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.
Of course the great thing about being sceptical of anthropogenic climate change is that you get to carry on doing what you want without having to face the consequences. The sceptics will never have to face being wrong because the worst of it will happen to others and/or to the following generations. Double helpings today and who cares what the (great)grandkids are going to have to eat.

Have any sceptics thought of applying a version of Pascal’s wager to anthropogenic climate change? Pretty big thing to get wrong - but then who cares - we won’t be here to live in the mess that we’ve created will we?
 
Fran65 said:
Of course the great thing about being sceptical of anthropogenic climate change is that you get to carry on doing what you want without having to face the consequences. The sceptics will never have to face being wrong because the worst of it will happen to others and/or to the following generations. Double helpings today and who cares what the (great)grandkids are going to have to eat.

Have any sceptics thought of applying a version of Pascal’s wager to anthropogenic climate change? Pretty big thing to get wrong - but then who cares - we won’t be here to live in the mess that we’ve created will we?
Click to expand...
You actually believe that?
Do you actually know a skeptic of AGW?
 
Fran65 said:
Of course the great thing about being sceptical of anthropogenic climate change is that you get to carry on doing what you want without having to face the consequences. The sceptics will never have to face being wrong because the worst of it will happen to others and/or to the following generations. Double helpings today and who cares what the (great)grandkids are going to have to eat.

Have any sceptics thought of applying a version of Pascal’s wager to anthropogenic climate change? Pretty big thing to get wrong - but then who cares - we won’t be here to live in the mess that we’ve created will we?
Click to expand...
Great post, Fran65. As an AGW denier asked me recently, “What have my great-grandchildren ever done for me?” His position was the he owed them nothing because (1) they would never reciprocate what he did for them now, and (2) since they are as yet unborn he has no moral obligation to them. One cannot have any obligations to unborn persons, because they don’t yet exist.

StAnastasia
 
Fran65 said:
Of course the great thing about being sceptical of anthropogenic climate change is that you get to carry on doing what you want without having to face the consequences.
Click to expand...
It’s naive to think that the changes advocated by those who accept AGW are somehow insignificant. They represent a costly and difficult overhaul of society. There is nothing wrong or immoral in requiring a level of certainty beyond that which is presently available. Scandals, such as these, undermine the public’s faith in the available science. That isn’t the fault of the public, but the fault of the scientists.
 
Fran65 said:
Have any sceptics thought of applying a version of Pascal’s wager to anthropogenic climate change? Pretty big thing to get wrong - but then who cares - we won’t be here to live in the mess that we’ve created will we?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have.

If I live as the Global Warming proponents wish me to live, and Global Warming is false; I have caused a great deal of undue economic burden upon myself and others as well as contributed to unemployment and quite possibly death.

If I live as the Global Warming proponents wish me to live, and Global Warming is true; I have still caused a great deal of economic burden upon myself and others as well as contributed to unemployment and quite possibly death AND STILL not effected the climate one iota.

If I live as I wish to live (as a good steward to the planet) and Global Warming is false, no big deal.
If I live as I wish to live (as a good steward to the planet) and Global Warming is true, no big deal, nothing I could do would change it anyway.
 
Green is the new Red

Climatology is not my field. However, neither is it Al Gore’s field. Nonetheless, I have long taken an interest in the subject.

The Kilimanjaro glacier has been retreating since the 1880’s, due to land use changes in the vicinity.

The “Roman Warming” period, centered about the time of Christ, was apparently warmer than the current warming period, as evidenced by the Romans ability to grow Italian grapes in Britain. The Medieval Warming period, centered about 1,000 AD, was apparently warmer than currently, as evidenced by the existence a long-term Nordic settlement on Greenland.

Global warming is not decimating polar bears. There are five times as many polar bears today as there were in 1950.

Carbon Dioxide is essential to the biosphere, it is a fertilizer, and it is a very small part of the greenhouse gases, actually, 3.6%. 3.2% of this is due to any and all human activity. Therefore, we augment the greenhouse gases by 0.117%. This is minute and negligible within the vastly larger continual variation.

Many scientists consider CO2 to be a lagging indicator of climate warming. That is to say, that warming causes an increase of CO2. Such increase continues long after the warming trend ceases. Perhaps this is the evidence the East Anglia folks want to hide. After all, if C02 is still increasing while the climate is beginning to cool again, that may be the cat they do not want out of the bag.

We must ask why they would want to hide inconvenient facts. Is it the self-interest of those with livelihoods based on AGW theory?

Let us ask larger questions. What are the long-range goals of the AGW proponents? Are the goals global taxation and governance, and the eventual end of national sovereignty? Is it part of a progressive mission for global control of humanity, of which a large objective is forced population control? Is it far more about economics than ecology?

When Mikhail Gorbachev lost his job as top Communist, he founded an organization called Green Cross International. Green is the new Red.

Bill Walsh
Newport, NH
 
vz71 said:
If I live as I wish to live (as a good steward to the planet) and Global Warming is false, no big deal.
If I live as I wish to live (as a good steward to the planet) and Global Warming is true, no big deal, nothing I could do would change it anyway.
Click to expand...
God will bless good stewardship by providing what we need. If we practice poor stewardship will He still protect us? Should we expect Him to? If societies turn away from Him will the environment lose His protection?
 
TheWalsh said:
Green is the new Red

Climatology is not my field. However, neither is it Al Gore’s field. Nonetheless, I have long taken an interest in the subject.

