Unless it doesn't.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Scientist express horror as they see a 2.5 C increase in earth's temperature
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
Unless it doesn't.
Todd, when was the last time you had any science behind something you posted here?Unless it doesn't.
Todd, when was the last time you had any science behind something you posted here?
Still looking for that historical 140-year or 10-year warming data?
I did not. That is where I said "You have bought in to a lie from the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign. Those many predictions you see listed all over the internet are not the predictions of mainstream science. Most of them are actually the statements of deniers. "I notice that you skipped the part about all the past forecasts proven to be totally false.
Al Gore isn't a scientist.Says Al Gore said in 2009 that “the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.”
The nine points: fact or fallacy?
· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
The Impact of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change on Pacific Ocean Atolls | U.S. Geological Survey
Providing basic understanding and specific information on storm-wave inundation of atoll islands that house Department of Defense installations, and assessing the resulting impact of sea-level rise and storm-wave inundation on infrastructure and freshwater availability under a variety of...
Climate Change in the Federated States of Micronesia: Indicators and Considerations for Key Sectors - Micronesia (Federated States of)
Analysis in English on Micronesia (Federated States of) about Agriculture, Climate Change and Environment, Flood, Tropical Cyclone and more; published on 18 Jul 2023 by EWC
· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests
The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.
animalsurvival.org
Gulf Stream Circulation | Deutsches Klima Konsortium
www.deutsches-klima-konsortium.de
Shutdown of deep ocean current could cause extreme climate change as soon as 2025 – Richard Mills
2024-02-14 The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a large system of water […]
aheadoftheherd.com
The correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature for the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores is 0.81. That fact establishes what Mr Gore asserted.· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
Big whoop.· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established.
How about these data?· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
Ice sheet mass balance
Cumulative change in mass of ice sheets, measured relative to a base year of 2002. For reference, 1,000 billion metric tons is equal to about 260 cubic miles of ice—enough to raise sea level by about 3 millimeters.
ourworldindata.org
Artistic license.· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
Polar bears, walrus and seal require floating ice for feeding and reproduction. Guess what's been happening with the Arctic ice sheet volume?· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
That you would choose to make this argument tells me that in light of the eighteen years of actual science since "An Inconvenient Truth", you haven't got diddly squat.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
There we go ... follow the light blue line that's labeled "RCP4.5" ... my mistake, that's 3ºC over 20th Century average by year 2300 ... the important part is the logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and surface temperatures ... the more carbon dioxide we emit, the less effect it has on temperature ... "one molecule, one photon" ... just how the universe works ...
The question remains ... how much CO2 must we add to the atmospheric in order to increase radiative forcing from the current level of 1.8 W/m^2 to 4.5 W/m^2, and thus follow the light blue line in the graph young Chick-e-poo posted ... notice actual scientists don't waste money on the RPC6.0 scenario ... and the RCP8.5 scenario is just for click-bait and porn for the under-educated ... no offense Chickie ... but your math is wrong ...
The article in the OP is a total lie ... 77% of climate scientists think the IPCC is white-washing the problem? ... yeah, right ... just means they found 7 people willing to take money and read a script ... maybe next time ask Atmospheric Scientists, folks who actually study the atmosphere as a science .. ha ha ... instead of this malarkey ... democrats can't math ...
Your mistake, you failed to note where the line crosses zero. That is change since 2000, not since pre-industrial times. So, add 1.2C to the values in the graph if you want to talk about total warming.There we go ... follow the light blue line that's labeled "RCP4.5" ... my mistake, that's 3ºC over 20th Century average by year 2300
I know you love to pretend you are a master scientist and are pointing out some glaring mistake made by the IPCC and the work on which they base their assessments but the logarithmic relationship was well understood 150 years ago. It is contained in every one of these predictions. That graph is projections BASED on that logarithmic relationship.... the important part is the logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and surface temperatures ... the more carbon dioxide we emit, the less effect it has on temperature ... "one molecule, one photon" ... just how the universe works ...
