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

[Ender]

Glaciers in the Himalayas and in many other areas are shrinking and are projected to disappear.

The melting of glaciers in the eastern Himalayas appears to have a specific, local cause: soot. Glaciers in the western Himalayas are not in trouble and in fact there is evidence that they are in fact thickening. It appears that the Himalayas have become the new Kilimanjaro: an iconic area losing its ice. Unfortunately (for some), like Kilimanjaro, the loss is attributable to local conditions that have nothing to do with global warming.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/04/climate-change-melting-himalayan-glaciers
ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3860.1&ct=1

However, if/when all of the permanent Arctic ice melts, the Arctic will be warmer than the Eemian interglacial.

If/when hell freezes over it will be colder than ever before too.

There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years.

I have not seen this claim before; do you have a link? I’m curious to read about how they make this determination.

In addition, we are seeing other extreme weather, including more hurricanes, …

There are some scientists who believe this and others who do not. It is certainly not accepted as fact. The lead scientist for the IPCC in this area resigned his position (and sued to get them to remove his name from affiliation) after another scientist made this claim and implied that it was what the IPCC believed. This, by the way, is a particularly bad year to be making such a claim. The quote below is from the National Hurricane Center about last month’s hurricane activity:

IN TERMS OF ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY… ACE…WHICH MEASURES THE COMBINED STRENGTH AND DURATION OF TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES…SEPTEMBER ACE WAS ONLY 22 PERCENT OF THE LONG-TERM MEAN…THE LOWEST VALUE SINCE 1994…AND THE SIXTH LOWEST SINCE 1944.

Ender

 

[vz71]

I have not seen this claim before; do you have a link? I’m curious to read about how they make this determination.

Indeed I am curious myself.

How exactly does one prove the non-existence of ice at a given time in history?

 

[fultonfish]

Indeed I am curious myself.

How exactly does one prove the non-existence of ice at a given time in history?

Archeology of a sort.

There was a discovery of a body of some fellow frozen for a few thousand years. When a glacier retreated, the body was found. At the time the fellow was alive, there were no glaciers at that location. [Switzerland?]

 

[vz71]

Archeology of a sort.

There was a discovery of a body of some fellow frozen for a few thousand years. When a glacier retreated, the body was found. At the time the fellow was alive, there were no glaciers at that location. [Switzerland?]

And thousands of years from now someone will discover a car at the bottom of the Pacific and conclude that there must have been no water there since obviously there couldn’t have been water there when the car was driven there.

This ‘Archeology of a sort’ is definetly a strange science.
How do we know the body wasn’t moved after the death?
How do we know there was no ice at the time of death?

 

[wcknight]

It seems the general scientific community disagrees with the assessment here. Most scientist accept that global warming is indeed happening just as they believe evolution is a proven scientific process.

We went to alaska recently and there saw a glicier that had receeded over a mile and a half. And we saw a glacier that was literally falling apart as we watched. Pieces were breaking off as we watched. Every few minutes you could hear a crash and see large pieces breaking off and falling into the sea.

While the situation may or may not be as dire as Gore describes, personally I think global warming is occuring as we speak. I hope for our children sake that it is a hoax and scandal as purposed here, but I fear that may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

The disappearance of large ice land masses is easily measureable, in greenland in the artic and the anartic. There may not be anything that we can do about this as it may already be too late. BUT if there is time and we fail to act because some folks want to hide their heads in the sand and live in self denial, then we would have done future generations a huge disservice.

God tells us that we are the care takers of this earth. IF we destroy this planet, where else do you purpose for us to move ???

We saw in the 50’s and 60’s what industrialization could do to the rivers, land and air around us. Now both China and India each with 10 times our population are on an accelerated pace to produce many times the polution that we ever did. China’s cities are copies of LA and and Pittsburg smog centers. Soon they will have 10 times the number of cars that we do.

IF global warming doesn’t do us in, global polution will not be far behind.

I’m glad the US cleaned up it water and air. People used to deny that polution was a problem too, until they woke up one day and could not breathe the air around them nor drink the water near by.

Do you need to wake up to a global ice age before you acknowledge what is going on around you ?? By then it will be way too late.

 

[fultonfish]

Actually, the growing consensus is that there is no global warming and certainly not man-made.

Glaciers retreat all the time. North America was covered by glaciers a mile thick and they are all gone. Most of them gone many many many years ago.

Oh, and the large chunks you saw falling off is called “calving”. It’s actually a healthy process. Glaciers grow from the inland area from snowfall. They slide downhill and when they reach the sea, the bits fall off. Which is what you saw.

