Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED - » Forum Post by SivCorp

All these "scientists" get there grant money from who? the government.... hmmm....

Actually, a lot of scientists get their grants from universities and other private institutions.

No math needed, just some common sense.

You can say that again.....

This is funny indeed.

I don't think it's fair to judge whether or not global warming is true just because "some people" did a false report on it. Anyone could write anything on anything, so it's not safe to just take one source and say "Look, Global warming is False!!"

So if I were a scientist researching man-made global warming, and my job depended on it existing, and with intense pressure on it existing by my colleages, what am I going to say? "It doesn't exist"? No! I'd be out of a job and despised by my community.

It's no wonder so few scientists have stepped out.

And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.

Because only user edited sites can be biased. I'm sure neither side of this argument has any reason to lie.

Seriously, unless I have done the research myself, or personally know the people doing the research, I have no way of knowing whether it is accurate, done correctly, etc, etc. I think both sides are lying to us, they both have hidden (or not so hidden) motives for supporting whichever side they are on.

Like the oil and gas companies will ever actually admit that their products are killing the planet and that oil is running out. Or the "greenies" admit that most of them are just in it for the money. Both sides are going to lie to you, no matter what.

Torch bearer shall bring global warming, so spread the word!

Quoting synnworld,

reply 56

Torch bearer shall bring global warming, so spread the word!

What if he switches to ice form?

Quoting Melchiz,

reply 57

Quoting synnworld, reply 56Torch bearer shall bring global warming, so spread the word!

What if he switches to ice form?

Ever seen Ice age the movie?

And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.

Quoting Wikipedia is far better than quoting nothing at all.

So precisely what sources *are* unbiased?

Liberals will not accept Fox. Conservatives will not accept ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, BBC or CBC (I think sheer volume alone indicates which side is correct. When all the world is against you then the problem is more likely to be you than it is to be the rest of the world, but whatever, I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble).

Or how about conservative anti-AGW "think tanks" like the following.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Citizens for a Sound Economy

Heartland Institute

George C. Marshall Institute

Citizens for a Sound Economy

None of these groups nor any "scientist" associated with them is acceptable to anyone pro-AGW because all of them have demonstrated oil company sponsorship. Interestingly enough the first three also have significant tobacco funding as well.

However this funding information comes from SourceWatch, which because this information impacts these conservative think tanks negatively, will automatically be excluded by anyone anti-AGW.

Then you have sites like RealClimate that I referenced earlier in the thread. This is a blog site but unlike most other blog sites it's members are "real" climate scientists. But while this is a great site for the pro-AGW crowd the anti-AGW crowd won't accept this either.

Then there's a whole raft of sites like the following.

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Global Change Research Program

United States National Research Council

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

International Arctic Science Committee

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

World Meteorological Organization

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

European Science Foundation

European Federation of Geologists

Network of African Science Academies

Plus the 32 national science academies of the following nations: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

This list is literally endless (I could have quoted literally hundreds) and I even haven't begun to list all the university sites in this category. However since *all* of these sites agree with the scientific consensus and support AGW, they are acceptable to anyone pro-AGW, but are automatically biased according to anyone anti-AGW.

Heck even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists cannot deny the validity of AGW even though they do not support the "maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

So what's left as an acceptable source of information? The answer is *nothing*. Most reasonable people would assume that the list of governmental and scientific agencies would be perfectly acceptable. But not to the anti-AGW crowd. That's why they're called *deniers*.

The bottom line is that quoting sources is *always* a good thing. This allows someone that disagrees with you to verify your source and *if* they feel it's biased then they're perfectly able to google someones sources to actually *prove*, or at the very least backup, their claim of bias. Without sources all you have is a bunch of folks spouting whatever they feel like off the top of their heads with no proof whatsoever. Even a bad source is better than no source at all.

So prove that you've at least taken the minimal effort to back up your claims and quote a source. You still may be shot down but at least you won't look like a total idiot in the process. Anyone can be misled by an inaccurate source, only a fool spouts bullshit that is easily proven wrong.

Thank you.

Global warming is false because it's false. All the information is readily available, the scientists propping it up have been giving away the clues since they started.

They determined temperatures going back the last few hundred years by looking at tree rings, but the tree rings don't show the same increase as the ground stations, so they ignore them. The satellites don't show the increase either, so they decide they're wrong and altered the data. Even the ground stations have stopped showing an increase, which makes sense as the conditions they're in can't get much worse now, so they say the cooling period is natural and they just can't explain it yet. It can't possibly be because the Sun cooled off, because that would mean the Sun was the cause of the heat wave to begin with. The Sun just went through a hot phase too, this is known scientific fact. The other planets in the solar system have been heating up with us, this is also known scientific fact.

