Jump to content
The Education Forum

the most authoritative atlas in the world=WRONG


Steven Gaal
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

if at first you dont succeed,lie,lie again .......

link http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

===========================================================

Al Gore lies about ClimateGate on CNN and MSNBC - "the most recent one(email) is like 10 years ago"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

if at first you dont succeed,lie,lie again .......

link http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

===========================================================

Al Gore lies about ClimateGate on CNN and MSNBC - "the most recent one(email) is like 10 years ago"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2011 not warmer.........

link http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/2011-nearly-a-degree-cooler-than-1999-in-the-us/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

if at first you dont succeed,lie,lie again .......

link http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

===========================================================

Al Gore lies about ClimateGate on CNN and MSNBC - "the most recent one(email) is like 10 years ago"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2011 not warmer.........

link http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/2011-nearly-a-degree-cooler-than-1999-in-the-us/

#############################################################

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvOOOOOOOOvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

NO NEED TO PANIC

link http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 scientists, only half of who seem to have experience in relevant fields, don't think we need to worry about climate change on the other hand thousands of climate scientists beg to differ.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVVVVVVVVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Scientific truth is not about the number who believe an idea. Case in point.

link http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html

===========================================================================

It is more than 16. Now 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,

including 9,029 with PhDs

link http://www.petitionproject.org/

=============================================================================

I wish all reading this post go here to this link below. I dont think its 'radical'

but reasonable as the link URL implies.

link http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/

=============================================================================

THIS JUST IN (world wide climate data)

link http://times247.com/articles/global-warming-trend-ended-in-1997-new-data-shows

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 scientists, only half of who seem to have experience in relevant fields, don't think we need to worry about climate change on the other hand thousands of climate scientists beg to differ.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVVVVVVVVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Scientific truth is not about the number who believe an idea. Case in point.

link http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html

LOL science deniers always cite Galileo because since the advent of the scientific method examples of when the vast majority of scientists in specific field were shown to be wrong by a group mostly made up non-experts are exceeding rare.

It is more than 16. Now 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,

including 9,029 with PhDs

link http://www.petitionproject.org/

Didn't you just say "Scientific truth is not about the number who believe an idea". The relevance of the signatory's expertise is important. According to them of their supporters "I) Atmospheric Science (112) - II) Climatology (39)" but this is essentially impossible to verify because they don't tell us who these scientists are and the list of signatories does not include any info other than their names, their areas of expertise, degrees, institutional affiliation and states (let alone cities) or residence are not listed. Basically one has to take their word for it.

=============================================================================

I wish all reading this post go here to this link below. I dont think its 'radical'

but reasonable as the link URL implies.

link http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/

No one says that global warming means that temperatures will constantly increase from one year to another.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv*

====================================================================*

No one says that global warming means that temperatures will constantly increase from one year to another. END Colby (but the article talks about a high 13 years ago in temp. A 13 year trend NOT ONE YEAR)

---------------------------------oooovvvvvvvvoooo---------------------------------

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100133247/children-just-arent-going-to-know-what-sun-is/

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

-------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

Children just aren't going to know what sun is

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 29th, 2012

ooooooooooooooooooooovvvvooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Enjoy it while it lasts

There's a great piece by David Rose in the Mail On Sunday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

nicely summing up what a lot of us here knew already: that the thing we really need to fear right now is not global warming but global cooling. And that, on current evidence, it's global cooling we're going to get.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Rose's piece comes hot on the heels of an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal ( see above link this THREAD wsj) signed by 16 distinguished scientists (proper ones: not "climate" "scientists") noting the continuing absence of ManBearPig:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

All true, of course. All very, very true. Which does rather invite the question: when's the scam going to end? When are all those "climate" "scientists" at institutions like the University of Easy Access finally going to eat crow?

Actually this question is entirely rhetorical since I already know the answer: when hell freezes over.

Consider, for example, the fate of Dr David Viner – the University of Easy Access climatologist responsible for the most-read-ever story in the Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

when, in 2000, he famously deployed his meteorological expertise to tell us:

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is."

And where did "Nostradamus" Viner go?

Well, for a time he was in charge of disseminating climate change propaganda at taxpayers' expense for the British Council.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231466/British-Council-gets-in-on-the-climate-act.html

More than £3.5 million has gone on recruiting a worldwide network of young "climate activists" in over 70 countries to engage in climate change propaganda – what Marxists used to call agitprop – and to pressure their politicians to join the worldwide struggle. Under a programme called Challenge Europe, £1.1 million has been paid out to fund young "climate advocates" in 17 countries across Europe, including Britain itself. But £2.5 million has been spent on a more ambitious project to recruit a global network of 100,000 activists in 60 countries across the world, led by 1,300 young "International Climate Champions", to participate in "international peer networks, both in person and online, to share ideas, projects and experiences".