Chick-e-poo? Are you in grade school?The question remains ... how much CO2 must we add to the atmospheric in order to increase radiative forcing from the current level of 1.8 W/m^2 to 4.5 W/m^2, and thus follow the light blue line in the graph young Chick-e-poo posted
AND
Funny, I see data all over the place produced by scientists making use of both those scenarios. What might be YOUR source that 6.5 and 8.5 are ignored? And, btw, the scenarios being used these days are the SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways), not the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways)... notice actual scientists don't waste money on the RPC6.0 scenario ... and the RCP8.5 scenario is just for click-bait and porn for the under-educated ... no offense Chickie ... but your math is wrong ...
Where is your evidence of that claim? Where are your supporting links?The article in the OP is a total lie ... 77% of climate scientists think the IPCC is white-washing the problem? ... yeah, right ... just means they found 7 people willing to take money and read a script ...
Where is your evidence of that claim? Where are your supporting links?maybe next time ask Atmospheric Scientists, folks who actually study the atmosphere as a science .. ha ha ... instead of this malarkey ... democrats can't math ...
Last edited:
As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.Your mistake, you failed to note where the line crosses zero. That is change since 2000, not since pre-industrial times. So, add 1.2C to the values in the graph if you want to talk about total warming.
I know you love to pretend you are a master scientist and are pointing out some glaring mistake made by the IPCC and the work on which they base their assessments but the logarithmic relationship was well understood 150 years ago. It is contained in every one of these predictions. That graph is projections BASED on that logarithmic relationship.
Chick-e-poo? Are you in grade school?
View attachment 950852
AND
View attachment 950854
Funny, I see data all over the place produced by scientists making use of both those scenarios. What might be YOUR source that 6.5 and 8.5 are ignored? And, btw, the scenarios being used these days are the SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways), not the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways)
Where is your evidence of that claim? Where are your supporting links?
Where is your evidence of that claim? Where are your supporting links?
14th February, 2010
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.
WHAT????
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.
Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.
We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Last edited:
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,703
- 4,908
- 210
We rate Markle the same as his source, The Daily Fail:
Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
EMH
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2021
- 14,298
- 9,806
- 2,138
You do nothing except push idiot "skeptics" here to accept fudged data, FAUX "News" style...
Link?
You'll have to fudge everywhere you post.
You are not a "skeptic." You are a Zionist Fascist Traitor who protects the Zionist Fascist Co2 FRAUD by lying about the truth and the data....
A great example is your Zionist Fascist bullshit efforts here...
How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?
This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...
www.usmessageboard.com
The OP is a massive destruction of McBullshit by all available data, and yet there you are defending McBullshit aka Co2 FRAUD with a parroted "study" that "dated wood to 30k years old" except wood completely decomposes in 100 years....
LOL!!
Anyone still fooled by Zionist Fascist taxpayer funded Co2 FRAUD faux "skeptic" Toddster, just read the linked topic...
Then prove what I posted is a lie. You won't, because you can't.We rate Markle the same as his source, The Daily Fail:
Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
You'll have to fudge everywhere you post.
You are not a "skeptic." You are a Zionist Fascist Traitor who protects the Zionist Fascist Co2 FRAUD by lying about the truth and the data....
A great example is your Zionist Fascist bullshit efforts here...
How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?
This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...
The OP is a massive destruction of McBullshit by all available data, and yet there you are defending McBullshit aka Co2 FRAUD with a parroted "study" that "dated wood to 30k years old" except wood completely decomposes in 100 years....
LOL!!
Anyone still fooled by Zionist Fascist taxpayer funded Co2 FRAUD faux "skeptic" Toddster, just read the linked topic...
The OP is a massive destruction of McBullshit by all available data, and yet there you are defending McBullshit aka Co2 FRAUD with a parroted "study" that "dated wood to 30k years old" except wood completely decomposes in 100 years....
Wood and soil.
Did you ever find a source that proves "wood completely decomposes in 100 years", or did the Jews hide all your sources?
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,703
- 4,908
- 210
Prove The Daily Fail is worth reading, let alone excerpting from. You won't because you know it's snot.Then prove what I posted is a lie. You won't, because you can't.
