Global Warming/Climate Change hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you correlate some of the posts made by some of the posters on this thread with some of the comments made by the same posters in other audio related threads, there appears to be a certain "belief" mechanism in play, ..interesting to say the least..
at least now I know who to avoid at parties:)
 
Climate change is easy to reverse however.
Everyone just needs to buy another fridge,put it outside and run it with the door open.
That's just silly...fridges don't eliminate heat they just move it from inside to outside. Do something practical. I have covered my roof in tin foil to reflect the sun's rays back into space. Make sure you put it on shiny side up. This both deflects the primary source of global warming and partly shields me from those pernicious electromagnetic fields.
 
When you correlate some of the posts made by some of the posters on this thread with some of the comments made by the same posters in other audio related threads, there appears to be a certain "belief" mechanism in play, ..interesting to say the least..
at least now I know who to avoid at parties:)
I think gpauk said something similar a while back, there are definitely general contrarians here. Whilst there's value in playing Devil's Advocate occasionally, some have obviously gone over to the dark side entirely ;)
 
Yes, you would think that if given a choice of a "normal" life verses a "climate change induced life" that even the most disbelievers would err on the side of caution, but it seems that " When a belief system is based on illogical beliefs, thatno logical arguments can persuade otherwise" unfortunately that is the human condition..........
 
Last edited:
Know what's even sadder?

Knowing that Cal has to proofread this entire thread, right after working hard fixing roofs to weed out the bad posts.

Anyway, any serious scientist knows that the entire universe is in my front pouch and whenever I touch it a massive cataclysm occurs and millions of people die.

The forum cop took a break for a couple of months, it might be good idea if all prolific posters took a similar break to reflect on just how much precious time they are wasting?
 
When you correlate some of the posts made by some of the posters on this thread with some of the comments made by the same posters in other audio related threads, there appears to be a certain "belief" mechanism in play, ..interesting to say the least..
at least now I know who to avoid at parties:)

I agree, except I think these might also be the colourful storytellers with a group around them at parties.
 
You will always get people who would stand at the base of Mt Everest and point at a flat spot and say "nah..can't be a mountain...see it is flat!"
That is the man made climate change denier mentality.There is a mountain of evidence to support it but instead they choose to focus on a few anomalies.
 
You will always get people who would stand at the base of Mt Everest and point at a flat spot and say "nah..can't be a mountain...see it is flat!"
That is the man made climate change denier mentality.There is a mountain of evidence to support it but instead they choose to focus on a few anomalies.
Funny that you brought it up.

It's suspicious that global warming / climate change news resurfaced recently in the media after all these years. Those that are old enough to remember, this was tried 16 - 12 years ago with "hockey stick" graph, Michael Mann's "hide the decline" (of mini ice age after medieval warming), movie An Inconvenient Truth, ... etc. But the predictions failed. The media must be counting on the memory fading of those that are old enough to have gone through it and unfamiliarity of those that are too young to have gone through it.

It's Mann made global warming alright. :nod:
 
Last edited:
In short, Al Gore remains as irrelevant as he was 10 years ago. Like the climate models, nearly all his predictions fell flat. And with elections lurking around the corner, make sure you don’t elect one of his followers. Unless, of course, you want to destroy America’s economy once and for all.[/I]"

Btw, reading this, is it really anything but a political statement ?
 
I wish people would understand the slightest bit about science and statistics before commenting. Stop trusting memes. There's no gray area here. The entire scientific community has come to a consensus that humans need to change what they're pulling out of the earth and releasing into the air or future generations are screwed. It appears Idiocracy was actually a documentary of the future. Please understand the peer review process, what it takes to publish climate research, and the basics of what statistical significance means then there will be no climate change "denying"...
 
19 "Al Gore got it wrong"
Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.

The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.

One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.

The Legal Case

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:

17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.

Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics.

What Al got right

Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.

Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.

Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.

Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.

What Al got wrong

Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer...
 
Last edited:
GREAT posts & links by the following. Plus Luke isn't fooled either :)

Originally Posted by analog_sa

Facts that proved global warming to be wrong had to be eliminated. Because there was no evidence for global warming in the climate record, beyond normal variation, evidence for it had to be fabricated. One of these fabrications was Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph that got rid of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period. This was exposed by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who found that:

In essence it seemed that Mann’s algorithm was ‘mining’ the underlying data for hockey-stick shapes, and therefore would give a hockey stick result from whatever data was fed into it.

*

Re IPCC comedy "report"

The resulting stir prompted a diligent Canadian journalist, Donna Laframboise, to invite readers of her blog to co-operate in checking out every single source given for statements in the 2007 report. Her 40-strong team

discovered that, of the 18,531 scientific references cited in the report, no fewer than 5,587, nearly a third, had not been peer-reviewed academic studies at all, but were ‘newspaper and magazine articles, discussion

papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers and advocacy literature published by environmental groups’.

*

The big event a decade ago was Climategate. Some public-spirited person, most likely a techie, uploaded the email correspondence between warmer scientists from the server at the Climate Research Unit at the

University of East Anglia to a Russian server. What was revealed provided endless amusement and confirmed that, almost to a man, the warmer scientists were the mendacious, scheming, nasty people we thought

they were. Also that there had been no warming; from page 52:

This led to Jones’s startling admission that, since 1995, there had been ‘no statistically significant global warming’; and furthermore that the rate of warming in earlier years, between 1860 and1880 and 1910 and 1940,

had been ‘not statistically different’ from that between 1975 and 2009.

*

Christopher Booker tells the story of how to get the result you need when conducting a scientific study. The story relates to the commonly cited claim that 97 percent of climate scientists believe in global warming:

She had indeed originally approached ‘10,257 Earth scientists’, but it was then decided that many of these represented disciplines which did not qualify them to answer, including physicists, geologists, astronomers

and experts on solar activity (who might have believed there was a connection between global warming and the Sun).

So the original number of those approached was winnowed down to 3,146. Those who remained were then asked two questions. First, did they accept that the world had warmed since the pre-industrial era? It might

have been hard to find any reasonably well-informed person who disagreed with this, but even so 10 percent of them did so. Secondly, did they believe that human activity had ‘significantly’ contributed to this warming’?

When only 82 percent said they did, this was not considered to convey quite the required impression of an overwhelming ‘consensus’. So the sample was winnowed down still further until the researchers were left

with just 77 respondents who (a) described themselves as ‘climate scientists’ and (b) had recently published peer-reviewed papers on climate change. When 75 of the 77 gave the required answer to the second

question, this provided the ‘97 percent’ figure which won all those headlines (although it amounted to only 0.7 percent of the ‘10,257 earth scientists’ originally approached).

How will history recall our climate catastrophists? | The Spectator Australia

*

Evenharmonics Post #277

More Proof :)

*
Al Gore Has been making a LOT of $ out of this. Plus, as has been stated, he bought an Expensive property close to the sea. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.