Of this sum, £303,093.24 went to China; £71,262.91 to Brazil; £53,006.25 to Japan; £70,132.88 to India (including £11,000 to Dr Pachauri's Teri institute); £77,507.89 to oil-rich Qatar; and £50,000 to the US. There was £120,000 for a dozen different countries in Africa, including £14,000 to fund climate champions in starving Zimbabwe.

So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain's most discredited university department – the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA – made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called "climate change."

Viner is not the exception: he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.

#######################################################

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#######################################################

Related re ESTABLISHMENT Science

---------------------------------------Public release date: 18-Feb-2007

Contact: Dawn Levy

dawnlevy@stanford.edu

Stanford University

Tobacco companies obstructed science, history professor says

====================o===================o================

"Doubt is our product," stated a tobacco industry memo from 1969. For half a century, the tobacco industry tried to muddy the link between smoking and cancer. Now, with that effort long since failed, cigarette producers facing dozens of potentially ruinous lawsuits are once again attempting to manufacture doubt.

"The tobacco industry is now trying to win their cases by rewriting history, saying that everyone knew but no one had proof," said Robert N. Proctor, a professor of history at Stanford. "What they're saying is that everyone always knew it was bad for you. So if you started smoking in 1962 or 1972 and later got lung cancer, you have only yourself to blame."

Proctor will speak Feb. 18 during a symposium-"The Sociopolitical Manufacturing of Scientific Ignorance"-at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

Proctor claims that by the middle of the 1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking caused lung cancer. But the tobacco industry fought that finding, both in the public eye and within the scientific community. Tobacco companies funded skeptics, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even the keeping of birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation.

Drawing from his experiences as an expert witness in tobacco litigation cases, Proctor says that industry lawyers often claim that "government propaganda," such as warnings from the Surgeon General, was so overwhelming that the risks of smoking were universally known. But they excuse the industry's own counter-propaganda by arguing that the scientific community was unable to prove a link between smoking and lung cancer until relatively recently. If true, this lack of proof would absolve the tobacco companies of any blame for deaths caused by smoking and any charges of fraud for their campaign against the link between cancer and cigarettes.

"But if they were lying and if people actually believed their lies," Proctor said, "then the industry can be held liable because they were manufacturing a defective and fraudulent product."

Proctor has used poll results stretching back to the 1940s to show that in fact some people were ignorant of the risks. "Millions of people in the '60s, '70s and '80s didn't know that tobacco caused lung cancer or heart disease," Proctor said. "An increasing number knew, but not everyone knew. And not everyone knew because the industry was manufacturing doubt, fomenting ignorance. Industry executives created a climate of untruth that people bought into and died from."

Proctor also has delved into the phone logs and correspondence records of tobacco companies to look at what consumers were thinking. "Even in the 1970s and '80s, lots of people are writing letters to the industry saying, 'The government is brainwashing me into thinking tobacco is bad, whereas I have a grandmother who lived to be 82 and she smokes, and I've smoked for years and I'm still healthy."'

In an age when nearly everyone knows that smoking causes cancer, it might not seem important to study the ways the tobacco companies sowed doubt. But Big Tobacco's methods have since been exported to other industries. At the same symposium, University of California-San Diego history and science studies Professor Naomi Oreskes will discuss a similar topic in a talk titled "Confounding Science: The Tobacco Road to Global Warming," and journalist Paul Thacker will give a talk titled "Thank You for Polluting: How Campaigns to Create Scientific Confusion Kill Product Regulation."

How can tactics like these undermine the work of so many scientists? Proctor said: "There's a saying in the PR business that for every PhD there's an equal and opposite PhD. And if there's not one then you can create one through funding. And if you put a lot of money into manufacturing ignorance, it can actually work.

"We saw this in tobacco, and we've seen it in polluting industries and global warming," he added. "There are lots of people out there who'd rather have you not know what's really going on."

###

COMMENT:

Robert Proctor, History: (650) 723-0232, rproctor@stanford.edu

EDITORS NOTE:

Science-writing intern Rahul Kanakia wrote this release. A photo of Proctor is available on the web at http://newsphotos.stanford.edu/.

RELEVANT WEB URLS:

ROBERT N. PROCTOR HOMEPAGE

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/history/Faculty/proctor.html

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

http://aaas.org/

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE until Sunday, Feb. 18, at 1:15 p.m. Pacific Time

News Service website: http://www.stanford.edu/news/

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Shock: NYTimes Shuts Environmental Desk – Global Warming Meme Going Extinct?