I know no such thing.As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.
CRU at UAE is still considered a premiere climate research institutionTheir program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.
Thousands of e-mails were disclosed. A small handful were open to willfully incorrect interpretation. None actually evidenced malpractice on the part of Jones or the CRU because there was no malpractice.The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.
It wasn't an admission. It was an observation and one soon corrected by Tom Karl's paper and since verified by a dozen others.14th February, 2010
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Bullshit. Let's see some evidence for that.Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!
These data show about 0.7C warming since 1995There has been no global warming since 1995
This is where you expose your own ignorance and I say "So the fuck what?"Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Phil Jones has 15 scientists working under him. I suspect it gets taken care of.Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance and, once again, I get to say "So the fuck what?Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
Let me update you just a bit:And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
THOMAS R. KARL , ANTHONY ARGUEZ, BOYIN HUANG, JAY H. LAWRIMORE, JAMES R. MCMAHON, MATTHEW J. MENNE, THOMAS C. PETERSON, RUSSELL S. VOSE, AND HUAI-MIN ZHANGand
Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’
Iselin Medhaug, Martin B. Stolpe, Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti
That is a demonstrable lie. Phil Jones has never stated that he was involved in any scam. He was driven to consider suicide by idiots like you persecuting him without cause. Reminds me of the people who attacked the Sandy Hook parents after Alex Jones lied about who they were and what had happened. Here, try some truth for once. Note the absence of even a hint of Jones admitting to being part of any scam, you ignorant patsy:Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.
Jones said in February that he had received death threats and had considered suicide "several times" following the intense scrutiny of his professional conduct when the emails surfaced online. He added that he had lost a stone in weight and had been taking beta-blockers and sleeping pills.
"People said I should go and kill myself. They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world," he said. But he said he had been encouraged by the love of his five-year-old granddaughter. "I wanted to see her grow up."
In March, he testified before the parliamentary science and technology select committee, and appeared gaunt and strained when facing cross-examination by MPs.
Reacting today to the Russell review and his reinstatement at the CRU, he said: "I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed. We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies. There are lessons to be learned from this affair and I need time to reflect on them before speaking in public, particularly given the scope of this report.
"Meanwhile, I would like to thank those who have supported me over this period and now I would like to concentrate on my new role as director of research in the CRU, which will allow me to focus my full attention on the science of climate change."
The people who were denied access to the data were unqualified denier hacks. The data were freely given out to qualified individuals. The UK's Freedom of Information act allows the refusal of requests that are considered "vexatious".Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them
When can we refuse a request as vexatious?
As a general rule, you should not take into account the identity or intentions of a requester when considering whether to comply with a request for information. You cannot refuse a request simply because it does not seem to be of much value. However, a minority of requesters may sometimes abuse their rights under the Freedom of Information Act, which can threaten to undermine the credibility of the freedom of information system and divert resources away from more deserving requests and other public business.
You can refuse to comply with a request that is vexatious. If so, you do not have to comply with any part of it, or even confirm or deny whether you hold information. When assessing whether a request is vexatious, the Act permits you to take into account the context and history of a request, including the identity of the requester and your previous contact with them. The decision to refuse a request often follows a long series of requests and correspondence.
The key question to ask yourself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustifiable level of distress, disruption or irritation.
Bear in mind that it is the request that is considered vexatious, not the requester. If after refusing a request as vexatious you receive a subsequent request from the same person, you can refuse it only if it also meets the criteria for being vexatious.
You should be prepared to find a request vexatious in legitimate circumstances, but you should exercise care when refusing someone’s rights in this way.
Vexatious and repeated requests
There were three independent reviews of Jones activities following the theft of UEA's mails. None found that Jones had violated the FOI laws.-- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.
