Climategate 2.0 Here they even discuss the temperature drops mean they have to change from Global warming to a new name, "man made climate change was born"... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...obal-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/ NOAA and NASA caught red handed altering previous charts of historical temperature data to show the past colder in order to make the present look warmer. unfortunately for NOAA and NASA they put up the new chart 8 days before they took down the old chart. For 8 days both charts were available to the public. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend. here is a gif of the data alteration Old chart-new chart please log in to view this image The hottest day in recorded history is 1922 Annual heatwave index. Doesn't make sense if we are contantly heating up.. unless you take start the fallacy from that low point in the 50s onwards The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record. So, the EPA still has the original data that refutes the NASA NOAA altered data in 2000 please log in to view this image BUSTED!
I was working for a US multinat when the first chlorofluorocarbon model was presented to the FDA. They panicked and virtually wiped-out the aerosol industry over-night! Those awful chlorofluorocarbons were releasing free chlorine atoms which were attacking the Ozone Layer. Now we are told that it had nothing to do with these gases at all and the majority of supposed damage is caused by good old Carbon Dioxide! But who cares it sold papers and engendered a 'green' movement which is actually as polluting as the old industry. Back in the 1970s we didn't have an acknowledge scientific specialism dedicated to Climate Change. Now every university worth its salt has a financed research department dedicated to it with enough professors and researchers to fill Wembeley several times over. Now don't tell me that there is not more than a little academic self-interest going on. Strangely, perhaps the only good thing that could come out of all this mess is the true creation of a green/carbon free economy. It would greatly assist in the re-balance of the world economy caused by globalisation. However, the pansy politicians are too scared to actually put it into practice when they are threatened by the more risk averse bankers!
Very good point, it appears to be the same for the entire bioshpere, pollution, ocean dumping, pacific gabage patch, Fukushima, agricultural chemicals, proliferation of plastic fibers in ocean life, lakes turning to jelly and air pollution that kills several million every year, all of it has taken a back seat to the CO2 argument. We're "saving the skies" and pumping all manner of nasty s**t under people's homes with fracking. The second bit, the green thing will always take a back seat to profits, until it becomes profitable. Governments are front men for bankers nothing more, so that won't change. I think the general consensus in those who agree that the Man made Climate change is a fraud, is that most scientists are not actively engaging in fraud. It is the IPCC structure that keeps this fraud going through the following. 1. Work groups can only work on the data and methods passed on by the previous group, while this is normal scientific practice and gives focus, Climate is different, you are not working from a foundation of irrifutable facts scientifically proven as it is all based on the models that have been repeatedly wrong, ergo you are just carrying on the same path, the same fallacy, without the ability to deviate. 2. If you work on any data that damages IPCC claims, threats have been made, funding ceased, and even in some cases families of scientists threatened. 3. At the end of each report a summary is written for policy makers to determine economic policies (this is where the power lies in the real world) the actual summaries were edited by the policy makers, asking for it to be written to suite the policy they wanted to push through. This is accurate, this is what is hapening. 4. Climategate 1 caught them disucssing who to get rid of, and what science magazines to exclude. Climategate 2 caught them deleting data on previous work because they already got paid.. hiding data, as well as conceiving the idea for a new term because temperatures are indeed falling albeit minutely. Given the above, you can see how many a decent scientist is left with the choice of going along with the scaremongering, getting funding and a good start to a career as a result. Many postgrads who actually do much of the leg work of these reports are saying that the reports are telling a different story to their data, so you keep quiet or kiss your job and or funding goodbye. Pretty effetive control mechanism. Then any prominent scientist with creditability, attack them, Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position. That 22-27 billion a year funding is obviously going to some devious f**in uses.
Great. Let's blithely continue as before, using up as many finite resources as we can get our grubby mitts on and all go to hell on a steam-powered, lit-up-like-a-christmas-tree handcart, singing merrily and ignoring the message because we don't like the messenger, and mistrust their motives.
No saint, the messenger is purposefully lying. The danger is the other side of the argument is cooling which means, primarily, if the US suffers 1 bad growing season, the price of food will sky rocket, literally. If the US suffers a growing season catastrophe, it will mean less food, end of, the world is heavily dependent on US exports. 2 bad growing seasons in a row, means famine and death and even possibly conflict. All of this could be avoided by precaution but with the warming lie, it could be so dangerous as to lead to millions if not a couple of billion dying if this cold lasts 15 or so years, that's probably enough to wipe out more than half the global population. The insuing madness as food runs out would affect every country. No food is far worse than any Zombie movie scenario. The net effect of this seems like an unrealistic doomsday scenario but if you've been watching the climate, and see the downturn and expect this cold spell, then 2 or 3 disasterous growing seasons in the US alone, is not so far fetched and the above will certainly be the net results of such a cold snap, it doesn't need the freeze, all that needs to happen is the growing season started weeks later, and ending weeks sooner, that would be disaster. I am not saying it(IPCC claims) are not true because the IPCC are liars, I am saying it is not true because the predictions, EVERY SINGLE ONE, have been miles off of the mark, some 400% off the mark!! I am saying it is lies because geological data makes a f**ing mockery of this man made CO2 climate bollocks. Co2 was 5 times greater in the past with no "runaway temperature" problem. How can that not be a factor? How can termites creating 10 times what we create, not be figured into anything? And how can you accept the clear and proven corruption of data and processes to give this total fiction breath.? You are confusing the pollution and wastefulness of humanity with the harmless CO2 criminalisation. We are s**tting in our own bed, but CO2 is not s**t. As for the climatards and "oil" funds the anti climate science, let me explain something, if the oceans rose 200 feet tomorrow and the temp rose 3 degrees too, the world still could not get free of Oil even if it wanted to, everything you see has either oil in it or used ot make and get it there, there is nothing that does not have oil in it some way, literally EVERYTHING, we are oil junkies, the Oil companies need not even care because the world is a hopeless addict. To give that a relative view, how many car types are in the world and how would you replace them? That's just one single think, out of billions of applications. So no, oil companies know we are junkies and will never get off this oil habit any time soon, until it starts to run out actually. Planet is NOT warming. Fact More glacial recovery in 2012 2013 2014 ergo oceans are not warming. More ice means sea levels not risng, in fact slightly declining, maybe to small to measure but certainly not rising. Less EM protection from our own planet and the Sun means more galactic input into our weather system, energy from space can and does create cloud systems, cloud systems reflect heat into space, this also is a valid part of this cooling cycle data. Even CERN are working on this issue of space influence on our cloud formation. I guesss in the end Saint, when someone tells us the opposite of what is happening, we should not shoot the messenger? Of course we should shoot the f**ing messenger
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, attacked and forced to resign by his former IPCC colleagues, for having an alternate view on data and calling it like he seen it, and they as per IPCC activist libtard tactics, attacked him. f**ing libtards, the same kind of freaks that attacked Dr Matt taylor over his t shirt after landing a craft on a comet. His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer. Professor Lennart Bengtsson resignation letter So, this is how you silence the truth if you are the IPCC.