The Kilimanjaro glacier has been retreating since the 1880’s, due to land use changes in the vicinity.

The “Roman Warming” period, centered about the time of Christ, was apparently warmer than the current warming period, as evidenced by the Romans ability to grow Italian grapes in Britain. The Medieval Warming period, centered about 1,000 AD, was apparently warmer than currently, as evidenced by the existence a long-term Nordic settlement on Greenland.

Global warming is not decimating polar bears. There are five times as many polar bears today as there were in 1950.

Carbon Dioxide is essential to the biosphere, it is a fertilizer, and it is a very small part of the greenhouse gases, actually, 3.6%. 3.2% of this is due to any and all human activity. Therefore, we augment the greenhouse gases by 0.117%. This is minute and negligible within the vastly larger continual variation.

Many scientists consider CO2 to be a lagging indicator of climate warming. That is to say, that warming causes an increase of CO2. Such increase continues long after the warming trend ceases. Perhaps this is the evidence the East Anglia folks want to hide. After all, if C02 is still increasing while the climate is beginning to cool again, that may be the cat they do not want out of the bag.

We must ask why they would want to hide inconvenient facts. Is it the self-interest of those with livelihoods based on AGW theory?

Let us ask larger questions. What are the long-range goals of the AGW proponents? Are the goals global taxation and governance, and the eventual end of national sovereignty? Is it part of a progressive mission for global control of humanity, of which a large objective is forced population control? Is it far more about economics than ecology?

When Mikhail Gorbachev lost his job as top Communist, he founded an organization called Green Cross International. Green is the new Red.

Bill Walsh
Newport, NH
Click to expand...
In addition, what happens when you heat gases? They boil off into space keeping us in balance.
 
wolters1 said:
It’s naive to think that the changes advocated by those who accept AGW are somehow insignificant. They represent a costly and difficult overhaul of society. There is nothing wrong or immoral in requiring a level of certainty beyond that which is presently available. Scandals, such as these, undermine the public’s faith in the available science. That isn’t the fault of the public, but the fault of the scientists.
Click to expand...
👍👍

I agree, but I think it’s more the fault of the money changers.

We need to identify the problems individually so that we can address real issues.
 
StAnastasia said:
Great post, Fran65. As an AGW denier asked me recently, “What have my great-grandchildren ever done for me?” His position was the he owed them nothing because (1) they would never reciprocate what he did for them now, and (2) since they are as yet unborn he has no moral obligation to them. One cannot have any obligations to unborn persons, because they don’t yet exist.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Is there a link between people who believe in AGCC and Creation-deniers?

For you to paint people like me who are skeptical of AGCC (not denying climate change) as not caring for the environment or changing my ways is an outright lie. I have told you that I washed my own diapers, never fed my babies canned food or formula. No one on this thread EVER said “What have my great-grandchildren ever done for me?” NOT A SINGLE SOUL in the thread doesn’t care about future generations.

It is YOU who are demonizing people who disagree that Climate Change is caused by humans, pushing your own lies down people’s throats. And yet you counsel people to report personal attacks.

When I asked what happened to the dinosaurs, you said Conservative Catholics think Adam and Eve rode them. REALLY, is that what people here think? My point was dinosaurs disappeared BEFORE humans even existed.

CLIMATE CHANGES.
 
Calliso said:
I already posted these links in the other thread but here they are again. deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

I especially like this comment,

Somehow, we are to believe that the mountainous scientific corpus that overwhelmingly demonstrates the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic genesis is a vast conspiracy, one involving thousands of scientists and other professionals. And we must further believe this conspiracy has been exposed by the scattergun technical analysis of a mining consultant turned blogger.

And on the real climate thread this comment realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-7/#comment-137150 I would recommend reading the whole comment thread as well real climate comment threads can be very enlightening

pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract This is about the reconstruction mann and his team did in 2008 and he showed that even without using tree rings yeah you still get the higher temperatures.

and briffa responds…cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

And once again I am sure I could find more links but I think I have shown here that the conspiracy claims and claims of fraud are totally unfound and once again silly…

Oh and one more link I just can;t resist posting…with all this talk about fraud and conspiracy…greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/
Click to expand...
That seems like an insult to those that disagree with you.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Is there a link between people who believe in AGCC and Creation-deniers? For you to paint people like me who are skeptical of AGCC (not denying climate change) as not caring for the environment or changing my ways is an outright lie. It is YOU who are demonizing people who disagree that Climate Change is caused by humans, pushing your own lies down people’s throats. When I asked what happened to the dinosaurs, you said Conservative Catholics think Adam and Eve rode them. REALLY, is that what people here think? My point was dinosaurs disappeared BEFORE humans even existed.

Christine,

(1) What does AGCC stand for?

(2) When did I say say you don’t care for the environment?

(3) What lies am I pushing down your throat? How am I pushing them, when I’m merely expressing my opinion, as you express yours on this thread?

(4) Yes, numerous people on the evolution threads on CAF argue that the world was created a few thousand years ago. Proponents of this view claim that Adam and Eve and their descendants saddled and rode dinosaurs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
qui est ce;6059820:
(4) Yes, numerous people on the evolution threads on CAF argue that the world was created a few thousand years ago. Proponents of this view claim that Adam and Eve and their descendants saddled and rode dinosaurs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I think it stands for Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Isn’t Answers in Genesis an Australian Protestant group that denies the Real Presence?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top