The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Nadda]

This tax is utter bull... We all know it. The problem is that where there is a buck to be made these days you will find the profiteers. It happens everywhere. Even on this forum..

I agree. And whats worse is the fact that our own government knows we dont need fossil fuels. They act like they are trying to help the planet by taxing everything when the TRUTH is that they can end fossil fuels any day of the week! For people who believe climate change is being caused by humans, why dont you take some time and demand that your government stop hiding they're technological advances or turning them into weapons.

People all over the world see craft flying around as pure light, while we still drive our gasoline cars on blacktop and concrete. Yeah im sure obama really wants the world to go green.

I pretty much agree with jibbguy on this topic. We know the climate has always changed. I know its changing now and I know burning fossil fuels isnt helping anything... but to try and Tax pollution is ignorant. Our world governments have spent trillions in technological R&D over decades of time. If you are someone who doesnt believe they have energy sources far more efficient and feasible than gasoline, you really need to wake up.

RedRightHand, you sound alot like somebody else in this topic..Funny you signed up the same day he was banned. you still havent learned to use the quote button.

[Aaron]

@Red

I read the entire article from the BBC on Dr Phil Jones, hoping to find some evidence that this Climate Change thing is a hoax. But he clearly thinks Climate Change is real.

I will just clarify where I think you might of misunderstood what he was saying:

You have taken one sentence here and blown it out of proportion.

Dr Phil states:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

1. He is only talking about 1995-2009, he clearly states that if you look at any other time period there is a significant amount of warming going on.
2. We are also debating the difference between 0.012 and 0.015 here, I think this is very insignificant.
3. When Dr Phil talks about longer periods, he is talking about looking at a bigger time frame then 13 years. Not into the future as you have speculated.
Basically, he is saying you can take some short time periods and see a cooling trend - but if you look at the big picture you always see a warming trend.
4. You appear to be making this man out to be a fool, when he is obviously not. Comparing his work to Aliens and such.
5. You speculate his work is only his opinion when he clearly shows his data for his 5 years of research.
6. But most of all you say he doesn't believe in Climate Change, which is absurd, he spends 1000's of words in this article very carefully explaining his view that Climate Change is real.


I do believe you have mis-represented Dr Phils findings in your post.
We should try to find evidence without having to misrepresenting people and taking their words out of context.


Also, Something to think about:
"Decomposing biomass all around the world including other sources of co2 completely dwarfs what we're
contributing."
How can you say that part of the biomass decomposing isn't from human impact?
I would say a lot of the decomposing biomass around the world is directly caused by human impact!


Just my 2 cents...

Once again, please don't ban me, I just think you may of misunderstood what Dr Phil Jones was saying.


Yours Sincerely,

Red

Hi Red,

I read the entire article too and I think you have misunderstood much of
what I said.

First of all, I never said he admitted it was a hoax. It is VERY clear he
believes in AGW but still had to admit that there was NO scientifically
significant data to back his belief. It is a fact that he believes it and it
is a fact he had to admit there is no scientifically significant data to
show the global warming.

So, I didn't "blow it out of proportion" - you are taking what I said out
of context.

In regards to the longer time frame, it is his OPINION since any references
to this long term trend of warming is completely debatable and is in the
eye of the beholder. He cannot speak of them as facts.

If you think I'm comparing his work to aliens 'and such', then you are not
even comprehending anything I'm saying. First of all on an unrelated topic,
it is my opinion there is an infinite more amount of evidence to back a
belief in aliens than man made co2 caused global warming. But, that is
besides the point - as in - the alien mention has NOTHING at all to do
with any point I'm trying to make. I'M THE ONE, that I mentioned has a
belief in higher life forms. Not sure how you could miss anything seeing that
you are trying so closely to analyze and comprehending what Jones is
saying - yet you completely miss the mark on multiple levels on anything
that I said.

The POINT that I was making is that anyone can say what they believe
will show in a longer time (future) and if he wasn't talking about the future,
then that is my mistake. In any case, this has nothing to do with making
him look like a fool.

Throughout all the global warming hacker files episodes, HE ALREADY
DID THAT FOR HIMSELF and proved conclusively that he and his associates
have deceived people, instructed people to not give out info from foia
requests, that data was manipulated (trick), you name it... I cannot see
that his man has any credibility as a scientist let alone any credibility
as an honest human being in any caliber.

All the pro agw'ers will claim all those emails were taken out of context
but if you want to look at the big picture, honestly, you will see that
all their data was cherry picked. In Russia or Siberia, only data from the
warmest stations were ever included and the coldest ones were discarded
and the list goes on and on and on.

