Global Warming/Climate Change

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 13, 2014

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

The point where they were caught cooking the books to keep their precious research grants is where I jumped off. Always, always, always follow the money. It's very profitable for all involved - governmental departments, quasi-governmental outfits, and private corporations and parties.

Whatever allows them to spook more taxpayer money out of people's pockets, that's what they sell. And, global warming and climate change are the ultimate best sellers for the peddlers of global environmental doom.

Hell, I say, look at shitholes like Cleveland and Detroit. People still live there. People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast. I've been to Mexico City with my wife. Dirty and polluted...all 22 million+ of them. Still able to reproduce and make a living with all of that smog and garbage.

Edited February 13, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

KingDL1 · February 13, 2014

You're arguing semantics now. It's just science man, nothing to argue here. Liberals aren't just making it up for some agenda, it's based on peer-reviewed research done by the guys we pay to research this type of stuff. People much smarter than I am, I will say that.

Actually that is really not true at all, it is far from peer reviewed. It is only reviewed by those that believe in global warming. They skip right on over that we came out of a mini ice age the turn of the last ice century, they skip over that we have been in a reduced volcanic phase as in large eruptions that put sulfur dioxide in the high atmosphere that can take years to work back out but blocks solar radiation. They skip that we have been in an area of the galaxy that has had reduced cosmic rays. All of which have proven correlations to the earths climate. CO₂ never has. The man made global warming guys dismiss everything even though they admit each one of these other factors have a larger factor on the envirement then we have seen. They also skip that the temp on a global overall average has not raised since 1997, the man made global warming guys hand pick their data now and by they way got busted fixing their data in their favor, The northern hemisphere has showed some warming overall while the southern hemisphere has cooled. If solar science is correct we are going into a much cooler cycle and can expect to over the next 70 years to drop drastically. I hate pollution, but this subject is far from science and all about politics. The more you follow the more you will see how goofy the argument is that this climate changes at this point have anything to do with Man.

MeanGreenTexan · February 13, 2014

Has anyone ever been in an indoor/outdoor setting (like say an old country dancehall) and maybe showed up early on a fine 70degree evening for some dancing with your lady friend? It feels wonderful with maybe a little draft coming in every once in a while. Just you, your lady friend, and maybe a dozen other people... You dance, losing yourself in your lover's eyes, it starts getting warmer in there, but you attribute it to how your special lady makes you feel, not to mention how good of a dancer you are... Next thing you know, 200 more people are in there and dancing as well... Swamp butt everywhere.

Any climate data we can gather from prior to the Industrial revolution (circa 1800), is like gathering data from being early at the dancehall.

Any climate data we can gather from after 1800, is like gathering data from when all those other people are sweating all over you at the dancehall.

There are just SO MANY PEOPLE in the world now. I think hunches about fossil fuel emissions and such are great theories, but they cannot really be proven.

This cannot be ignored though, and is really the only piece of evidence needed to make me believe:

All this talk about getting swamp butt in an old dancehall makes me want a DQ blizzard.

Censored by Laurie · February 13, 2014

People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast.

Stupid.

Unless you've only been to the Northeast of Jersey.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · February 13, 2014

Has anyone ever been in an indoor/outdoor setting (like say an old country dancehall) and maybe showed up early on a fine 70degree evening for some dancing with your lady friend? It feels wonderful with maybe a little draft coming in every once in a while. Just you, your lady friend, and maybe a dozen other people... You dance, losing yourself in your lover's eyes, it starts getting warmer in there, but you attribute it to how your special lady makes you feel, not to mention how good of a dancer you are... Next thing you know, 200 more people are in there and dancing as well... Swamp butt everywhere.

Any climate data we can gather from prior to the Industrial revolution (circa 1800), is like gathering data from being early at the dancehall.

Any climate data we can gather from after 1800, is like gathering data from when all those other people are sweating all over you at the dancehall.

There are just SO MANY PEOPLE in the world now. I think hunches about fossil fuel emissions and such are great theories, but they cannot really be proven.

This cannot be ignored though, and is really the only piece of evidence needed to make me believe:

All this talk about getting swamp butt in an old dancehall makes me want a DQ blizzard.

I agree with you, nothing based on science but common sense says the greater the population the more industry that emits pollution causing the climate to change. Also we are using factories and breeding cows who emit gases at an abnormal rate to sustain the human population. That all goes back to when I said what do we do about it? I don't think hybrid cars and green products are the solution either, and obviously there is always going to be political corruption with this type of stuff. Honestly this is pessimistic but I don't there is anything we really can do about it. It's just a fact of human population growth and growth of industry, but we can't ignore the data that it is real.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · February 13, 2014

I just looked at the rest of the thread and saw most of this has already been hashed out, but just my hot sports opinions.