Exxon Mobile doesn't need to tell me the obvious. 70% of the monitoring stations in the US are several degrees higher than the actual temperature because of localized heat sources, improper maintenance, and a change in design. You're going to be showing a rapid increase in temperature over the last few decades as they've been urbanized and neglected. When you then ignore or alter all conflicting information to fit that known to be innaccurate source, you cease to be anything resembling a scientist. Even the ones that are being properly maintained are still a few degrees higher than the readings from the sixties and seventies. That those evil skeptics are the only ones that bothered to test the effect of switching from white wash to the latex paint they use now just shows how incompetent they are.

They aren't even scientists, they're just quacks. The real scientists have already ditched this hair brained theory if they were ever ignorant enough to hop onto the wagon to begin with. You can verify the avian speciation of the global warming alarmists yourselves just sticking to their own information they've put out disproving themselves since day one.

Edit: Here Mumbles, have some source with my bullshit. Yeah, I linked the EPA. Stevenson screens were changed over to latex paint(roughly two degree increase in temperature readings over white wash) in the late 70's. Gee, does that match up with the sudden bump in readings?

Quoting psychoak,

reply 60

Global warming is false because it's false. All the information is readily available, the scientists propping it up have been giving away the clues since they started.

They determined temperatures going back the last few hundred years by looking at tree rings, but the tree rings don't show the same increase as the ground stations, so they ignore them. The satellites don't show the increase either, so they decide they're wrong and altered the data. Even the ground stations have stopped showing an increase, which makes sense as the conditions they're in can't get much worse now, so they say the cooling period is natural and they just can't explain it yet. It can't possibly be because the Sun cooled off, because that would mean the Sun was the cause of the heat wave to begin with. The Sun just went through a hot phase too, this is known scientific fact. The other planets in the solar system have been heating up with us, this is also known scientific fact.

Exxon Mobile doesn't need to tell me the obvious. 70% of the monitoring stations in the US are several degrees higher than the actual temperature because of localized heat sources, improper maintenance, and a change in design. You're going to be showing a rapid increase in temperature over the last few decades as they've been urbanized and neglected. When you then ignore or alter all conflicting information to fit that known to be innaccurate source, you cease to be anything resembling a scientist. Even the ones that are being properly maintained are still a few degrees higher than the readings from the sixties and seventies. That those evil skeptics are the only ones that bothered to test the effect of switching from white wash to the latex paint they use now just shows how incompetent they are.

They aren't even scientists, they're just quacks. The real scientists have already ditched this hair brained theory if they were ever ignorant enough to hop onto the wagon to begin with. You can verify the avian speciation of the global warming alarmists yourselves just sticking to their own information they've put out disproving themselves since day one.

That one phrase made your whole argument lose credibility.

It's not an argument, it's already been proven. Debate class is nice, but arguing that water is wet doesn't excite me these days. Making fun of morons that wont pay attention is fun though.

There is no alarming rise in temperatures, there probably isn't even as much of a rise this century as there was in the last. Your being wrong doesn't really bother me. I assume people are idiots unless they prove otherwise. That you can't bother to verify the validity of something is your problem, all it means for me is I just get to laugh at you in particular.

Here Mumbles, have some source with my bullshit.

Thanks. Too bad your source and your bullshit don't agree.

Clicking on your "source" takes you to the following article, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html where the following conclusions among others are made based on this data.

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.

As usual you actually supply nothing and prove even less. Show me some source of the change in paint and the correlation to temperature increase. Also explain how that affects temperature readings from ships. Also prove that even if there was a change in land station paint it wasn't corrected for in the data itself. Plus even if all of this is true then explain the continued upward trend well beyond the time you say the paint was changed.

As synnworld mentioned your first statement is the only statement that is accurate and is only accurate as an example of your blind belief.

But don't worry I will google your claim for you and I will in fact post reasoned and scientific response to your irresponsible claims in a later reply.

Quoting psychoak,

reply 62

It's not an argument, it's already been proven. Debate class is nice, but arguing that water is wet doesn't excite me these days. Making fun of morons that wont pay attention is fun though.

