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.
Bill_Cherry said:
Anyway,… seeing as it is part of my morale baseline to be a good steward of the planet and to care about God’s creation, it seems obvious to me that nasty, filthy, limited supply, pollutive methods of creating energy need to be abolished. New clean, sustainable, and environmentally friendly forms of energy need to be investigated.
Click to expand...
No one here objects to investigating new forms of energy production. No one here supports pollution or environmental destruction, but if CO2 is not causing global warming then taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions will have zero effect on future warming. Your concern, however, is not with the theory or even whether or not warming is occurring; you don’t care if the theory is true or not because reducing CO2 emissions will require that other things be done that you do care about … e.g. abolishing nasty, filthy, limited supply, pollutive methods of creating energy.

It is my belief that many of those who are pushing the theory of enhanced greenhouse warming don’t care whether it is true or not either; what is important to them is what the fear of global catastrophes will allow them to do. If the science of the theory was important then comments like yours would never be part of the discussion, but where it is not the science that is important but the changes that populations can be tricked into supporting, that’s when the talk shifts to what the brave, new world will look like when the changes have been implemented. The science does not support the theory. Don’t accuse anyone of being a bad steward of the earth for recognizing that.

Ender
 
The only scandal is the attempt to confirm that all is well. Sure we can’t pollute, destroy land, extinct wildlife, deplete resources because the magic machine called earth will just grow back. Surely there are no consequenses for our action? Right?

But there are consequenses and they can be catastrophic. If scientists are correct, we will be rolling the dice on our lives if we take the wait and see approach. Either way it is rolling the dice, but I would rather roll them in our favor. . 🤷
 
joe_clark said:
The only scandal is the attempt to confirm that all is well. Sure we can’t pollute, destroy land, extinct wildlife, deplete resources because the magic machine called earth will just grow back. Surely there are no consequenses for our action? Right?

But there are consequenses and they can be catastrophic. If scientists are correct, we will be rolling the dice on our lives if we take the wait and see approach. Either way it is rolling the dice, but I would rather roll them in our favor. . 🤷
Click to expand...
Humanity rolls the dice in everything it does. But in the case of manmade global warming (yes, I know it’s now “climate change” because it’s cooling, so the name needed to change) there really isn’t any certitude, and there are a lot of reasons to be very suspicious of those who want to effect drastic societal changes in order to “correct” it.
Not the least of those reasons is money. One of the others is that its biggest proponents don’t seem sufficiently worried about it to change their own “carbon footprints”. Another is that non-carbon-emitting nuclear power is still adamantly opposed by MMGW proponents.

But no matter what, supposedly remedial measures such as cap and trade will indisputably increase the costs of energy for everyone in this country. Consequently, it will significantly affect the cost of everything. There is no “roll of the dice” in that. It simply will. Some will just have to go without the heat, light and food that CO2-producing energy resources produce. For some, it will be catastrophic, and there’s no way around that. I really do wonder how many people who have bought into MMGW realize how much energy it takes to produce as basic a thing as food. I’ll grant that production of beef, mutton and goat takes little in the way of energy (name removed by moderator)ut. But those are relatively expensive foods anyway, and you can’t just make whole meals of them with nothing else. Everything else takes a lot of energy (name removed by moderator)ut; from the very large expenditures of fuel for “tractor time” in grain production, to the manufacture of chemical fertilizers, weed suppressants and insecticides. Transportation of a “cheap” commodity like grain is expensive relative to the value of the product, and takes a lot of fuel. Takes a lot of energy to make bread.

People who somehow think all that is going to get done with windmills and solar panels can’t possibly know very much about windmills, solar panels, and certainly not much about farming.
 
Sometimes it really does seem to me there’s truly “nothing new under the sun”. It also sometimes seems our political notions get terribly confused.

It seems those who are big on MMGW tend to be those on the “leftish” side of the political spectrum. And, it often seems the wealther a person is, the more likely he is to hold the MMGW view. Of course, many of the latter also have huge “carbon footprints”. But they do want the “average Joe” to turn his thermostat down to uncomfortable, even unhealthy levels, and drive nowhere and spend a lot more for his food.