And for you to say most of all I'm saying he doesn't believe in climate
change is so far off the mark that I find it unbelievable and I find it
interesting that you have 2 posts to follow up right where AC left off.

So, if you want to talk about absurd, go read my initial post and then
go back and read your response to it and tell me how anyone can get
what you got out of it.

If you're being honest, that is fine, I would recommend that you read
someone's post more than once before responding to it in order to actually
comprehend what you're responding to and if you're simply sitting in for
AC or for some other reason find a need to take everything I say, spin
it to make it look like I'm talking about something "absurd", you really need
to take it elsewhere.

So again, don't preach to me when YOU are the one that took my words
completely out of context, please and go do the research on biomass
and you will see that organic decay - NATURAL ORGANIC DECAY - all
around the world through all the forests and you will see that you are
giving me your OPINION and you have never even researched it.

Your comprehension is still off:

"How can you say that part of the biomass decomposing isn't from human impact?"

That is what you said - I said natural biomass DWARFS human's
contribution and it DOES. DRAWFing something means humans do have
a contribution but NOT AS MUCH as what is naturally occurring.

So again, for you to claim I'm saying that no biomass comes from humans
is ABSURD.

You really need to learn how to comprehend what you are reading and
read it in the proper context or simply don't post in this thread as you
are here to insult me with your own absurdities of not reading anything
I said in the proper context.

[RedRightHand]

Dear Nadda,
I was waiting for that! I honestly thought I would just get banned straight away! But I did take the time to read the entire thread over a few days and I thought I might throw in my 2 cents.

Dear Aaron,
Thank you for clarifying your post, maybe it was just me, but when I read your post that's what I took from it. So I do really appreciate you clarifying your argument points for me. You didn't have to, but you did, and I appreciate that!

Could you also clarify these point in your last post:

1. In your first paragraph you once again extrapolate the data from the period from 1995-2009 and Dr Phil Jones statement, that this warming period was very mild and not scientifically significant.
You take this small amount of data and then use it to say
"it is a fact he had to admit there is no scientifically significant data to
show the global warming."
I think my objection is, you need to say "There is no scientifically significant data to show global warming, when looking at the time period of 1995-2009."
I personally think leaving out that last bit, is quite misleading, but just my opinion!
The reason been is, if you look at the periods of 1975-1998 or 1975-2009 you DO see scientifically significant data that proves global warming.

2."In regards to the longer time frame, it is his OPINION since any references
to this long term trend of warming is completely debatable and is in the
eye of the beholder. He cannot speak of them as facts."

Honest questions by me:
Why is it only his OPINION? and not the CONCLUSION of the 600 people doing the research?
Why is the longer period between 1975-2009 debatable? But the period contained within (1995-2009) not debatable?

3. My objection with your statement here:
"natural biomass DWARFS human's contribution"
Is this, the natural biomass is part of a delicate cycle, this cycle also recycles that same CO2 back into the ground. The human contribution of CO2 is not been recycled. Thus the two can not be compared.
Here's a graph explaining further: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

I am not attacking here, I am just trying to get my head around your posts.
I think it is always good, to know where the other person is coming from, so you can better understand what they are trying to say...

My story is this:

I am a greenie, love my nature and am quite saddened to see so much of it disappearing.
I also believe in higher life forms, and I do have questions about Climate Change. I wouldn't say I don't believe in AGW, but I don't take the official story without a good dash of salt!

I am here because my friends are always talking about AGW, I am not 100% convinced, so I would like to debate them on the topic. The problem is I am struggling to find credible info against AGW - hence why I am here!
You guys are obviously opposed to AGW, so I really want to study the evidence that made you so sure...

With the carbon tax, well I am a fence sitter, I think we should only TAX corporations, not people. We should call it a pollution tax not CO2 tax. I believe if some big company wants to make profit by dumping their pollution into our ecosystems, they should have to pay a price, if only to make them reduce the amount of pollution by using greener tech. People should not be taxed for just living there lives.

We are going to pay either as a consumer or by GOV taxes to stop pollution - whether we like it or not! I think we should just adopt the fastest method and get on with it!

Even when you do the right thing, it always costs more money.

E.g. In my country the Gov pays 1/2 of your solar setup, so lots of people now have solar. These people don't pay as much to the electric company anymore, so the electric companies revenue is declining - but there expenses and the same (can't shut down power stations, not connected). So what happens the price of electricity goes UP, when the demand is decreasing, and everyone looses and pays more.
Moral of the story - The Government still did the right thing!