Read some of the non-mainstream media and you will find copious amounts of literature explaining how man-made global warming/ man-made climate change is a hoax.

In fact you can read it even on CAF.

In summary, the assertions of man-made global warming are based on unsubstantiated unverified computer models fed with really bad data (known in the industry as corrupt data). Visit www.wattsupwiththat.com and also www.surfacestations.org

The famous Hockey Stick was a centerpoint of the allegations of man-made global warming. Now we know that the Hockey Stick was totally fraudulent.

Something like 85% of surface stations are off by as much as five degrees, reading that much higher than actual temperatures. Since the computer models project a ONE degree increase in temp in the next 100 years and since the (name removed by moderator)ut data is off by FIVE degrees, then what that means is that if the models are correct, then the actual temp forecast should be a minus four degrees.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Visit www.oism.org and click on the petition project. 31000 engineers and scientists who have signed to contradict the mainstream media’s contention that the alleged global warming is man-made.

You can also visit www.junkscience.com and read continuous reports that the notion of man made global warming is baloney.

You can repeat all the AlGorean assertions you want, but that doesn’t make them true.

Here is an excellent summary from today’s issue of www.wattsupwiththat.com

the problems with recent data that showed the argument presented by the EDF’s millionaire lawyer playing clueless environmentalist on Lou Dobbs Tonight that this will be the warmest decade is nonsense. This claim was well refuted and Al Gore’s credibility disassembled by Phelim McAleer, of the new documentary Not Evil, Just Wrong that challenges the lies and exaggerations (totalling 35) in Al Gore scifi horror comedy film, An Inconvenient Truth. 9 were serious enough for a UK judge to require a disclaimer itemizing them be read whenever, the movie was shown in the schools.

The world’s climate data has become increasingly sparse with a big dropoff around 1990. There was also a tenfold increase in missing months around the same time. Stations (90% in the United States which has the Cadillac data system) are poor to very poorly sited and not properly adjusted for urbanization. Numerous peer review papers suggest an exaggeration of the warming by 30%, 50% or even more. The station dropout can be clearly seen in the two maps below with the number of station going from over 6000 to just 1079 from April 1978 to April 2008.

 

[po18guy]

It seems the general scientific community disagrees with the assessment here. Most scientist accept that global warming is indeed happening just as they believe evolution is a proven scientific process.

Since evolution remains a theory, and one with the largest “missing link” in the history of man, this should give you pause. Are many scientists agenda-driven? Of course. They are biased just as a computer reflects the bias of its programmers.

We went to alaska recently and there saw a glicier that had receeded over a mile and a half. And we saw a glacier that was literally falling apart as we watched. Pieces were breaking off as we watched. Every few minutes you could hear a crash and see large pieces breaking off and falling into the sea.

Glaciers flow. They are rivers of ice and not static structures. Their ends have broken and fallen into the sea since they have existed. The earth probably is warming, but in my lifetime, the “scientists” have also feared global cooling. Some of the same scientists!

While the situation may or may not be as dire as Gore describes, personally I think global warming is occuring as we speak. I hope for our children sake that it is a hoax and scandal as purposed here, but I fear that may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

As it is, there is far too much power and money in climate issues. Gore was just challenged as to why the Polar Bear population is increasing, yet they are endangered? He had no answer. I think he (admittedly) smoked way too much weed for decades.

The disappearance of large ice land masses is easily measureable, in greenland in the artic and the anartic. There may not be anything that we can do about this as it may already be too late. BUT if there is time and we fail to act because some folks want to hide their heads in the sand and live in self denial, then we would have done future generations a huge disservice.

I ask: is there a God in charge of the universe? Did He promise that the “end times” were coming" What makes you think we are not in them?

God tells us that we are the care takers of this earth. IF we destroy this planet, where else do you purpose for us to move ???

Methinks you ascribe amazing powers of creation and destruction to man. Do you live only for this life, or do you hope in the next? NO ONE is advocating the despoiling of earth. We remain very suspicious of those pushing “climate” agendas, which frequently have their origins in population control. Yet, those hypocrites only want “other” populations controlled - the poor and unborn. They never seek to sacrifice themselves for the common good.

We saw in the 50’s and 60’s what industrialization could do to the rivers, land and air around us. Now both China and India each with 10 times our population are on an accelerated pace to produce many times the polution that we ever did. China’s cities are copies of LA and and Pittsburg smog centers. Soon they will have 10 times the number of cars that we do.

What you or I, or the US government or the UN do is meaningless to them. No one can or will control them. So, prepare for the next life, as your last breath may come in your morning commute.