There is no alarming rise in temperatures, there probably isn't even as much of a rise this century as there was in the last. Your being wrong doesn't really bother me. I assume people are idiots unless they prove otherwise. That you can't bother to verify the validity of something is your problem, all it means for me is I just get to laugh at you in particular.

Me being wrong? You call me the moron yet you attack me when I have yet to even to show which sime I am even on. Right now you are the moron for trying to call me out for something I have yet to even say.

Quoting Mumblefratz,

reply 59

And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.Quoting Wikipedia is far better than quoting nothing at all.
So precisely what sources *are* unbiased?

----

The bottom line is that quoting sources is *always* a good thing. This allows someone that disagrees with you to verify your source and *if* they feel it's biased then they're perfectly able to google someones sources to actually *prove*, or at the very least backup, their claim of bias. Without sources all you have is a bunch of folks spouting whatever they feel like off the top of their heads with no proof whatsoever. Even a bad source is better than no source at all.

Point very well stated. Those are the sources I want you to cite, Mumble. Too many people hide behind user edited sites and don't give me the source of the information. I would like to see the sources of people's opinions, to get the truth.

This is a fact finding mission, and so far there are still some serious doubts on man made global warming.

I still have a problem with science not being able to predict the weather for next month, but want to tell me that a decimal change will destroy the world, humans caused it, and Co2/carbon is the cause.

Co2 is plant food, you know right? And we are CARBON based life forms.... are footprints are carbon.

I feel like science is just throwing out numbers and charts to appease political plans. Science seems to be getting shafted.

And here is a link to some other interesting articles from the past....

anti-global warming scientists (+250)

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/

global warming "consensus?" - they were outnumbered from the beginning.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

So why are we not surprised that the IPCC has been fabricating evidence? I'm not. The pants are down, the king is naked.

all it means for me is I just get to laugh at you in particular.

Laugh all you wish. There are far more laughing *at* you than laughing *with* you. Not that you probably care and not that I care but your every sentence shows your motivation to be a desire to troll instead of a rational desire to have a useful and productive discussion. You deserve more pity than derision.

Quoting Mumblefratz,

reply 66

You deserve more pity than derision.

This sums up my feelings regarding that statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbS0Nh63zl8

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/

Note that my reply #59 documented the fact that the Heritage Institute is supported by both ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and Phillip Morris.

Individual scientists mean *nothing* when *no* "scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

Just check out how many members the 47 national and international organizations that I listed in reply #59 contain. Far more than 250. And like I said that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not familiar with the Heritage Institute list but I am familiar with a list of 400 "scientists" put out by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-ExxonMobil) which someone actually bothered to chase down and categorize.

Check out http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101.

The quick summary of the article is that:

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired

44 are television weathermen

20 are economists

70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

And while this is a blog and therefore of suspect bias, the article contains many links on each of these numbers that documents each claim with links to corroborating evidence. Please take the effort to click on the secondary links which you may find to be of a more unbiased nature.

Quoting Mumblefratz,

reply 63

Too bad your source and your bullshit don't agree.

I couldn't have said it better myself... to you.

Look here.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf

Look at this biased graph. Then compare it to the raw data graph. It shows that the vast majority of the past temps were REDUCED to show a warming trend. The raw data shows CYCLES. There is a cycle to the Earth's temps... duh.

This world works in cycles, and the weather and temps are also tied to it. Other planets influence it as well. Lunar cycles adjust the ocean levels, what about the largest planet out there in our system? Maybe there is more variables in this equation than we all think...

PS. I do not mean any disrespect to any of you... so don't take anything I say personally... I just can't stand liers getting away with it.

Saying that the global temperature has decreased over the past 10 years and therefore global warming is a hoax is utterly meaningless. Its the long term trend that counts.

Those people who say mad-made climate change is a hoax are almost always journalists and politicians. I've never heard of a climate scientist who said that this is a hoax.

I can't possibly believe that we can pump countless tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and expect no environmental effects. Coral bleaching is a major environmental problem and it only occurs due to abnormally high water temperatures.

The argument that only the sun can influence climate is idiotic. When the Moon rotates around the Earth so that is a very similiar distance to the Sun (first/last quarter), does the Moon have a very similiar surface temperature to the Earth? No, of course not. The Moon has no atmosphere with which to trap heat, and some gases are better at it then others.

Just because scientists may not fully understand the effects this does not meant that there is no risk. It is ignorant and irresponsible to say "we are pumping countless tons of gas into the atmosphere. Scientists warn us, but they are not entirely sure what will happen, therefore there is no risk and we do not need to change our ways."