That was probably politically unwise, but Jones, like virtually every other scientist studying the Earth's climate is aware that the results of their investigations show a threat to the human species and almost all other life on this planet and that elements of the fossil fuel industry have spent a great deal of money to politicize the issue and to persuade the weak-minded (that would include you) of ridiculous claims that would not pass muster in an 8th grade physical science class. There is a war going on for the future of mankind and reasonable people cannot hold Jones et all to blame for using unconventional methods in order to prevent enormous amounts of human suffering your dear leaders have no problem inflicting on us all in order to maintain their profligate earnings.In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.
We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.
I know no such thing.
CRU at UAE is still considered a premiere climate research institution
Thousands of e-mails were disclosed. A small handful were open to willfully incorrect interpretation. None actually evidenced malpractice on the part of Jones or the CRU because there was no malpractice.
It wasn't an admission. It was an observation and one soon corrected by Tom Karl's paper and since verified by a dozen others.
Bullshit. Let's see some evidence for that.
These data show about 0.7C warming since 1995
This is where you expose your own ignorance and I say "So the fuck what?"
Phil Jones has 15 scientists working under him. I suspect it gets taken care of.
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance and, once again, I get to say "So the fuck what?
Let me update you just a bit:
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
THOMAS R. KARL , ANTHONY ARGUEZ, BOYIN HUANG, JAY H. LAWRIMORE, JAMES R. MCMAHON, MATTHEW J. MENNE, THOMAS C. PETERSON, RUSSELL S. VOSE, AND HUAI-MIN ZHANG
and
Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’
Iselin Medhaug, Martin B. Stolpe, Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti
That is a demonstrable lie. Phil Jones has never stated that he was involved in any scam. He was driven to consider suicide by idiots like you persecuting him without cause. Reminds me of the people who attacked the Sandy Hook parents after Alex Jones lied about who they were and what had happened. Here, try some truth for once. Note the absence of even a hint of Jones admitting to being part of any scam, you ignorant patsy:
Jones said in February that he had received death threats and had considered suicide "several times" following the intense scrutiny of his professional conduct when the emails surfaced online. He added that he had lost a stone in weight and had been taking beta-blockers and sleeping pills."People said I should go and kill myself. They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world," he said. But he said he had been encouraged by the love of his five-year-old granddaughter. "I wanted to see her grow up."In March, he testified before the parliamentary science and technology select committee, and appeared gaunt and strained when facing cross-examination by MPs.Reacting today to the Russell review and his reinstatement at the CRU, he said: "I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed. We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies. There are lessons to be learned from this affair and I need time to reflect on them before speaking in public, particularly given the scope of this report."Meanwhile, I would like to thank those who have supported me over this period and now I would like to concentrate on my new role as director of research in the CRU, which will allow me to focus my full attention on the science of climate change."
The people who were denied access to the data were unqualified denier hacks. The data were freely given out to qualified individuals. The UK's Freedom of Information act allows the refusal of requests that are considered "vexatious".
When can we refuse a request as vexatious?As a general rule, you should not take into account the identity or intentions of a requester when considering whether to comply with a request for information. You cannot refuse a request simply because it does not seem to be of much value. However, a minority of requesters may sometimes abuse their rights under the Freedom of Information Act, which can threaten to undermine the credibility of the freedom of information system and divert resources away from more deserving requests and other public business.You can refuse to comply with a request that is vexatious. If so, you do not have to comply with any part of it, or even confirm or deny whether you hold information. When assessing whether a request is vexatious, the Act permits you to take into account the context and history of a request, including the identity of the requester and your previous contact with them. The decision to refuse a request often follows a long series of requests and correspondence.The key question to ask yourself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustifiable level of distress, disruption or irritation.Bear in mind that it is the request that is considered vexatious, not the requester. If after refusing a request as vexatious you receive a subsequent request from the same person, you can refuse it only if it also meets the criteria for being vexatious.You should be prepared to find a request vexatious in legitimate circumstances, but you should exercise care when refusing someone’s rights in this way.Vexatious and repeated requests
ico.org.uk
There were three independent reviews of Jones activities following the theft of UEA's mails. None found that Jones had violated the FOI laws.
