Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 105399	2009-11-30 16:49:00	Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
835162	2009-12-19 03:38:00	Once again: ... the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by Associated Press. ... the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. ... no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data Gore Effect Impacts Copenhagen Climate Written by Alex Newman Friday, 18 December 2009 16:30 Gore effect - Over four inches of snow fell in Copenhagen last night as temperatures dipped to below 25°F, not including wind chill. Officials with Denmark's Meteorological Institute said there is a high probability of a white Christmas in Denmark, which has occurred only seven times in the last 100 years. This is what is known as "The Gore Effect," a strange phenomenon involving extreme or unusual cold and blizzards that seems to follow Al Gore and his global-warming crusade. Looks like global warming and climate heating is kinda odd under those circumstances. No wonder the talks fell off the tracks. How're ya gonna sell warming when everybody's teeth are chattering? Now if they can just get Gore to move to Upsidedown Land, you can have snow 365! :cool: Skeptics Put Freeze on Copenhagen Written by Alex Newman Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:00 Propaganda Warrior COPENHAGEN — Taking their cue from radical environmentalist political stunts, global warming “skeptics” in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference served up their own attempts at headline-grabbing actions to protest the agenda. Film maker Phelim McAleer, responsible for the Not Evil, Just Wrong documentary on global warming, entered the conference building wearing a polar bear suit with a sign around his neck reading: “Where is Phil Jones.” Megaphone in hand, the polar bear demanded to see disgraced climate scientist Phil Jones, the head of University of East Anglia’s notorious Climate Research Unit which was exposed in the leaked e-mail and data scandal now known around the world as “Climategate.” Well - not known EVERYWHERE I suppose - but "everywhere enough!!!!" Among the speakers who received the most attention at the skeptics’ conference was Professor Niklas Nils-Axel Mörner, a prominent scientist and oceanographer at Stockholm University who studies sea levels. He chastised the president of the Maldives for claiming that the island nation would soon disappear. According to Mörner, who has studied the Maldives extensively, “we must rely on the facts, and the facts don’t support the president.” But the President of the Maldives was not swayed by Professor Mörner's findings. He told The New American that Mörner was doing shoddy work and that he had not properly measured the sea levels around the island nation. “There are still people who don‘t believe we landed on the moon,” he said, later changing his tune to, “You know, that isn’t even worthy of comment.” But despite the efforts that were made by global-warming skeptics to garner some media exposure at Copenhagen, the media ignored (or dismissed) the skeptics — including not just the activists but the scientists — and pretended instead that the alarmist position is the only show in town.	SurferJoe46 (51)
835163	2009-12-19 06:53:00	There may or may not be falsification of data to support a theory, however there is a very large case of self-interested myopia amongst those who support this "dangerous climate change effect" theory that is allegedly going to wipe us all out . These so-called scientists are looking at the climate records for the last 150 years or so . What about taking a statistically larger set of data to get a better view of any trend that may or may not be present (in fact they may have done this already, since we are now told that it's not "global warming" any more, it's "climate change") . As far as I am aware the Earth has been around for about 4 . 5 billion years (or 4500 years, if you're a literal believer in the Bible like my sister-in-law!!! :groan:), and has probably had something of a climate for much of that time . Wouldn't a larger set of data (say, for instance, the last few million of those 4 . 5 billion for example) give a better analysis of what climate changes we may possibly going to experience in the next 100 or so years? I'm pretty sure that's at the core of scientific investigative methods . Do the experiment again and again until there is a statistically significant probability that the outcome is predictable . THEN, form your theory . Not "limit your dataset and draw conclusions from analysis of that dataset that will severely negatively impact on the world economy, but keep me in research funding for my lifetime" . Call me a cynic . . . . go on!	johcar (6283)
835164	2009-12-19 07:14:00	Just think, If we could travel back in time . . . . . . and tax the dinosaurs for the changing climate over the last 20 million years . Imagine, If you can, if you will . . . . IF YOU DARE . . . . How that would have changed things . . . . . A dinosaur fart tax would have been a big revenue earner . . . But in fairness to them, they were wiped out by a comet or meteor so all the farts in the world didn't match that catastrophic event .	Twelvevolts (5457)
835165	2009-12-19 08:28:00	The joke is regardless of them skewing figures to suit, they are arguing over one half of one degree. :rolleyes: Now somebody tell me how long we have had instrumentation at Weather Stations accurate to one half of one degree. (Especially those that were recording data years before they were even built.) :lol: To think they have the audacity to call themselves Scientists. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
835166	2009-12-19 08:37:00	A dinosaur fart tax would have been a big revenue earner . . . But in fairness to them, they were wiped out by a comet or meteor so all the farts in the world didn't match that catastrophic event . We had better start taxing passing comets/meteors in case it happens again . Doing that won't stop it but will make people see we are taking action .	Sweep (90)
835167	2009-12-27 22:50:00	Just to help you get a better understanding of Climate Change. ;) www.nzherald.co.nz	B.M. (505)
835168	2009-12-28 00:02:00	However, the Greenies credibility is further damaged by them continually showing water vapour being emitted from power plant Cooling Towers in the hope that people will think it’s smoke. That water vapour is more of a menace to global warming than CO2.	mikebartnz (21)
835169	2009-12-28 00:05:00	... the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. There are more scientists that disagree that humans and CO2 is the cause of global warming than otherwise. So you know where you can put that vast body of evidence.	mikebartnz (21)
835170	2009-12-28 00:23:00	Saw a Close-up episode (tvnz.co.nz) the other night where they interviewed a pair of writers, Gareth Morgan going for the global warming/climate change/alarmist position, the other skeptic Ian Wishart, and they did a text-poll on who the viewers believed, came out 77 percent for the skeptic! Surprised Mark Sainsbury who swore on camera! Just shows that the general public are more intelligent than the media think we are! I wonder who is actually influencing the government and media in their alarmist views, could it be the banks, who stand to make a lot of money out of carbon-trading (while ripping-off you and me) and handling extra taxes.	feersumendjinn (64)
835171	2009-12-28 02:12:00	Saw a Close-up episode (tvnz.co.nz) the other night where they interviewed a pair of writers, Gareth Morgan going for the global warming/climate change/alarmist position, the other skeptic Ian Wishart, and they did a text-poll on who the viewers believed, came out 77 percent for the skeptic! Surprised Mark Sainsbury who swore on camera! Just shows that the general public are more intelligent than the media think we are! I wonder who is actually influencing the government and media in their alarmist views, could it be the banks, who stand to make a lot of money out of carbon-trading (while ripping-off you and me) and handling extra taxes. This part of the Herald article tells you why Politicians are reluctant to call the whole thing a Hoax. ;) "Estimates of the potential size of the US cap-and-trade market range from US$300 billion to US$2 trillion. Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although US carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall St has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with "carbon offsets" to sell to clients. JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare last year for an undisclosed sum. This month it paid US$210 million for EcoSecurities Group, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs." None of the above is Climate related, unless it's Economic Climate. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6