Posted on January 14, 2013 by chris

NYTimes.jpgThe Daily Bell

It’s Death of Little Nell time again in the field of climate “science.” The New York Times – aka Pravda – has announced the closure of its Environment Desk. Rumours that the entire environment team, headed by Andy Revkin, have volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread on the lawn of the new billion dollar home Al Gore bought with the proceeds of his sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern oil interests are as yet unconfirmed. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: A tragedy of unparalleled proportions has befallen the environment. It is getting harder and harder to save the world …

Free-Market Analysis: The irascible and brilliant James Delingpole has just posted an article over at the UKTelegraph announcing the closure of the New York Times‘s environmental desk. Big news, indeed …

It is an article that lampoons its subject even while declaring victory. Delingpole, in fact, deserves this moment. A novelist and a determined opponent of the power elite‘s global warming propaganda, he has been at the forefront of mainstream debunkery of “warmist” nonsense.

Lately, with the advent of what we call the Internet Reformation, the predigested sophism of outlets such as the New York Times has become less and less appetizing. As fewer turn to the Times for news and information, the publication has languished, and so have its fiefdoms like the Boston Globe.

The continual struggle for money has taken its toll on the Times‘s resources. And now it has apparently resulted in the shutdown of a desk supporting one of the power elite’s key dominant social themes. Here’s how Delingpole puts it:

It’s very, very sad and that all over the Arctic baby polar bears are weeping bitter tears of regret. A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper’s commitment to environmental issues.

“We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter.”

Absolutely. It’s what newspapers always do when they’re committed to a particular field: close down the entire department responsible for covering it.

But it’s still not going to stop some mean-minded cynics sniping and casting aspersions, I’ll bet. Why, some of them will be pointing out the eerie coincidence with the Met Office recent tacit admission that “global warming” isn’t anywhere near what that their dodgy models predicted it would be.

And also with NASA‘s recent admission that solar variation has a much more significant on terrestrial climate than it has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge. If you didn’t know better, you’d almost get the impression that AGW theory has been so crushingly falsified that hard-headed newspaper executives, even ones at papers as painfully right-on as the New York Times, just aren’t prepared to fund its promulgation any more.

What this means for similarly overstaffed environment desks at other left-wing newspapers one can scarcely begin to imagine. Might it be that we never again read a piece by Leo Hickman entitled “How Do You Tell Your Five Year Old Son That His World Is About To Explode In A Blazing Fireball Because Of Man’s Selfishness And Greed And Refusal To Change His Lifestyle?”

Ah, we could continue to quote, but you’ll have to take a digital trek over to the Telegraph to read the rest. From our perspective, the news itself trumps even the cleverest of articles (and Delingpole is quite clever).

We don’t want to read too much into this closing, of course. The New York Times is a newspaper and shutting down whole news desks may or may not be a reflection of larger elite priorities.

In fact, we can’t see the top elites giving up on the global warming meme, as it is necessary to so many other promotions. It will generally be a good deal harder to take over the world if one cannot insist that people be subject to invasive inspections and rationing in order to combat a global warming-induced universal drought.

But speaking from a purely speculative standpoint, we’ve noticed that far more resources seem to be put into the so-called war on terror these days. The French, for instance, have just started a whole new war in Mali.

Is it possible that the elites have made a tactical decision to de-emphasize global warming while raising up the profile of the “war on terror”?

Whether or not this is the case, the ongoing demise of the global warming (climate change) meme is significant, from our perspective. As foremost promoters of the Internet Reformation – the idea that ‘Net-based technology is playing havoc with elite plans for global domination – this announcement by the Times further confirms our argument that the elites are not a monolithic entity pre-ordained to triumph.

Conclusion: The elites are a collection of (inbred) enormously wealthy human beings. They are not gods. They, too, stumble and fail. The spread of this new Reformation is making their lives a good deal more difficult, in our humble view. The ramifications, as we often point out, are immense.

http://thedailybell.com/28576/Shock-NYTimes-Shuts-Environmental-Desk–Global-Warming-Meme-Going-Extinct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

===============================

Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?

6996099564_4a01cd7609_m3.jpg

(Photo credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)

Well, we had a warm summer here in the United States, and that brought some of the climate change alarmists out again. Looks like it’s time for another rebuttal!

John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.” It is, but it’s more than that, it’s criminal.

Here are some of the scientific questions at the core of this issue:

Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.

Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.

It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.

Shifting gears, let’s assume that the alarmists are right and that man-made CO2 emissions are making the world warmer. If so, what changes would they hope to accomplish and at what cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious that Mr. Gaal posted an article from a conservative MSM outlet (Forbes) that takes a staunchly pro-corporate POV. Why should anyone be convinced by an article about a complex scientific issue written by an “Adjunct Professor of Economics” at a crappy college who got his advanced degrees from a diploma mill whose only cited sources were two TV weathermen with little or no scientific training? Especially when that article is contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of qualified scientists (as opposed to TV weathermen and hack economics professors)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...