Quoting SivCorp,

reply 65

Quoting Mumblefratz, reply 59
And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.Quoting Wikipedia is far better than quoting nothing at all.
So precisely what sources *are* unbiased?

----

The bottom line is that quoting sources is *always* a good thing. This allows someone that disagrees with you to verify your source and *if* they feel it's biased then they're perfectly able to google someones sources to actually *prove*, or at the very least backup, their claim of bias. Without sources all you have is a bunch of folks spouting whatever they feel like off the top of their heads with no proof whatsoever. Even a bad source is better than no source at all.

Point very well stated. Those are the sources I want you to cite, Mumble. Too many people hide behind user edited sites and don't give me the source of the information. I would like to see the sources of people's opinions, to get the truth.

This is a fact finding mission, and so far there are still some serious doubts on man made global warming.

I still have a problem with science not being able to predict the weather for next month, but want to tell me that a decimal change will destroy the world, humans caused it, and Co2/carbon is the cause.

Co2 is plant food, you know right? And we are CARBON based life forms.... are footprints are carbon.

I feel like science is just throwing out numbers and charts to appease political plans. Science seems to be getting shafted.

And here is a link to some other interesting articles from the past....

anti-global warming scientists (+250)

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/

global warming "consensus?" - they were outnumbered from the beginning.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

So why are we not surprised that the IPCC has been fabricating evidence? I'm not. The pants are down, the king is naked.

The thing about wikipedia is, at the very bottom of the page it has these things called references, go to them and check them out, and if they hold true information or meaning than they could be used instead of wikipedia.

Edit

The think about the internet is anyone can get on here and create any kind of website about anything so it is not just wiki you need to worry about.

Funny that all these scientists blame humans for global warming..but who the hell is causing Mars, Jupiter even Pluto to warm up?

Its not just Earth thats rising in temperature..its the whole solar system.

The reason whats going on outside our planet is being ignored is for the kindof money Green projects are generating. Clearing trees to erect windturbines and so on.

I didnt read the article. I read about that being released but really I cant trust either side. On one hand you have people who convince others their theories (remember science class a theory is only an idea, it hasnt been proven) are fact. On the other you have biased hackers purposely ripping these files from the so called scientists. Neither side is being upfront and honest about the situation. Its up to us as individuals to take a good hard look at everything.

We were still coming out of an ice age just a few decades ago. Go figure the opposite of an Ice Age is a Hot Age.

Its already been stated by scientists studying the sun that its in a warm cycle where its heat output is in flux.

As well scientists studying the solar system has confirmed that the entire solar system as a whole is warming. Mars is a few degrees warmer. Jupiter has lost a number of cloudrings and one of its Hurricanes. Pluto, which is farther away then ever is actually more dense now then 10 years ago. When it should be less dense.

Take a look at Miami, Florida. It literally sits at sea level. Yet its not losing ground to the ocean aside from the usual erosion. They say the north pole wont be covered in ice anymore in a short amount of time, yet places that are obviously at the mercy of rising sea levels are still there and arent being overrun with water. Where is all that melted ice going surely not land that is subject to the oceans wrath.

I believe humans have played a part in warming the Earth. But I dont believe its as severe as weve been told. Its been exaggerated for the sake of stopping us while were a head. As well for those looking to find a new fuel source to monopulize. I dont believe theres this great conspiracy, but like everything else. Things get twisted and manipulated to the point that once it trickles down to the masses. Its not what it once was. And individuals smart enough to see an oppurtunity are seizing it.

GUYS!!! For pete's sake, didn't your fathers ever teach you the golden rule?!

You can't argue with an idiot.

Quoting Allegiance86,

reply 72

Funny that all these scientists blame humans for global warming..but who the hell is causing Mars, Jupiter even Pluto to warm up?

Martians and Atlantians

Quoting anteachtaire,

reply 73

GUYS!!! For pete's sake, didn't your fathers ever teach you the golden rule?!

You can't argue with an idiot.

good bye mr idiot. just messing with ya

Funny how its the scientists that have gotten it right in the past who were ignored by the scientific community. But in todays society. The Scientific community is still ignoring individual scientists, calling them quacks and sell outs because their OPINION (thats right if you dont REALLY know whats going on, its not a FACT, its an opinion) differs from the majority. Sucks the Scientific community as a whole has a real shotty history. And just because its 2009 doesnt mean their right any more then they were right in the past when challenged by individuals.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...