It sort of puts me to mind of those ultra laissez-faire economists during the Industrial Revolution who argued that the working class has to be kept as close to starvation level as possible, lest they fail to work to their maximum capacity. But somehow, that did not seem to be necessary for those who owned the factories. Those who, today, think themselves secure in their energy use due to their wealth, are breathtakingly insoucient about the fate of some poor guy who lives in a leaky old house; who can’t “wall up” into one room where the heat source is because he has too many children, and whose car doesn’t achieve maximum fuel efficiency because he can’t afford to keep it perfectly tuned, and can’t supplement his family’s food supply with gardening because he lives in a bad climate or has no good place to do it.

“Oh”, they say, “but we’ll subsidize the heating costs of those who don’t earn enough”. Well, if they do that, there’s a lot more to be subsidized than just heating costs or gasoline. His whole life will have to be subsidized. And if it is, will that simply allow him to use just as much energy as he did before energy was burdened with new taxes? If so, MMGW won’t be affected at all. Or (and this seems most likely) it really won’t be enough. Dire necessity will dictate the average Joe’s “carbon footprint”, just as dire necessity determined his man hours back in 1830 or so. ("What?!? Are there no workhouses?!?)

There seems to me to be an inhuman element in almost everything the left wants. It just seems uncomfortable with the idea that working stiffs might somehow live relatively unstraitened lives and have fairly easy access to resources. A kind of “puritanism by transferrence”. It has been argued (even at the time) that those Puritans who were on the top of the socioeconomic heap lived pretty large for the times and places, but were most offended when the “little people” rose above the hardscrabble. It was not so much a matter of seeking personal virtue as it was of imposing it on others. Despite the sexual license progressives now think of as virtue, Puritanism still seems to be lodged in the DNA of many. (One can commit sodomy with hundreds, but God help you if you smoke or fail to have that svelte gym-trained apearance or burn your trash in the open air.) Have we really not departed from Puritanism any further than that? Sometimes I really don’t think we have.
 
4elise said:
so I would be surprised if this event moved you toward a position of belief in MMCC -
Click to expand...
What exactly is MMCC?

I have heard of Global Warming. Previous to that I was introduced to Global Cooling.
But I have not heard of MMCC.

What is the new acronym, why the new terminology?
 
Ender said:
No one here objects to investigating new forms of energy production. No one here supports pollution or environmental destruction, but if CO2 is not causing global warming then taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions will have zero effect on future warming. Your concern, however, is not with the theory or even whether or not warming is occurring; you don’t care if the theory is true or not because reducing CO2 emissions will require that other things be done that you do care about … e.g. abolishing nasty, filthy, limited supply, pollutive methods of creating energy.
Click to expand...
Very true. It actually just sounds like more paranoid ultra conservative conspiracy theory to me
It is my belief that many of those who are pushing the theory of enhanced greenhouse warming don’t care whether it is true or not either; what is important to them is what the fear of global catastrophes will allow them to do. If the science of the theory was important then comments like yours would never be part of the discussion, but where it is not the science that is important but the changes that populations can be tricked into supporting, that’s when the talk shifts to what the brave, new world will look like when the changes have been implemented. The science does not support the theory. Don’t accuse anyone of being a bad steward of the earth for recognizing that.
Click to expand...
Ender
Click to expand...
Actually, I did include a link to Nasa a few posts back. But, I suppose that they are not intelligent enough to be worthy of serious consideration.

It is as plain as the nose on ones face that the reasons people do not want to face the facts is because they are comfortable in their own little worlds and will fight to maintain their little delusion until it directly and immediately effects them in some drastic fashion.

It is a wonder that conservatives call themselves that when the only thing they have ever conserved are their antiquated and selfish notions. They should be called ‘Squanderers’; that is a more fitting description.
 
Thanks Ridgerunner! I learned a new word today. 👍
And i agree that people are “insoucient”.:cool:
 
Bill_Cherry said:
I find it interesting how many people here are apparently smarter than the rocket scientists who compile the data…:cool:

climate.nasa.gov/
Click to expand...
Of course, it’s a government PR site, not a site where “rocket scientists” trade technical information. What did you expect it to say “Obama dead wrong about global warming”??? It does tip its hat to the concept of MMGW. Nevertheless, it also says this about CO2, among other things that it thinks “might” contribute to global warming. (also things that it thinks might have contributed to global cooling)

“Currently, natural processes remove about half of each year’s human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, although this varies a bit year to year. It isn’t well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn’t well understood either.”

