Global Warming Truth

[PaulLowrance]

These idle threats to the good folks here on this forum specifically, and to the free energy movement in general, are really in bad taste.

It's only a threat to a person if they are guilty.

[silverfish]

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 Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.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.

First of all I am not 'intimidated' by your data, although I certainly have questions about it. Statements coming from NASA do not automatically 'prove' that global warming is a hoax. I do not count these statements as authoritative, just because someone in a government agency says so.
      Whatever links I post, naturally you will say, 'non-peer reviewed', 'bad science', 'discredited', because the information, like Lord Monckton's information, goes against your position. Therefore it must be 'bad', just as the 30,000 objectors who disagree with global warming must be either 'non-scientists', or plain wrong, because Wikipedia says so, they must be right. That does not follow, either.
      In the Climategate emails they discuss sponsorship from major coorporations including oil companies, as a valid topic. How you then turn this around and claim climate warming skeptics have big oil sponsoring them, leaves me scratching my head. I'd like to see evidence of that, not just a line in Wikipedia. Recently I mentioned that Wikipedia has been questioned for the narrow way it manages the 'peer review' process. Editors with a non-mainstream viewpoint are 'leaving'. That's a polite way of saying they are being 'screened out' because their views do not tally with the dominant editors. If I post a link to this article, I can expect you to say that it's unscientific, non-peer reviewed, and therefore has no merit whatsoever.
      One of the topics Lord Monckton was unhappy about was the use of the discredited 'Hockey Stick' graph by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who continued to use it after a letter from Monckton requesting him not to do so. It is this promotion of questionable data which discredits scientific investigation - which should be impartial, non-partisan, and open to question - that is what science SHOULD be about. The fact that Mr. Pachauri stands to benefit from this situation financially, through a whole string of companies, should not be dismissed, in the same way that Gore will similarly benefit.
      I am sure you will agree that the recent unprecendented cold conditions, setting new records globally, are worth discussing. The satellite picture of a totally white UK being one example, with areas going as low as -21 centigrade here, comparable to the South Pole, are extreme, to say the least, and there is good reason for thinking this may lead to winters straight out of Dickens, on a regular basis. Whether this is due to 'Global Warming' or a global cooling trend, this is the 64,000 dollar question. Again, I'd like to see clear evidence that global cooling=global warming, not just because someone in the media says so.
      As you say, global temperatures have always fluctuated - because global cycles are operating. Recently, evidence has emerged that the carbon dioxide level of the planet has not increased for the past 150 years. If I post the link, I expect you will say this is 'non-peer reviewed' and therefore invalid.
      I am simply questioning your position that there is a near '100 per cent' consensus on global warming. I am questioning your position that this infallible, because the science supports it. I am also questioning your insistence on only posting so-called 'peer reviewed' articles - when it is clear that the peer review process itself is easily corruptable by special interests who have the money, and the influence, to manipulate this process towards an agenda that suits them.

[PaulLowrance]

just as the 30,000 objectors who disagree with global warming must be either 'non-scientists', or plain wrong, because Wikipedia says so, they must be right. That does not follow, either.

There is no 30,000+ climatologist in that petition. Read the wikipedia article (which includes references) on how that petition is worthless, bad data, lies, duplicate names, etc -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project

In the Climategate emails they discuss sponsorship from major coorporations including oil companies, as a valid topic. How you then turn this around and claim climate warming skeptics have big oil sponsoring them, leaves me scratching my head.

That's not true. Show the evidence and please stop making claims. That's why wikipedia is so great because they will not tolerate people like who make claims without evidence.

Recently I mentioned that Wikipedia has been questioned for the narrow way it manages the 'peer review' process. Editors with a non-mainstream viewpoint are 'leaving'. That's a polite way of saying they are being 'screened out' because their views do not tally with the dominant editors.

Not true. Wikipedia requires peer reviewed data. One example is that a month or so ago I've went over the links you posted at this forum about glaciers expanding, where I showed the data take from wikipedia completely contradicts your claims, claims that you grabbed from blog sites and such. Wikipedia will not tolerate bad science based on ambiguous claims.

So the problem is on your end, not wikipedia.

Why don't you post the proof of these so-called scientists that are leaving wikipedia, and don't forget to post their names. Lets see how your claims do not hold up, again.

One of the topics Lord Monckton was unhappy about

He's a biased British politician, not an objective active publishing climatologist. Enough said about that.