Sincerely,
Red

[Aaron]

@Red

Red,

Post your real name and a pic so I know I'm not wasting my time with AC.
I'm not interested in these anonymous debates with people that have no
confidence to stand up as who they really are.

Otherwise, I can just move your posts to a pro AGW thread since you
seem to hold Jones' opinions in such high esteem.

[RedRightHand]

Details sent via email

Red,

Post your real name and a pic so I know I'm not wasting my time with AC.
I'm not interested in these anonymous debates with people that have no
confidence to stand up as who they really are.

Otherwise, I can just move your posts to a pro AGW thread since you
seem to hold Jones' opinions in such high esteem.

I sent this email to you through


Dear Aaron,

I do not want to post my details on a google indexed page for obvious reasons.

My real name is <blank>, and I have attached a picture to this email.

I ask you to respect my privacy and not publish my name or picture on this forum EVER!
Surely somewhere in your privacy statement it says you can't do this....maybe I am wrong?

This is a bit silly don't you think, I posted on a public forum.
If you don't want to answer my questions, just tell me and I won't ask anymore.

Sincerely,

<blank>

[Aaron]

@Red

Thanks for the email, but there is no way of knowing that is you or not.
Don't take my request the wrong way. When a trouble maker has nothing
better to do than to start 4-5 new accounts sequentially after being
removed, then it gets suspicious.

Personally, I will not address 1 or 2 - quite simply because you ask them
based on the assumption that their data is correct and my past post
already told you the data was cherry picked, manipulated, etc...
In other words, you're coming from a conclusion, which means you cannot
learn anything.

It is irrelevant that 600 agree with it, they get almost all their data from
the SAME sources. You must understand that in that science and even
in medical science, etc..., there are literally clearinghouse type of
departments and organizations. Jones' university he
was at is one such "clearinghouse". When the clearinghouse data is
manipulated and cherry picked, all the robots just follow suit with what
data is supposed to be accurate. You see this more pronounced in the
medical system here in the USA than anything else.

There are billions of people throughout the ages that believe in
conventional thermodynamics, even though conventional thermodynamics
doesn't even describe natural systems. Just because something is
popularly believed, it doesn't have anything to do with reality whatsoever.

You should know full well the facts about co2 in the atmosphere is almost
completely from natural sources and a small little bit is from man. And out
of all of that co2, it in and of itself is nothing but a TRACE GAS and our
global plant life will suffer without enough of it. So yes, they CAN be
compared to co2 contribution is co2 contribution.

Whether or not natural versus man made waste is recycled or not is
a completely different topic and is not relevant to the point when
comparing how much co2 comes from where. And with all the clutter
that we put in the land fills, it will take a long time to decay meaning it
will take much longer for mankind's waste to even contribute to the co2
in the atmosphere.

Please don't take it out of context and claim I want more human pollution
to continue to grow more plants.

Also "you guys" - please understand this applies to those that have openly
posted that we don't believe it in this thread as I'm sure there are many
members in this forum that just may believe in manmade AGW and I don't
think anyone has a problem with that - I know I don't. It doesn't matter,
we all want clean energy technologies.

Most of what you post is coming from a preheld belief and therefore,
please read Peter's post several posts back in response to Adam about
this thread is a compilation of info that supports our beliefs in this thread
and isn't open to debate.

You're very welcome to open a new thread intended to either debate this
or support the pro AGW thread, so please respect that.

Again, simply assuming that the data used by Jones and his associates
is accurate is the premise for much of your debate and since you assume
that it is accurate, there is probably not much anyone can say to change
your mind.

There is no such thing as just taxing the corporations. If that happens for
co2 or anything else like that, it will simply be passed on to the consumer,
which is what always happens to any kind of expense. Tax people on
this and the people get hurt. Tax the corporations and the people get
hurt. The whole co2 thing is a scam to leech more money out of the
economy and into the pockets of the few. This is not a conspiracy theory,
it is simply business as usual.

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

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

[Joit]

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

And, as usual, Informations like this go very very silent down the River,
that at best very very less Peoples can read about it,
to keep her Scam-Story as long as they can valid.

[RedRightHand]

Personally, I will not address 1 or 2 - quite simply because you ask them
based on the assumption that their data is correct and my past post
already told you the data was cherry picked, manipulated, etc...

I don't understand. So his data is credible when you use it, but not when I do? I just didn't find your argument very logical that's all. I was just hoping for some clarification or a retraction - I was NOT looking for an argument.

You should know full well the facts about co2 in the atmosphere is almost
completely from natural sources and a small little bit is from man. And out
of all of that co2, it in and of itself is nothing but a TRACE GAS and our
global plant life will suffer without enough of it. So yes, they CAN be
compared to co2 contribution is co2 contribution.