Not well understood.

Of course, there are those who say warming precedes increased CO2 content in the atmosphere and have graphs to prove it. (faster rotting of vegetation, etc) So we might be turning the economy upside down in order to deal with an effect of something over which we have no control, rather than a cause of something we do. But, as NASA says, none of this is “well understood”.

And then too, we have been cooling for the last few years. The NASA site didn’t deal with that.
 
Why is it so important as to whether or not the phenomena is man made or not? Could it be because you would have to change a few habits if it is? If it is your drunk uncle or your dog pooping in the yard, does it matter? It still needs to be cleaned up. All of this is a distraction from the real issue at hand. An issue which basically places the blame squarely on humanities shoulders but nobody wants to bear the burden because it hurts their insignificant little feelings. It goes against their convenient lazy wasteful self absorbed lifestyle. It would require to much EFFORT to admit that maybe, just maybe, humans are actually making our habitat filthy. After all, God made us in his image and therefor we must exploit the resources He gave us as fast as we can… and if we actually take the initiative to clean up our filth and start behaving civil towards one another and the other creatures around us, well, that somehow shows a lack of faith in His providence.

Oh brother. The lengths people will go to in order to avoid responsibility or contrition. Gee wiz…
 
I’m sceptical, seems like a licence for Governments to print money, (scare them with global warming)

Anyway, what caused the ice age, was it Global Warming ? or was it the Suv’s, oil, what, volcanoes ?
 
hawkeye said:
I’m sceptical, seems like a licence for Governments to print money, (scare them with global warming)

Anyway, what caused the ice age, was it Global Warming ? or was it the Suv’s, oil, what, volcanoes ?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it , the climate fluctuates periodically as a matter of course. As I interpret the evidence it seems that it gets a little more extreme each time. I am no rocket scientist. Just a curious person who is a bit on the nerdy side.

The government was at first very resistant to the global warming/cooling/climate change thing. It wasn’t until other more progressive countries started talking about it that we started to take it seriously here in the USA.

Even in spite of the alleged ‘liberalness’ of America, our gov’t is so full of red tape and conservative stubborn wealthy people that anything that is going to alter their particular vision of reality is seen as a threat and is therefor to be stifled at all costs. Then you have the useful idiots like Glenn beck and Sarah Palin who pander to the Big Business end of the deal and they want to keep the status quo for the sake of the money. Then all the little parrots start squacking the same thing and don’t even know what they are squacking about, they just squack and posture and spout off polemic euphemisms that pretty soon there is so much flak in the air that nobody can see the forest for the trees. Even the lines between heretical factions of Christianity and Catholic doctrine get crossed all because of the emotion stirred up by the political airwaves and people who claim to be devout are in reality little more than puppets of the very machine they claim to hate.😊
 
This just in
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
Click to expand...
White House Science Czar Involved in Climategate
Click to expand...
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”
Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
As Newsmax has previously reported, Dr. Holdren has a history of alarmingly extremist views. He co-authored a 1977 book, “Ecoscience: Population Resources, Environment,” advocating compulsory abortion for purposes of population control, mass sterilization, government-dictated family size like China’s one-child policy, and a “planetary regime” to be policed by the United Nations.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Holdren’s “Human Ecology” warns of large-scale disaster that might require “involuntary fertility control” to stop population growth. “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the Holdren book suggests.
Click to expand...
newsmax.com/insidecover/climategate_holdren_email/2009/11/27/291545.html
 
Whoa Ponys:
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/#more-13291
Republished from New York Times Reporter Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth:
Dot Earth: Insights from Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “ Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” has weighed in with these thoughts about the significance of the leaked files and emails. In November 2009, Hulme was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009. (ScienceWatch, Nov/Dec 2009, see Table 2).
Hulme Key Excerpt:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. …] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
**Full Hulme Statement: **
The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.
Click to expand...
“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
 
Callin said:
No no no no no. :rolleyes:

The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
–Stephen Hawking
Click to expand...
:D:D

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
I disagree…Arrogance IS ignorance and ignorance IS arrogance -kimmie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top