Happening's

Loading...
Loading...

Monday, January 28, 2013

Man made global warming and lies



Well, now that The Won has rewon control he is showing his true statist, elitist, Marxist and collectives colors... And, of course so-called man made global warming, which offers an excellent way to destroy the economy, which is Obama's goal, is at the top of the list.

And we hear more and more of carbon trading and "revenue neutral." Which are just two words describing something that is pure bull shit. But, something that our more ignorant populace will but into. But, being forever the optimist, I thought I would post some notes to "John," a mythical yet very real member of the low information voter population that elected Obama.

John,  tell us more about this "revenue neutral" thing. Do you mean the government takes money from us and gives it to someone else? Why yes. That's what you mean.

You are being played for a fool and that's a shame. But you don't have to let it happen.

Educate yourself.

"The physics of how carbon dioxide traps infra-red radiation is well known[6]. But there are other molecules in the atmosphere that also trap infra-red radiation. Water vapour is the predominant “greenhouse gas”[7]. What is not so clear is the extent to which the trapping of energy causes heating. There are wonderful mathematical models that claim to show how heating occurs.

Unfortunately, all the models suffer from identifiable flaws, a point considered later."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/a-climate-of-scepticism/#more-77781

Read the article. And consider this. Models are statistical COMPUTER programs and they are based on data. The question is, is the data accurate or does GIGO apply? (Garbage In Garbage Out) And even worse, data can be changed to get a desired result. 

And when asked for the data.

"I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

'I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission:'

Here is what the CRU wrote:

"We are not in a position to supply data for.....we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data".

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html

Think about that, John.  England's prestigious East Anglia University and home of the Climate Research Unit which is a huge proponent of alarmist man made global warming (MMGW) admits they don't have the original data, just the DATA THEY HAVE CHANGED.

John, remember the old joke? Trust me? I'll respect you in the morning...The check's in the mail.... And speaking of money...

"Whether the billions of promised aid dollars will really materialize is another matter. But a lot of people have already gotten rich – including Al Gore, hundreds of climate scientists, and thousands of environmental activists and government bureaucrats – and others are trying to cash in.
"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/#more-77696

And to be more specific let's look at Mann. You know, the guy who developed the "hockey stick" graph. The one that left out the Medieval Warming period and is now discredited...

"Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm."


http://florida.mediatrackers.org/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee/

Yeah, John. That's $10K of TAXPAYER money. You know. Money that could go on education...

But let's return to the issue of, can we trust the people who are pushing this? First, let's go back a few years and see what was being said:

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989).

http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

Look, John that is just a plain and simple justification for lying to the public. You can't make it out to be anything else. Tell me, do you like to be lied to?

Now let's skip forward and see what Dr. Phil Jones, of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit... Remember them? You know, the ones who didn't save the original data, just the CHANGED data?.... wrote in an email. An email, by the way, that he thought would remain private. So he was writing what he believed to a friend.

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

Now that's true, but that was 2005 and the change has continued. Let's look at some more Jones' emails.

"As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers Phil"

http://www.di2.nu/foia/1120593115.txt

What? "see climate change happen?" John, Jones' just admitted IT HASN'T HAPPENED. (Remember, he's speaking of MMGW, not the natural change that has been happening for millions of years.)

So there you go, John. Study. Think. And try and disconnect "environment" from "climate change." We can have a clean environment without destroying our economy by tripling the cost of the energy that runs our world.



"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine

12 comments:

  1. Turns out the only thing that's been "debunked" numerous times are the deniers' false claims about Mann and the East Anglia emails. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/11/climate-change-e-mails-and-copenhagen/ In fact, EIGHT independent investigations have found not one bit of evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct, and at least eight reconstructions have validated Mann's "hockeystick" findings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jones wrote what he wrote and the 2005 result he was to scared to publish has now extended into 2012.....

    As for Mann....

    "Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction."

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    I will say one thing for the alarmists.... They would make great evangelists because they show a remarkable ability to believe in something based on faith only and to command a following.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jones did write what he wrote, just not what you think he meant by what he wrote.

      Steve McIntyre is a mining executive, not a climatologist. His "study" was destroyed by two subsequent studies by Huybers (2005) and Wahl & Ammann (2007) which pointed out the numerous errors in his methodology. Even more importantly, 14 subsequent studies have replicated and confirmed the findings of Mann's "hockeystick" study - if you don't believe it, the citations are in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

      Those who acknowledge MMGW are not acting on faith - they're acknowledging the scientific studies and data. There are a very few scientific studies that express doubt re: MMGW - 24 of them over the past two decades to be precise. Of course, that compares to 13,950 that support MMGW. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

      Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.

      Delete
    2. Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee... Jones didn't mean what he wrote???

      lol

      "I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences."

      Tell me. If it had happened... Why would he say he would "like to see the climate change happen..."

      Posture, BS, do all the typical Leftie things you want but that fact will not go away. And it can't be explained away.

      Jones thought he was writing in private so he was writing his heart. Well, the site was hijacked and the truth emerged. Of course the alarmists have worked overtime denying but it doesn't work.

      As for science... Show me how it meets the requirements for being called a scientific theory....

      "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]"

      I especially like this...

      The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena.

      Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time."

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

      lol at U!

      Delete
    3. Seriously? He said he would like to "see it happen" because he was discussing the future warming that is predicted by the climatologists' models, continuing the warming trend that's already occurred. He also didn't mean that he literally would "like" to see the devastating effects that will coincide with the warming, but rather that he would enjoy watching the deniers be proven wrong - for the upteenth time.

      Too easy.

      Delete
    4. Problem is this. He was also comnplaining that the warming wasn't working the way it was supposed to.

      "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant..........I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish"

      Easy?? Yes very easy.

      BTW - I see you can't show me how all of this conforms to the requirements to be a scientific theory.


      Delete
    5. Yes, easy. Phil Jones was discussing temperature trends over more than 1,000 years. His statement that the tiny 7 year decline is "statistically insignificant" is self-explanatory. Well, to anyone with a basic understanding of English.

      Delete
    6. But the 7 years has now reached 16 years...

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html#ixzz2ID3TspDC

      At what point will you recognize that the trend is flat???

      And yes, he was writing about climate change...and noting that it had cooled for 7 yeats and then moaning that it hadn't happened but he wish it would.

      You see, it can't be hidden. It is simple plain English and all of the personal attacks and insults by you won't change the facts.

      And you know that to be true.

      And you keep on ignoring the fact that none of the claims meet the requirements of a scientific theory.

      It is just a theory strung together with questionable data and very questionable actions... as Schnieder said:

      "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."

      Delete
    7. Your lies and distortions about Schneider's statements have been clearly explained before, yet you persist in lying. What does that make you?

      More importantly, the Met office itself pointed out that Rose's claims in his newspaper opinion piece were false. To make a moderate-length explanation easy/short enough for even you to understand, global warming has not stopped:

      1. Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.

      2. The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these 'hiatus decades' are entirely expected.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

      Finally, Popper is not the one who gets to determine the elements of what constitutes a "scientific theory". AGW is recognized by scientists all over the world as a valid scientific theory, and it's elements have been proven - even the "falsifiable/repeatable" elements - see the most recent water vapor study.

      If you were playing a game and the score was 13,950 to 24, you deniers would still have trouble figuring out when the game was over.

      Delete
    8. I weary of dealing with assholes. Especially stupid ones.
      Anon: Your lies and distortions about Schneider's statements have been clearly explained before, yet you persist in lying. What does that make you?
      Reply – It makes me someone who QUOTED what Schneider’s comments. Your comment makes you stupid.

      Anon: More importantly, the Met office itself pointed out that Rose's claims in his newspaper opinion piece were false. To make a moderate-length explanation easy/short enough for even you to understand, global warming has not stopped:
      Reply – Please try to keep up. The Met issued new studies on 12/24/12. (Try reading for a change)

      Anon: 1. Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.

      2. The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these 'hiatus decades' are entirely expected.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong
      Reply – The rate has not slowed. It has stopped for 16 years. Let me know when it starts again.

      Anon: Finally, Popper is not the one who gets to determine the elements of what constitutes a "scientific theory". AGW is recognized by scientists all over the world as a valid scientific theory, and it's elements have been proven - even the "falsifiable/repeatable" elements - see the most recent water vapor study.

      If you were playing a game and the score was 13,950 to 24, you deniers would still have trouble figuring out when the game was over.
      Reply - Differences between theory and model
      “Main article: conceptual model
      Several commentators[32] have stated that the distinguishing characteristic of theories is that they are explanatory as well as descriptive, while models are only descriptive (although still predictive in a more limited sense). Philosopher Stephen Pepper also distinguished between theories and models, and said in 1948 that general models and theories are predicated on a "root" metaphor that constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses.
      Engineering practice makes a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models."

      MMGW has no explanation. It just tries to describe variations and changes in climate.

      You know, “Stupid is as stupid does” does describe you.

      Delete
  3. Someone who can't spell, or fathom the meaning of the word "collectivist" should maybe try to keep his critical faculty on a shorter leash..

    You realize of course that you're venturing into John Birch, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" land when you state that the motivation of those who give credence to the human influence on climate change is to "destroy the U.S economy"..

    Is this more talk radio hyperbole, or do you really believe that there's some sort of secret, militant, environmental-cabal of worldwide influence out to harm the U.S at all costs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I realize is that you are either too stupid to understand my meaning or else just want to snark… Maybe both since Collectivist leads to“the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production” and “collectivist left-winger, leftist, collectivised, collectivistic, collectivized”

      Which defines you and Obama quite well, don’t cha know??

      And you err in thinking that this is a grand conspiracy. Which, of course, it is not. It is merely the common goal of Obama and his minions along with the radical environmentalists to destroy the economy. Obama because he wants the US to be punished for, in his eyes, our past sins. The environmentalists for the damage we are doing to “Mother Earth.” Politics do make strange bed fellows. They work together just as al Qaeda and Hamas work together from time to time to expand their mutal interests.

      So you see, your claim is laughable and totally rejected. That you choose to use such an outdated claim shows that you are either new to the ranks of the Left or totally out of touch.

      Anyway, thanks for showing us another dumb Leftie. But could you please try and refute what I wrote rather than your tepid personal attack?? The day is closing and I am bored….

      Delete