IF global warming doesn’t do us in, global polution will not be far behind.

Again, as Christians, we take as good care of the earth around us as we can - while preparing for and hoping for the next life.

I’m glad the US cleaned up it water and air. People used to deny that polution was a problem too, until they woke up one day and could not breathe the air around them nor drink the water near by.

“Used to” say. The past is gone. Let’s apply what we have learned from it and move on.

Do you need to wake up to a global ice age before you acknowledge what is going on around you ?? By then it will be way too late.

This life is fleeting and transitory, by design. To know and love the Lord alone, and to care for His creation (neighbor first, then the earth) serves for all eternity.

 

[Ender]

The disappearance of large ice land masses is easily measureable, in greenland in the artic and the anartic. There may not be anything that we can do about this as it may already be too late.

Actually, the measurements are in fact quite difficult, nonetheless it appears that Antarctica is largely unaffected by whatever warming may be occurring and indeed may be getting colder and the ice thicker.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm

“The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me,” Tulaczyk said. “Within the past 200 years, the ice sheet seems to have switched fairly rapidly from a negative mass balance to a positive mass balance.” (2002)

Data indicate that the sea around Antarctica is warming but the continent itself appears to be cooling.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502

Ender

 

[wcknight]

I’m Catholic of course I believe in God and eveything the Church teaches as you do. I have no problem with science or evolution. I see evolution as the prpcess by which God chose to create one species from another.

There is not one missing link but a whole series of missing links. At what point God choose to include a soul I don’t know.

And yes, I suspect we may be near the end times, but if that is a hundred years away or next year or tomorrow it does not matter to me. BUT if God wants us to preserve our planet for our children or grand children, then I think we ought to do what ever it takes to do so.

Science is not necessarily opposed to God, and God is definitely not opposed to science, since He used science to create everything that we know of. Science allows us to discover how God did some of the things that He did.

It’s okay to be skeptical, but there comes a point where things get so bad that it is impossible to ignore. We may or may not be to that point. If there are huge masses of ice disappearing from the earth then I think we may out of control. IF we can do something about it now, then I believe we should before it’s too late…

 

[mouse_has_faith]

What ticks me off is this idea that scientists are some sort of evil money-hungry conspirators trying to start a social cabal. Because it’ll be cheaper for big business and the government if global warming is a hoax, as they then won’t have to do anything, it’d be much more in their interests to provide funding for scientists trying to disprove global warming. One wonders how scientists, apparently smart enough to fool many into thinking global warming is real, wouldn’t be smart enough to concoct a more personally lucrative scheme.

Please, scientists are NORMAL PEOPLE with families and, gasp, some are even Catholic!!! Quit stereotyping them as evil scaremongers.

 

[po18guy]

Quit stereotyping them as evil scaremongers.

Your words, not ours. And who said “all” scientists? There are great divisions amongst them. Does being in the minority automatically make you wrong? Think about that for awhile.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

And who said “all” scientists? There are great divisions amongst them. Does being in the minority automatically make you wrong? Think about that for awhile.

Allow me to take a page from your book and say:

Your words, not ours.

Re-read my message. Where did I say “all” scientists? Maybe you should take your own advice and think about THAT for a while.

 

[fultonfish]

Research grants are generally provided by governments or by foundations which have the goal of expansion of power and control.

What you usually find is that after scientists retire and are now secure they come out firmly and forcefully as “climate skeptics” (meaning that they no longer support the man-made global warming hoax.

Scientists who are currently on the payroll (not yet retired) and who dissent from the man-made global warming theories, often find themselves in political hot water. The others learn quickly to keep their mouths shut.

Hanson claims to being censored with his global warming lectures, but in fact remains on the payroll and has given something like 1400 interviews. Not likely being censored.

Look up Larry Solomon’s book, The Deniers and also watch his talk on booktv.

urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=larry&SubID=163

Go here also

sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html

 

[Ender]

It’s okay to be skeptical, but there comes a point where things get so bad that it is impossible to ignore. We may or may not be to that point. If there are huge masses of ice disappearing from the earth then I think we may out of control. IF we can do something about it now, then I believe we should before it’s too late…

There are at least four separate issues here that are being folded into one. One question is about whether the earth is still warming, a second is whether or not that is a bad thing, the third is whether man is responsible, and the fourth is whether we can do anything about it. The way the arguments are being made, however, implies that if the first question is true then so are the other three. The argument may be disingenuous but it has to a large degree been effective.

It is a serious mistake to assume that the simple fact of warming (which is not at all simple to discern and may not be fact at all) proves that man is responsible. It is also reasonable to ask, if man is so obviously responsible and the effects of warming are so obviously harmful, why is there so much duplicity and exaggeration necessary to get that point across? Your question illustrates this problem.