Dug an article out that I read recently from a glaciologist called Eric Rignot.He is the lead author of a landmark scientific paper recently released on West Antarctica.They have been looking at the Amundsen sea sector (about the size of France) and its six glaciers. The two largest ones are Pine Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). This is the gist of the article : 'We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable,with major consequences - it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide.What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet,which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres' and later in the article : 'There is also a bigger picture than West Antarctica.The Amundsen sea sector is not the only vulnerable part of the continent. East Antarctica includes marine based sectors that hold more ice. One of them,Totten glacier,holds the equivalent of seven metres of global sea level.' Interestingly,there is an article below it informing us that Miami beach is regularly underwater at high tide now,which was news to me.
So what exactly are you inferring from this article? From what you have said it appears that Rignot has noted the retreat of these glaciers and inferred a 1 metre rise in global sea levels. It is a great leap from that information to even suggest that this glacial retreat has been caused by man. Further, there is no timeframe mentioned in your quote so it is of little use - as it stands - for defensive planning purposes. Finally, Rignot has concluded that the retreat is unstoppable so there's no man-made action eg the total adoption of green industry that will stop it! This is the kind of dramatic 'scientific' pronouncement that is about as truly useful as a chocolate teapot. We know that there's a volcano is The Canaries that will fall into the sea and cause a tsunami that will wipe out the eastern seaboard of the USA and Canada - but we can't say when! Yellowstone National Park is known to be a super volcano which will re-erupt at some stage - but we can't predict when! Does it matter what caused them? We can't stop them and have no way of defending ourselves from the consequences.
The 1 metre rise is just from the Amundsen sector,and as big as it is,its only a part of whats happening down there. Its difficult to say how much human activity is affecting this,there is so much info available to read from different sources (some with agenda's) The timeframe being quoted at the mo is within 200 years (a small period of time in the big scheme of things) but these guys fear it may be a lot less than that.The retreat is quickening year on year,so its difficult to put an accurate timeframe on it. As far as man made action to stop it,forget it.We were warned about this decades ago and global governments have done little or nothing to address the problems.When mother nature hits back we are powerless and just have to cope the best we can. We are watching climate change happen right now,its not something we wait for.
Sorry but the effects of Climate Change (and I know of very few who would argue sincerely that change is taking place) will be something that we wait for. Politics and Economics are powerful bed-fellows. No country is going to spend massive amounts of money trying to defend their coastline until they are absolutely forced to do so - that's the nature of the eco/political beat. Hence my argument above that unless we change our whole economy (in concert with Europe) to meet the green ideal we are not going to make any real progress. But turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither will business or customers willingly accept higher taxes and prices to pay for all that MAY have to be done. As for mother nature hitting back. That could only be the case if man was solely responsible for the receding icecaps. As that is not the case then we have to accept that mother nature is only doing what mother nature does - it may kill us but it's not personal!
I repeat. If there's even the slightest chance that what we're doing is contributing to the effect, then we should take whatever measures we can to try and alleviate it. To continue blindly down a possibly destructive path is mindless. Perhaps it's part of a natural cycle, perhaps it's inevitable, but when heading for a brick wall only a fool accelerates.
Exactly right. The level of human production of CO2 has increased and at the same time we've reduced the number of CO2 consuming trees across the globe, this is fact is it not? Therefore it's hardly a crazy assertion that the levels of the gas in the atmosphere will have therefore increased. The only matter for debate is what effect that is having on the planet and whether the greenhouse gas effect is scientifically valid. I think it's dangerous to brush away the entire subject as some form of conspiracy
tobes is actually being quite sensible there. also I'd can't wait to see who cheslea and arsenal (nobody cares about spurs obviously) manage to play football (all we care about it seems) when the sea levels rise 3/5 metres and the thames floods london out totally. mind you you could say the same for a lot of coastal cities
no sisu.. statisitcally thats no t"busted" thats a data point...... a unique signal in time... jsut like how last winter has an assignable cause in the us due to a polar vortex blowing cold air form months fodwn across the great lakes and freezing the lot... there can be assignable casues to a single heat wave.... the TREND or mean temperature is creeping up! cannot be denied. the trends over time are clear.
Twice in one day and MITO has installed me as the new Liverpool manager The World is indeed about to end......
you had to be right eventually I mean come on if you keep throwing stuff at a wall eventually something has to stick.