That was probably politically unwise, but Jones, like virtually every other scientist studying the Earth's climate is aware that the results of their investigations show a threat to the human species and almost all other life on this planet and that elements of the fossil fuel industry have spent a great deal of money to politicize the issue and to persuade the weak-minded (that would include you) of ridiculous claims that would not pass muster in an 8th grade physical science class. There is a war going on for the future of mankind and reasonable people cannot hold Jones et all to blame for using unconventional methods in order to prevent enormous amounts of human suffering your dear leaders have no problem inflicting on us all in order to maintain their profligate earnings.
God are you stupid. And dishonest.We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature]
Really, really fucking stupid.by applying what they termed as "tricks,"
What editor did they force out? Let's see a name.and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."
Three thorough investigations found nothing you fool. And that was fifteen years ago - old news. The only reason you bring it up is because you've obviously got nothing else.No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.
Hmm.... so, it wasn't NOAA or NASA or Hadley or JWA or the NWS or Berkeley Earth or ESA or the IPCC or the thousands of published studies their assessments examine? It was all from Phil Jones and his 15 scientists at East Anglia. Got it. You're an exceptionally stupid fuck.But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending
They were all getting kickbacks from LED sales, weren't they. I bet they all had stock in Chinese solar panel companies and German wind turbine makers. Right? Just follow the money. Like the money the fossil fuel industry might lose if we win.-- unless drastic steps were taken.
Wow, those guys at CRU were sharp. To fool that many actively researching PhDs. Of course, no one else on the planet was allowed to take temperature measurements, right? What? Not right? Everyone could get their own raw temperature data? Hmm... how'd that work.Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations
Stupid as fucking broken rock.
You're beginning to catch on. You're the ONLY one on your side of the argument. The other side is EVERYone else.-- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.
Global Temperature Report for 2023 - Berkeley Earth
2023 was the warmest year on Earth since direct observations began, and the first year to exceed 1.5 °C above our 1850-1900 average.
berkeleyearth.org
- Thread starter
- #157
In a few years, the mid-west will see tornadoes and extreme weather year round. Insurance rates are going sky high and the death toll is going to be seen in the thousands. But you MAGA mush minds will find some way to spin this to blame something other than carbon use. You really think you are smarter than scientist?As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.
14th February, 2010
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.
WHAT????
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.
Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.
We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Bur Murdoch will be dead, so he will not care how much damage misinformation from FOX news has caused. You MAGA people are fools.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,083
- 12,671
- 2,400
From Post 32,
Nothing changed the world goes on laughing at the low IQ warmist/alarmists scaremongering who post these lies from post 1:
I posted a link showing there is NO climate emergency developing, no increase in tornadoes, tropical storms, hurricanes, Hail to worry over.
Berkely Earth shows it has already reached 2.0 C higher funny all those awesome overpaid "scientists" were not aware of it.......,
Nothing changed the world goes on laughing at the low IQ warmist/alarmists scaremongering who post these lies from post 1:
We are already seeing deadly weather extremes worldwide. Many world leaders are short sighted and ignoring the warnings. My children and grandchildren will suffer for that ignorance.
I posted a link showing there is NO climate emergency developing, no increase in tornadoes, tropical storms, hurricanes, Hail to worry over.
We have been seeing your hyperbolic forecasts for decades and are still waiting. "You've" been shouting WOLF for so long it now rings on deaf years.In a few years, the mid-west will see tornadoes and extreme weather year round. Insurance rates are going sky high and the death toll is going to be seen in the thousands. But you MAGA mush minds will find some way to spin this to blame something other than carbon use. You really think you are smarter than scientist?
Bur Murdoch will be dead, so he will not care how much damage misinformation from FOX news has caused. You MAGA people are fools.
Show us a source that says you've correctly identified the baseline. What's wrong with you? Did you actually think that was going to fly?From Post 32,
View attachment 951665
Nothing changed the world goes on laughing at the low IQ warmist/alarmists scaremongering who post these lies from post 1:
I posted a link showing there is NO climate emergency developing, no increase in tornadoes, tropical storms, hurricanes, Hail to worry over.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 311
- Views
- 12K
- Locked
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 108
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 57
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8173
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-