In the attempt to show the dire effects of warming (assumed to be man’s fault), we are told that the polar ice packs are melting as are glaciers all over the world, including such notable places as the Himalayas and Mt. Kilimanjaro. The best that can be said of this is that some of it is true. Man is responsible for accelerated melting in the Himalayas and at Kilimanjaro but that is because of local conditions that have nothing to do with global warming, and while the Arctic ice pack is shrinking the ice pack at the Antarctic is growing. All in all, the truth is not as it is being represented and it is appropriate to ask why deception is so widespread and wonder if these claims are all “Rather” truths, that is, if you “know” the truth but can’t demonstrate it it’s OK to invent the proof - as Dan Rather did with his comments on Bush’s National Guard service.

Ender

 

[po18guy]

Allow me to take a page from your book and say: Re-read my message. Where did I say “all” scientists? Maybe you should take your own advice and think about THAT for a while.

This was my response:

Your words, not ours. And who said “all” scientists? There are great divisions amongst them. Does being in the minority automatically make you wrong? Think about that for awhile.

“All scientists” was a question, not an accusation.

Concern about climate change boils down to: what can we do about China and India? All other measures are essentially meaningless. China will soon be the world’s number one polluter on several measures. They don’t want to stop polluting. What do we do?

 

[mouse_has_faith]

“All scientists” was a question, not an accusation.

Nice backpeddling!

Actually, whether or not that was your intent in writing it, “and who said “all” scientists?” clearly implies, especially with the quote marks around “all” (indicating a quote from my post), this is what you thought I said.

fultonfish, even thought the word “funding” was mentioned in my post, it’s eminently clear my message has nothing to do with funding. It has everything to do with people stereotyping (emphasis on stereotyping) scientists as some kind of villanous, money-hungry conspirators. I’m not putting forth ANY opinion here on global warming, I’m simply stating that this stereotyping is unfair and annoying. Your response, and po18guy’s stuff about China or whatnot would be best directed to someone who is actually debating the topic with you.

 

[po18guy]

Nice backpeddling!

Actually, whether or not that was your intent in writing it, “and who said “all” scientists?” clearly implies, especially with the quote marks around “all” (indicating a quote from my post), this is what you thought I said.

fultonfish, even thought the word “funding” was mentioned in my post, it’s eminently clear my message has nothing to do with funding. It has everything to do with people stereotyping (emphasis on stereotyping) scientists as some kind of villanous, money-hungry conspirators. I’m not putting forth ANY opinion here on global warming, I’m simply stating that this stereotyping is unfair and annoying. Your response, and po18guy’s stuff about China or whatnot would be best directed to someone who is actually debating the topic with you.

Apparently, we exist in parallel universes. Been nice.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

Apparently, we exist in parallel universes. Been nice.

No you haven’t. The parting line from your first response, “Think about that for awhile”, was rather flippant, as is your latest comment.

 

[fultonfish]

Something from an Australian:

sydneyminingclub.org/pres…er/player.html

 

[fultonfish]

Well I imagine it;s not the same each year and that probably includes error range as well. It’s doubtful that they can get a 100% accurate measurement. But they might be able to get a 90% accurate reading for instance. But even if those numbers are off…unless they are astronomically off it is unlikely volcanic co2 emissions come anywhere close to human co2 emissions.

and just a little edit here I went back and reread that little post and it even says it;s an estimate. So it;s not supposed to be an exact number or anything. If it was there would probably be decimal points involved lol.

The off hand use of “might be able to get a 90% accurate reading” belies the fact that 85% of the temperature data is off by from 1 degree to 5 degrees too high. AND since ALL of the so-called climate change is based on computer models. AND since the computer models were used to churn out a variety of output forecasts. AND since the commonly used forecast is ONE degree warming in 100 years. AND since the (name removed by moderator)ut data is off by as much as FIVE degrees too warm, then the conclusions put out by the models is totally unreliable. Utterly unreliable.

www.surfacestations.org

In other words, the actual data collection needs to be looked at very carefully. And very critically.

Carbon dioxide is another issue that needs to be looked at very closely.

The oceans are the largest source of carbon dioxide by far. When the oceans warm up, more carbon dioxide is liberated into the atmosphere.

The largest greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide; the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The problem here is that the media (and some politicians) are focusing on the one greenhouse gas that can be controlled and taxed.

But there is NO evidence that carbon dioxide has anything to do with climate change. It’s one of those assumptions that is being used in the political debate.