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”
Click to expand...
As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.
Click to expand...
If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.
Click to expand...
Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.
Click to expand...
Michael L. Wamsted
Associate General Council”
Click to expand...
 
qui_est_ce said:
So you have no problem with the deceit, bullying, falsifying, and agenda driven “science” because…“It’s not that big a deal, it’s only a few emails, not everybody did it?”
Click to expand...
👍

and to imply the rest of us aren’t seeking truth is false
 
StAnastasia said:
That’s fine, I certainly understand. For the rest of us who seek truth, climate science and scientists have not lost credibility.
Click to expand...
I find this offense…you are implying again IMHO AND you aren’t qualified to do so.
 
kimmielittle said:
I find this offense…you are implying again IMHO AND you aren’t qualified to do so.
Click to expand...
IMHO - This seems the response of someone only looking to have a fight, no? 🤷
To read between the lines - ‘implying’ - is open to one’s own read between the line - we can disagree without being disagreeable right?

For example to say that someone isn’t qualified could also be offensive - even if that wasn’t your intent:shrug:
 
paully said:
But I am sincerely hoping that you have enough confidence in what you believe to be able to look at the sites that are scientific and discuss them. If I told you that my professor does not believe in AGCC would you tell me that he is misguided?

Please look at those sites. Then let us know what you think. You can’t as a scientist comment on those if you just discredit them out of hand. It appears as though that is what you are doing by refusing to read them honestly. How can you expect me or others to take you seriously if you don’t take them seriously. Some of the comments you’ve made regarding those that disagree with you really border on insulting. I hope that’s not where you’re coming from.

God bless
Click to expand...
I have asked many times

Prove AGCC Man-made Global Warming ] is responsible for Climate Change
Prove CO2 causes this Climate Change
Prove Cap-and-Trade Reverses Climate Change
Prove Carbon Credits decrease CO2 - Reverses Climate Change and is even, environmentally sound.

If the foundation is unsound…the whole house falls

The other “cures” are things like
Contraceptives
Abortions

I have actually seen nothing presented that has a reverence for ALL life but we are to believe these ‘cures’ are.

abort now so future generations can live:mad:

🤷:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top