FirefightnRick · February 13, 2014

No I don't understand, show me the numbers please. I want empirical proof that this is just a scam by the libs to make money and not just your opinion. The argument here is that someone in a completely unrelated field is going to tell someone who has dedicated their entire career to researching something that they are wrong because and they just wanted to sell some hybrids. There is a global convention of scientist who have come together on this issue, it's not just the United States. Can science be wrong? Of course. Scientist will always be wrong and continue to refine their research. But the beauty of science is it can be proven, and dissected, and looked at empirically, unlike the biases many of us hold with our political affiliation.

Here's what some of the science community was certain of in 1974.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/post

Time Magezine 1974 "Another Ice Age"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age....

This was followed by science journals and articles all in agreement that

we were gonna freeze to death by '2000.

Rick

FirefightnRick · February 13, 2014

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11550514.htm

Feb 2, 2014

Friends of Science have issued a new report 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs revealing that only 1-3% of scientists in 3 of 4 "consensus" surveys explicitly agree with the IPCC extreme declaration on global warming. Scientific evidence at the joint NOAA/NASA press conference Jan. 21, 2014 shows no global warming in 16+ years despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2); as climate models continue to fail, the Dutch government calls for the IPCC reform to include natural factors, not limited to human-induced climate change

Rick

FirefightnRick · February 13, 2014

I just looked at the rest of the thread and saw most of this has already been hashed out, but just my hot sports opinions.

LOL, I figured so, didnt remember you back when this thread started.

Sorry, I should have directed you there first. Every time something g new comes up I'll link it here.

Rick

GTWT · February 14, 2014

Two issues have been raised on this thread that should be addressed: the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and climategate’.

The ‘hockey stick’ refers to the iconic graph showing a dramatic increase in global surface temperatures beginning about 150 years ago. Climate science deniers have criticized the statistics behind the graph, suggesting that the use of proxy data for early periods of the analysis were inappropriate & may reflect an attempt by scientists to deliberately mislead. The data, the statistical analyses, and the interpretations were reviewed by several independent panels including the National Research Council which was asked by Congress to investigate the science behind the controversy. The NRC had minor quibbles about the statistics but produced a report that was generally supportive of the original work and of the ‘hockey stick’.

The second controvery – Climategate – concerns an attack on the integrity of science and scientists. A hacker stole about 1,000 emails and a mass of other files from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University. Most of the emails were written by or addressed to Dr. Philip Jones (Director of the CRU), Dr. Timothy Osborn (a climate scientist at CRU), Dr. Keith Briffa (a climate scientist at CRU who does tree ring analyses), and Dr. Mike Hulme (Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research).

The hacked emails were cherry-picked, taken out of context, and published on science denial blogs around the world. An example of an email that gave the critics glee was from Dr. Kevin Trenbert which said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" was interpreted to suggest that Dr. Trenbert was expressing doubt about the data supporting global warming. However, if you actually read the discussion containing this message you will understand that the point concerned a need for better monitoring of energy flow in short-term climate variability. Did the anti-science bloggers purposefully mischaracterize the email? Surely not.

An investigation by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee found, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". An independent review of the evidence by the Science Assessment Panel found, "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." Numerous other reviews reached similar conclusions.

The truth however matters little to ideologues bent on using ‘climategate’ to undermine confidence in climate science and climate scientists. They’re willing to spread old canards knowing that so many of the public are ignorant about science and are unlikely to catch them in their lies.

UNTFan23 · February 14, 2014

Isn't there scientific proof that glaciers once covered much of what is today North America? The Earth has experienced massive warming and cooling trends before.

GTWT · February 14, 2014

The point where they were caught cooking the books to keep their precious research grants is where I jumped off. Always, always, always follow the money. It's very profitable for all involved - governmental departments, quasi-governmental outfits, and private corporations and parties.
Whatever allows them to spook more taxpayer money out of people's pockets, that's what they sell. And, global warming and climate change are the ultimate best sellers for the peddlers of global environmental doom.
Hell, I say, look at shitholes like Cleveland and Detroit. People still live there. People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast. I've been to Mexico City with my wife. Dirty and polluted...all 22 million+ of them. Still able to reproduce and make a living with all of that smog and garbage.

Sure, follow the money Lonnie. You'll see that climate scientists include many government scientists whose work is not funded by grants. They can go where ever their research leads them. Their research leads them to conclude that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're releasing massive amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. The observed rise in both surface and ocean temperatures correlates strongly with levels of CO2 release.

Follow the money on many of the organizations orchestrating science denial and you'll find funding by big coal, oil, and gas.

"Hell, I say, look at shitholes like Cleveland and Detroit. People still live there. People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast. I've been to Mexico City with my wife. Dirty and polluted...all 22 million+ of them. Still able to reproduce and make a living with all of that smog and garbage."

Lonnie, what the hell is this supposed to say? That we should be happy about the prospect of living in a degraded environment?

The Fake Lonnie Finch has produced one of the silliest, most insulting posts I have ever read. That ain't easy.