I thought I was very clear here. Natural CO2 is offset by NATURAL CO2 sequestering. Human CO2 is offset by nothing, so it will build up over time. The former is cyclic, while the later simple accumulates, therefore we can not compare them directly as just plain numbers.

Whether or not natural versus man made waste is recycled or not is
a completely different topic and is not relevant to the point when
comparing how much co2 comes from where. And with all the clutter
that we put in the land fills, it will take a long time to decay meaning it
will take much longer for mankind's waste to even contribute to the co2
in the atmosphere.

I was clearly referring to the atmospheric CO2 cycle with regards to recycling (sequestering CO2), as I was sure this was the topic at hand, I was not referring to any land fills etc. Land fills pose no big problem if covered over with dirt, if left exposed however, they are toxic CO2 and methane producers, (ranked #4 for our global methane pollution) Over 91% of land fills worldwide are uncovered.

You're very welcome to open a new thread intended to either debate this
or support the pro AGW thread, so please respect that.

I am not here to support AGW, I am here to find credible evidence against AGW. So I think I am in the right thread. I do not want to debate with you folks, I want to use YOUR information to debate with others.

Again, simply assuming that the data used by Jones and his associates
is accurate is the premise for much of your debate and since you assume
that it is accurate, there is probably not much anyone can say to change
your mind.

Once again your all defensive! I was just trying to see if your argument held up to deductive reasoning. You presented an argument and used Jones data to back it up, I merely pointed out that the same data can be used to prove your argument wrong as well. I think the whole climate-gate negates his personal opinion anyway, we should move onto some new scientist.

I have read all about this H. Sterling Burnett Guy, I thought this is it, REAL EVIDENCE! After an hour of study, I found the nearest scientists (which isn’t hard, I live with 4 of them) and presented them with the smoking gun evidence.

This was there reply:

Last I checked the issue was "global warming," not "United States warming." The US accounting for somewhere around 8% of the Earth's total mass, even with these ‘corrections’, the world data still shows a warming trend. Also, CO2 is well-mixed globally, it doesn't matter where it is emitted, the warming effects are global not local.

When the Soviet Union imploded, a couple hundred temperature recording sites were abandoned due to lack of money and resources to run them. Many stations closing in a short period of time could have had significant consequences on global surface temperature data, depending on where the stations were located. There's an awful lot of the former Soviet Union that's extremely cold most of the time. This could explain the Hot 1930s period.

That’s just if you debate the science, if you want to attack the author, H Sterling Burnett then: Greenpeace exposed this guy years ago as a fraud, he is not employed by universities but by Washington think tanks. He has been paid big money (millions) from ExxonMobile and other BigOil over the years. He turns up routinely to testify, as an expert witness, whenever big corporations need a scientists opinion in court. Check out his Gun Lobbying days back in 2002.

So, I pulled out the BIG GUN – “NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940”. They all laughed at me! NASA was only talking about the USA temperatures, not the global temperatures.
They said the warmest years on record for the whole world, according to NASA, where, in order, 2005,2009,1998,2002,2003,2006,2007.

So I conceded defeat, as I rightfully should. I continue to search the web tying to find that smoking gun evidence that will put them all in their place! If you guys know any more information I can use, or any more scientists disagreeing with AGW, let me know because they said they will give me $100 if I can find one credible piece of evidence against AGW. So now it’s time to cash in!


Sincerely,

Red

[Peter Lindemann]

Winter's Start 2010

Hi Folks,

Here are a few stories about the beginning of this Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, 2010.

This first story is about conditions in the UK.

BBC News - Snow and ice causes disruption as cold spell continues

This second story is about conditions in the rest of Northern Europe.

BBC News - Snowfall disrupts northern Europe's airports and roads

And finally, this story is about conditions in my local area.

Spokane breaks record for snowiest November | KREM 2 News | KREM.com | When it Matters Most | Local News

Peter

[Aaron]

@red

That’s just if you debate the science, if you want to attack the author, H Sterling Burnett then: Greenpeace exposed this guy years ago as a fraud, he is not employed by universities but by Washington think tanks. He has been paid big money (millions) from ExxonMobile and other BigOil over the years. He turns up routinely to testify, as an expert witness, whenever big corporations need a scientists opinion in court. Check out his Gun Lobbying days back in 2002.

