Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Kangaroo farts may not be so eco-friendly after all

 

I was just reading that very thing yesterday, ludicrous

If you increased the kangaroo population a few orders of magnitude then you might have something to discuss

Cow and kangaroo farts are about as dangerous as the Wealdstone Raider.

 

Lomborg is an economist and a green, his work relates cost analysis..

For $2.5 trillion IF this scam was true.. the difference in temperature increase by the end of the century, run on the United Nations climate panel’s own model, would be a mere 0.0175°C (0.03°F).
Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2015-10#KksX2wAkZJhGJCF0.99


$2.5 trillion for 0.0175c. This is subsidies to green energy alone not funding to the pseudo science over all. ****ing scam. That's where the money is and the new cap and trade will be worth at least 3 times that.
So Global warming is a 15 trillion scam, and the climatards talk of oil money. Goldman Sachs are set to make trillions from cap and trade. Sachs have huge shares in oil. Go figure.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036

 

@BringBackFootie.

#climatards

 

This is what you call an appeal to authority. "They say". No basis in science.

NASA admit there is only 38% certainly in their land based "estimations". Also they ignore the satellite data.

Their 2014 hottest record was ten times smaller than the margin of error meaing no record.~

Lets look at the facts. Lets look at the historical record shall we.

NASA 2001

please log in to view this image

NASA 2015 - NASA try justify these alterations to the historical record, they are not denied.

please log in to view this image

Both data sets compared. The two above are NASA released data sets.

please log in to view this image

@Tobes

yep clima tards

NASA "estimated" data v everyone else "measurements" data

please log in to view this image

In 1998 was when NASA began frauding the **** out of the data, which is why it diverges from reality and real measurements.

 

NASA father of global warming - Dr Hansen 1989 NASA report
"In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country."

10 years later he erased the history he mentions above.

This data he has talked about, where is it? Cos the current NASA data doesn't show what Hansen is talking about.

Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists’ fashionable “global warming” narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up – where before they looked either flat or declining.

Go Figure, not only were stories changed in the late 1990s but also the data has been "modeled" out of reality since then too.

 

You cite the biggest propaganda outlet in the world the BBC as truth?!
#ministryoftruth

 

Only the report posted hasn't come from NASA so that cut and paste is wasted.

The report has come from UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

 

Over the long term the trend in temperature is up though, no?

You can't confine the argument to a blink of the eye period like 15 years surely?

As shouldn't we be looking back as far as is humanly possible in terms of the timeframe to try and establish the effect man is having on the planets climate since industrialisation began?

 

Well lets break that down

"Over the long term the trend in temperature is up though, no?"
of course no one denies that, as follows.. As shown it was warm enough to populate greenland

please log in to view this image

Previous to the Medieval warming period you had the roman period with a cooling inbetween, the Romans grew grapes on the scottish border.

please log in to view this image

Now consider warming rates.. if our current warming trend is the same as pre CO2 increase warming trends then.. CO2 is not the bad guy

please log in to view this image

Finally and this is important. MOST of the temperatures are "estimated" and "adjusted".
1. They use estimated records when they have actual data/
2. They take raw measurements and you would think they average them yes to get an average? No. They homogenise them which is running them through mathematical models and what those models produce is the temp record given.

Do you not find that odd? Given there are only about 1500+ stations on hte whole planet providing datasets, much of that small amount of data is still estimated and "adjusted".

I get the feeling you think they take measurements and just average them to get the average like any sane person, but they don't do this, they used to.

Those equations are or were meant to adjust for extra warmth. They are used on stations that change from ruban to rural or change location or if a new building goes up near a temp station ect, yet these models as proven in Australia, take cooling trend raw measurements and produce up to 2.5c degrees warming. What gives.


So lets list what the "science" has done.

Remodelled current measurements - comes out warmer/
reduced the warm periods of the past - makes present's temp increase more steep.
Ocean temp data is remodelled - results again show more warming than measurements.
Remodelled the temperature record for the past 1000 years - results in cooler past and warmer present.