Quoner · February 14, 2014

The Fake Lonnie Finch has produced one of the silliest, most insulting posts I have ever read. That ain't easy.

That's just unfair. You can't get mad at a woodchipper for spilling woodchips.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 14, 2014

Sure, follow the money Lonnie. You'll see that climate scientists include many government scientists whose work is not funded by grants. They can go where ever their research leads them. Their research leads them to conclude that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're releasing massive amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. The observed rise in both surface and ocean temperatures correlates strongly with levels of CO2 release.

Follow the money on many of the organizations orchestrating science denial and you'll find funding by big coal, oil, and gas.

"Hell, I say, look at shitholes like Cleveland and Detroit. People still live there. People still live all over the dirty, polluted Northeast. I've been to Mexico City with my wife. Dirty and polluted...all 22 million+ of them. Still able to reproduce and make a living with all of that smog and garbage."

Lonnie, what the hell is this supposed to say? That we should be happy about the prospect of living in a degraded environment?

The Fake Lonnie Finch has produced one of the silliest, most insulting posts I have ever read. That ain't easy.

Yes. Let the ignorant live in their degraded cities. The more legislation they pass about the environment and other things, the crappier their cities become. They deserve to live their overregulared, yet polluted, hellholes.

The UN climate chage dopes were caught cooking their numbers, discarding the ones that would jeopardize their grants. Typical of the academic class. They're always having to shill for taxpayer cash because they don't really do anything that can be put into the economic stream.

In short, they are worms, maggots even, feeding off of taxpayer money. So, when their research didn't reflect their dire predictions that got them their grants, they hid it. And, they admit that they did so, and that the U.S. Department of Energy were fine with them hiding it.

Why tell the truth when it will cost you money (research/academcis) and power (regulation/U.S. DOE)? Lying is the foundation upon which the craven build.

GTWT · February 14, 2014

Jesus wept.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 14, 2014

Jesus wept.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 14, 2014

Jesus wept.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

“Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it.For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 14, 2014

Jesus wept.

If you believe in Jesus, do as he taught and stop worrying.

You either believe God is in control of the world he created or he is not. If he is not, or you do not believe, then keep worshipping man, and having faith in what men say.

Some men say - whether or not statistics bear it out - that there will be environmental calamity for this reason or that. Jesus says do not worry about your life, that God will provide for you as he does the plants and animals in the world. Even moreso because of your faith.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · February 14, 2014

Yes. Let the ignorant live in their degraded cities. The more legislation they pass about the environment and other things, the crappier their cities become. They deserve to live their overregulared, yet polluted, hellholes.

The UN climate chage dopes were caught cooking their numbers, discarding the ones that would jeopardize their grants. Typical of the academic class. They're always having to shill for taxpayer cash because they don't really do anything that can be put into the economic stream.
In short, they are worms, maggots even, feeding off of taxpayer money. So, when their research didn't reflect their dire predictions that got them their grants, they hid it. And, they admit that they did so, and that the U.S. Department of Energy were fine with them hiding it.
Why tell the truth when it will cost you money (research/academcis) and power (regulation/U.S. DOE)? Lying is the foundation upon which the craven build.

I bet you are an absolute blast at parties.

Censored by Laurie · February 14, 2014

I bet you are an absolute blast at parties.

Did you know he's been to Mexico City?

ChristopherRyanWilkes · February 14, 2014

Did you know he's been to Mexico City?

I especially like the bit about quoting Jesus saying “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear." When he bragged last week about how he only eats salads and lost 30 pounds.

Edited February 14, 2014 by ChristopherRyanWilkes

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 14, 2014

Be not among drunkards
or among gluttonous eaters of meat,
for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and slumber will clothe them with rags.

Proverbs 23:20-21

Moderation is taught in the Bible, you know. Therefore, if I have moderated my diet, how is that tantamout to worry? Where I lacked discipline in my diet before, I now have it. Worrying and lacking discipline are separate things.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · February 14, 2014

Your bragging montage is better than CJ Wilson's.

UNT90 · February 15, 2014

Anyone who believes researchers would never hide facts for research grants or the fame of being the person to solve a previously unsolved riddle really need to read the book "Death of Innocents".

Of course not all are this way, but to say it ever happens is being quite naive.

Edited February 15, 2014 by UNT90

UNT90 · February 15, 2014

If you believe in Jesus, do as he taught and stop worrying.
You either believe God is in control of the world he created or he is not. If he is not, or you do not believe, then keep worshipping man, and having faith in what men say.

Some men say - whether or not statistics bear it out - that there will be environmental calamity for this reason or that. Jesus says do not worry about your life, that God will provide for you as he does the plants and animals in the world. Even moreso because of your faith.

I often wonder if many on here would have survived if they were born in the 16th century. I think many would have bled themselves to death at the suggestion of modern science.