Greenpeace workers are being used as puppets by Maurice Strong and
others that would benefit the most by pushing for a co2 tax. Maurice
Strong (Al Gore's money man) has been one of the most instrumental
people in the world to help setup the structure to profit from co2 tax and
use his money and influence to use the entire green movement and its
believers as puppets to push the agenda that will make him more money -
if a co2 tax goes through. Following the money reveals very clearly what
is behind the forceful manipulation of data to suggest AGW. It is one of
the most brilliant and deceptive hoaxes in history.

The data you reference to support your belief in AGW is bogus.
It is manipulated as is the data from Jones university. You keep repeating
yourself about what the data shows meaning you are automatically
under the assumption that the data is correct without questioning it.
You appear to be more interested in supporting what you already believe.

The oil companies funding
that person is irrelevant as you see that it pointed out facts that NASA
was forced to deal with and change their conclusions - so that shows
that being funded by oil in and of itself has no inherent meaning. That isn't
to say that they have their obvious own agenda to support their
existence, that goes without saying but when you quote Greenpeace,
that is just as questionable - when ANYTHING comes from Maurice Strong,
George Soros and other like-minded greedy profiteering billionaires that
have caused hell and torment for the economies and people of the world,
which is indisputable, you need to think about that. There are agendas
on BOTH sides, anyone would be a fool to deny it.

It is unfortunate that most green thinking people would be complacent
and stand by and not call Strong and others on their agenda simply
because it happens to support their side of the belief. It's reminiscent of
Animal Farm in a slight way.

Many of the temp monitoring stations are strategically placed in
concrete jungle hot spots. There are so many things completely skewed
about the data gathering methods to show increases in temps it is
ridiculous - circus like - not scientific. Obviously we want a good range,
but when they are disproportionately located in areas to register higher
temps such as outside of buildings next to heat vents and other
ridiculous places, that isn't science Red, that is deception implemented
by those that simply want to profit from a carbon tax.

Anyway, good luck on your search whatever that may be.

[ashtweth]

Aaron thanks i didn't know any of that, its amazing how you and Peter with normal jobs get this much done man. I wonder what would happen if private sponsorship came in for real climate scientist to go on a documentary crusade to collect REAL DATA ..think it might be all over then....hmmm

[Peter Lindemann]

Latest from Cancun

Hi Folks,

Here is a story from the BBC about a new mood of compromise emerging at the UN Climate Summit in Cancun, Mexico.

BBC News - Nature talks see mood of compromise emerge

Peter

[jibbguy]

Just to make one point clear: the raw data is shared all over the world. If you want to suggest it is "faked", that would be a tough road to hoe... and there are multiple sources that all would have to be "compromised".

What "Climategate" is about is the INTERPRETATION of raw data; which is clearly a different matter

[Peter Lindemann]

Another Take on Week Two of Cancun

Hi Folks,

Here is another article with a different perspective.

BBC News - Nations 'rewriting climate plan'

And here is another article about taxing international shipping based on Carbon Emissions.

BBC News - Shipping to steer cleaner carbon course

Peter

[RedRightHand]

Just to make one point clear: the raw data is shared all over the world. If you want to suggest it is "faked", that would be a tough road to hoe... and there are multiple sources that all would have to be "compromised".

What "Climategate" is about is the INTERPRETATION of raw data; which is clearly a different matter

I think you hit the nail on the head jibbguy. The raw worldwide temp data doesn't have an opinion, sure a few weather stations may be run by idiots like Aaron says, but most are run by dedicated people. Postulating that these hard working people and their data are all in on a big conspiracy is a very very big stretch of the imagination.

Don't get me wrong, once you analyze this data and form a conclusion, then this conclusion is very much open to debate, because it is likely to contain human errors.

I think it is also a good idea to split the arguments up, because they are totally separate arguments, with very different methods of research.

1. The earth is warming at 0.12ish C per decade?
2. Are humans directly causing this warming via their pollution and deforestation?
3. What will the temperature be in 50 years?

I think it's important that we determine (as a group) what is 'enough' evidence for all these different arguments both TRUE & FALSE. So when we reach this critical amount of evidence either for or against - we can move forward and stop debating and start doing! Otherwise it's all Hot Air forever.

I will get the ball rolling....

1. Unless you disagree with all the worldwide weather stations and their data, this one is easy to prove/disprove, I did it, so can you! Just get the data yourself, put in Excel and add a formula. Don't trust scientists - do it yourself!

2. This is an incredibly complex argument, with many many different methods of research. Personally, I don't think we will ever know exactly how much impact we have on GW - at least not in our lifetimes.

3. This is very very hard to predict, basically it's all computer models, so it's completely debatable. We understand so little about feedback's in these cycles, that I think any prediction is at best a educated guess.

Something to think about...

Red