Global Warming Truth

[silverfish]

You did not read it. It is considered very bad science to try and arrive at the global warming trend from a few years average. The reason is due to the global temperature fluctuations over time. An average of at least a decade is required.

If scientists used your method of taking a few years average they could point out dozens of times throughout the past century where there was global cooling, global warming, global cooling, global warming. Fortunately that is bad science and nearly 100% of climatologist do not practice bad science. That is why nearly 100.00% of active publishing climatologist believe global warming is real, and why over 97% of such climatologist believe humanity is a significant caused of global warming.

As for the rest of your post, sorry, I'm not interested in science based on claims & hand waving, and neither are nearly 100% of active publishing climatologist. Next time please read before making accusations, as I've address all of your concerns in my blog post.


Again, please do not reply unless you have peer reviewed data. No scientists is interested in claims without data.

Your attempts to intimidate people into only posting 'peer reviewed data' is pathetic, in view of the fact that the 'peer review process' is eminently corruptable, just as the Climate Research Institute in East Anglia were quite happy to accept fat cheques, so long as they would push the agenda. And, hey, lots of money and influence from oil companies, too, the same ones that we are told are behind 'climate skeptics' like me, who you claim are in the minority. Your ridiculous claim that nearly 100 per cent of scientists are fully supporting this claptrap is a joke. It amazes me that you still persist with this fairytale, and you call yourself a 'scientist' ??
    Wikipedia is another blatant example of 'information filtering' - just like the media, and what is supposed to be 'science'. Yes, I will reply, and I will not be intimidated by your pretentious posturing and demands for 'peer reviews'. Give me a break.


For a start:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/#more-14803

http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/AP_accused_of_biased_reporting_on_Climategate.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Case_for_Global_Warming.htm

[Cloxxki]

Disappointed to read that from Paul, I quite liked some other posts I found from him. Climate peers are the least to be trusted. Too much power and money at stake, and it's barely a science anyway. Guess why NWO played exactly this card? Scientists will never agree, even if a Glacier takes over Rio de Janeiro. You just never know who works for whom. Do they work for Big Oil (burn, burn, burn), or NWO (burn, but tax, tax, tax). Odd how my ideols are not the on the side of my worst enimies. I almost enlisted Greenpeace as a volunteer, less than 4 years ago.

Should Wikipedia not be allowed to be amended with info on "popular contrary opinions and research"? If you write is down as facts surely you'll be censored.
It is a much-read information source, we should try and get in the counterweight we can? Historically correct, of course. Give people some ideas to read up on.

I bet if you search on the holocaust, you can also read about those who chose to deny it ever happened. "We" may be the bad guys in today's debate, next century public knowledge will have caught up with us.

[PaulLowrance]

Your attempts to intimidate people into only posting 'peer reviewed data' is pathetic, in view of the fact that the 'peer review process' is eminently corruptable, just as the Climate Research Institute in East Anglia were quite happy to accept fat cheques, so long as they would push the agenda. And, hey, lots of money and influence from oil companies, too, the same ones that we are told are behind 'climate skeptics' like me, who you claim are in the minority. Your ridiculous claim that nearly 100 per cent of scientists are fully supporting this claptrap is a joke. It amazes me that you still persist with this fairytale, and you call yourself a 'scientist' ??
    Wikipedia is another blatant example of 'information filtering' - just like the media, and what is supposed to be 'science'. Yes, I will reply, and I will not be intimidated by your pretentious posturing and demands for 'peer reviews'. Give me a break.


For a start:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/#more-14803

http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/AP_accused_of_biased_reporting_on_Climategate.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Case_for_Global_Warming.htm

Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.

Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.

Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real.  In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.



I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.

The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.


The facts still remain,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"

Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax”

Unscientific anti global warmest say the planet is cooling down over the past year. This is called bad science because it is impossible to obtain the global warming trend by taking a few years average due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.




If anyone is intimidating people it's you & Bil Oil. Bil Oil was caught red handed paying millions of dollars to people and groups who are against global warming facts, and who knows how much they've paid under the table without being caught. You're not a scientists because credible scientists do not hide behind an anonymous name like you do posting out right lies.

[PaulLowrance]

Disappointed to read that from Paul, I quite liked some other posts I found from him. Climate peers are the least to be trusted. Too much power and money at stake, and it's barely a science anyway.

Sorry, but that's not true and you know it. I asked that this thread be one of posting valid references, not claims. So why don't you tell us exactly how many climatologist were saying something wrong in those emails. And then tell us how many thousands of climatologist there are in the world. Huh?

Just wonder how many anonymous people at this forum are connected with Big Oil. It's sad to see so many people who have zero interest in science, but more interest in gossip and bad science that fulfills their belief system. And you can tell by the fact that they do not post data. At best they post links to blog sites and such.


Again, please do not reply unless you have peer reviewed data. No scientists is interested in claims without data.

[Bulbz]

Until I see the world governments ban the use of fossil fuels instead of allowing fuel prices to rise and ramping-up the tax on it, then I think I speak for a lot of members on here when I "peer review" the connection between global warming and human energy consumption a complete load of cobblers !