Are you kidding me

Do realise mate that half a degree + of "warming" is adjustments not actual measurements, this is a fact, can be checked by anyone on either the IPCC or NASA site.


Satellite data shows no warming, 2 different data sets.. no one cares.

IPCC 1990

please log in to view this image

IPCC 2001

please log in to view this image

****, medieval warming period "gone" and so is the little ice age when you could skate on the thames.

All that red on the chart, comes from one tiny sample of tree rings, literally.
#fraud

 

Cool story bro, got a link to that satellite data from before the industrial revolution?

 

Satellite data started in the late 70s. Right at the end of a cooling period(where Co2 rose and rose) that saw the arctic and greenland ice advance a LOT. Obviously since the world has gotten a bit warmer since then the ice melts.. amazing


here this is for you, and anyone else.

You explain this, I mean I know the official explanations for the changes but I want your take

please log in to view this image

All data that is "reworked" seems to turn out warmer.. such a handy coincidence

 

In case you didn't understand the previous post Astro, they literally deleted two proven points in history, the medieval warming period and the little ice age, and you accept that?

 

I don't know the details for the particular data but almost every single measurement taken needs calibration and there's no reason to expect calibration to have been perfect the first time.

When they fixed Hubble's mirror did you claim it was a conspiracy to cover up the true blurry nature of the universe?

 

If they've flowered up the results to show a greater level of increase than the actual, then if the actual trend is still upwards, what's their motive?

Is it due to the fact that if the rise is shown to be minimal then then mankind might write off the importance of reducing carbon gases and plough on relentlessly, ignoring the fact that it is altering the climate, albeit at a slower rate than the doom mongers predicted?

Is it ego?

Or is it due to green taxation being a nice earner globally?

 

@Tobes

When there is proven data fraud I am not interested in motives. But if I had to guess

Oh BTW The guy who provides those charts for NASA, Gavid Schmidt director at the goddard institute, has made a video calling for a global carbon tax, he's a greenie. #impartialscience


Cap and Trade is worth several trillion dollars to the likes of Goldman Sachs, they have large, very large shares in oil. (so the oil company claim doesn't add up, oil companies answer to major shareholders, so the climatards are easily busted there)

Subsidies for green tech like wind farms will cos two 2.5 trillion by 2020 (2.5 trillion up for grabs)

Scientific funding.

Go check out how much tidal power was costing the grid at certain points. You will be really surprised "At one point, the Financial Times said, the grid was paying Severn Power £2,500 per megawatt hour: the usual going rate is £60."

Lets not forget you are subsidising the above as well as the grid paying that much for juice

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446843267


Without going on and on, this whole scam is worth 10s of trillions plus it gives government more control, which it always craves.

The whole big Paris deal thing is not even legally binding. They will make promises, and fail to keep them, yet the scam will go on

 

I am totally with you on the great "man made" warming scam but, I think you should re-read the legend on the final chart

 

My personally view is that we are probably having an effect on global warming, with a combination of deforestation and carbon gases.

However, I've always thought that the doom mongering and speed at which they forecast the effects of it, were overblown. I've recently bothered to read a number of scientific pieces that challenge the data used and noted there was some controversy when someone asked for it under the freedom of information act, only to be told it'd been 'lost' a few years back.

Whatever the motives are there's no doubt money to be made on both sides of the argument. Fossil fuels have always been a cash cow, and green taxation, plus the opportunity to exploit the green energy quotas, have lined land owners, engineering companies and energy companies pockets in recent years.

 

Well spotted, Freudian slip, was thinking of tree rings It is meant to say "comes from data manipulation, literally" cos the general theme was data fraud.

Imagine a NASA Director, he's asked by Gore or Obama "can he use 3 billion in funding to work on global warming", the manager has a bunch of department heads rubbing their hands plus the department heads have hordes of scientists who are also wanting their share of that funding. It completely corrupting.
Any results that don't go with the politics of those providing the money are not welcome.

The amount of papers written now that relate to climate change, effects on everything from butterflies to crime!! Just throw in any old **** WITH climate change and you'll get funding AND published. It's so ****in rotten.