I am sure you will agree that the recent unprecendented cold conditions, setting new records globally, are worth discussing. The satellite picture of a totally white UK being one example, with areas going as low as -21 centigrade here, comparable to the South Pole, are extreme, to say the least, and there is good reason for thinking this may lead to winters straight out of Dickens, on a regular basis. Whether this is due to 'Global Warming' or a global cooling trend, this is the 64,000 dollar question. Again, I'd like to see clear evidence that global cooling=global warming, not just because someone in the media says so.

Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is 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.

So lets please stick to science. Enough with the claims taken from blog sites and from politicians. If you believe that over 97% of active publishing climatologist in the world are lying about the data, then prove it.

Recently, evidence has emerged that the carbon dioxide level of the planet has not increased for the past 150 years.

That's wrong. See the attached graph, which I've already shown the source. Show your graph and the source.

[silverfish]

There is no 30,000+ climatologist in that petition. Read the wikipedia article (which includes A) on how that petition is worthless, bad data, lies, duplicate names, etc -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project




That's not true. Show the evidence and please stop making claims. That's why wikipedia is so great because they will not tolerate people like who make claims without evidence.




Not true. Wikipedia requires peer reviewed data. One example is that a month or so ago I've went over the links you posted at this forum about glaciers expanding, where I showed the data take from wikipedia completely contradicts your claims, claims that you grabbed from A and such. Wikipedia will not tolerate bad science based on ambiguous claims.

So the problem is on your end, not wikipedia.

Why don't you post the proof of these so-called scientists that are leaving wikipedia, and don't forget to post their names. Lets see how your claims do not hold up, again.




He's a biased British politician, not an objective active publishing climatologist. Enough said about that.



Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is 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.

So lets please stick to science. Enough with the claims taken from blog sites and from politicians. If you believe that over 97% of active publishing climatologist in the world are lying about the data, then prove it.




That's wrong. See the attached graph, which I've already shown the source. Show your graph and the source.

OK, first you say 99 per cent, now it's 97 per cent of climatologists agree with the data. Which is it? when you say I should read Wikipedia for the peer-reviewed facts, I have a problem with that. You say that Lord Monckton is a 'biased British politician'? where is your evidence for that? Beacause he disgrees with your point of view, that makes him 'biased'?
     Like I said, I can post the link for the Wikipedia scandal. You will immediately criticise me for posting 'non-peer reviewed links'. So where do we go from here? this is your version of 'science' where only approved links are tolerated? very democratic!
     You are asking me to 'prove' that 97% of scientists are lying about the data. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a substantial body of people that fundamentally disagree with your views. The Telegraph is a mainstream newspaper, and James Delingpole takes a view in diametric opposition to yours.
     I would like YOU to prove global warming and that carbon dioxide is a toxic emission which we will have to be taxed on account of - and NOT by posting graphs which we know PERFECTLY WELL can be manipulated to 'show' a predetermined result - that's the whole point of Climategate, which shows how data is easily corruptable by a pre-determined set of objectives and special interests.
     As for the prospect that 90%+ of glaciers are growing, anyone can go to www.iceagenow.com and judge for themselves whether the data is valid, and not invalid just because you say so. You have evidence for that, do you? I'd like to see your evidence, not just bland pronouncements from Wikipedia or graphs that are EASILY modified - based on code that is equally subject to manipulation.

[Pirate88179]

The University of IL is the leading experts in the world on ice and glaciers and their study shows that there is more ice on our planet now and more square miles of glaciers than at any other time in recorded history.  This study has been peer reviewed but I am sure since WIKI does not say so, it will not be believed.  I guess that entire University must work for big oil as well as the over 31,000 climate experts (Most of them holding PHD's in this field) that have signed the petition AGAINST man-made global warming.  There are way more PHD holding climatologists against global warming than agree with it so, how anyone can dare to call that a consensus is rediculous.

My state just had the coolest summer in recorded history last summer and this winter is well on its way to breaking all records also.  I just got done shoveling 6" of global warming off of my sidewalk and driveway. 

If someone wants to believe in the fairy tale of global warming, that's fine.  Just don't expect me to buy it OR pay for it with my hard earned tax dollars...because I will not.

Bill

                       
         
   http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclusive.gif 
   HEAT OF THE MOMENT
   
   31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
    'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
   
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily     
     
  http://www.wnd.com/images/warming.jpg


More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. â€" including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties â€" have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.