SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Don Hurst who wrote (3758)2/11/2014 3:18:25 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
weatherguru

  Respond to of 4326
 
it's the start of the next Ice age, Obama will soon tell people to just start their cars and run them all day in the drive way, burn leaves, burn old tires.



To: Don Hurst who wrote (3758)2/11/2014 3:21:35 PM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bill
Id_Jit
Stephen O

  Respond to of 4326
 
Science Settled: There is No Global Warming
February 11, 2014 By Alan Caruba
I recently received an unsigned email about my Sierra Club commentary in which I pointed out that it opposes traditional forms of energy and made a passing reference to Obama’s lie that “climate change”, the new name for global warming, was now “settled science.”

Global warming was never based on real science. It was conjured up using dubious computer models and we were supposed to believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could actually predict what the climate would be twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now.

The writer of the email disagreed with me. “lol you are a f**king idiot. you don’t believe there is global warming going on? you need to let your prejudices go and stop basing your views on what your political stance is…do you research you f**king faggot.”

Now, not everyone who believes in global warming is as rude as this individual and certainly not as ignorant, but his message suggests that those who do not believe in it do so as the result of “a political stance” when, in fact, our views are based on science.

Anyone familiar with my writings knows that a lot of research is involved. In my case, it dates back to the late 1980s when the global warming hoax began to be embraced by politicians like Al Gore who made millions selling worthless “carbon credits” while warning that “Earth has a fever.”

A small army of scientists lined their pockets with government grants to produce data that supported the utterly baseless charge that carbon dioxide was causing the Earth to warm. They castigated other scientists or people like myself as “deniers” while we proffered to call ourselves skeptics. They were joined by most of the media that ignored the real science. And the curriculums in our schools were likewise corrupted with the hoax.

Then, about 17 years ago the Earth began to cool. It had nothing to do with carbon dioxide—which the Environmental Protection Agency deems a “pollutant” despite the fact that all life on Earth would die without it—and everything to do with the SUN.

A few days after the email arrived, two-thirds of the contiguous U.S.A. was covered by snow. As this is being written, Lake Superior is 92% frozen, setting a new record. As of February 5, the entire Great Lakes system was, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 77% covered with ice.

On February 1st, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”

Both of these government agencies, along with others like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, are staffed by people who understand that their employers are deeply committed to the global warming hoax. One should assume that almost anything they have to say about the “pause” is based entirely on politics, not science.

Then, too, despite the many measuring stations from which data is extracted to determine the Earth’s climate, there is a paucity of such stations in COLD places like Siberia. Stations here in the U.S. are often placed in “heat islands” otherwise known as cities. If you put enough of them close to sources of heat, you get thermometer readings that produce, well, heat.

People in the U.S., England, Europe and other areas of the world who do not possess Ph.ds in meteorology, climatology, geology, astronomy, and chemistry have begun to suspect that everything they have been told about global warming is false. Between 1300 and 1850 the northern hemisphere went through a mini-ice age. After that it began to warm up again. So, yes, there was global warming, but it was a natural cycle, not something caused by human beings.

Nature doesn’t care what we do. It is far more powerful than most of us can comprehend.

This brings us back to the Sun which determines, depending on where you are on planet Earth, how warm or cold you feel. The Sun, too, goes through cycles, generally about eleven years long. When it is generating a lot of heat, its surface is filled with sunspots, magnetic storms.

When there are few sunspots, solar radiation diminishes and we get cold. Scientists who study the Sun believe it may encounter another “Maunder minimum”, named after astronomer Edward Maunder, in which the last “Little Ice Age”, between 1645 and 1715, occurred. The Thames in England froze over as did the canals of Holland froze solid.

There is no global warming and scientists like Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.” I agree.

- See more at: tpnn.com



To: Don Hurst who wrote (3758)2/11/2014 5:19:36 PM
From: sense1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Id_Jit

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4326
 
Does she explain how warming of the Arctic... increases the total amount of ice in the Arctic ? Even though defending the fraudulent theory will require her to predict that all the ice has to melt... because its warmer ?

Hmmm.

It's just quibbling about the structure of variation that is occurring... that still avoids the issue.

The "problems" in the advocates logic are really simple ones...

First is the "Chicken Little" theory of the scientific method... showing that "the method of science" is designed not to ask valid questions and seek truthful answers, but to assert the truth of errors in order to elicit a planned response that will enable desired policy...

Then, advocates are playing a game of bait and switch, that has them claiming that any evidence of any CHANGE... is a proof of their claims about what CREATES change... which is required to enable their implementation of POLICY. Theirs is a program to advance lies... to enable the policy they want... and it really is NOT about science, but policy. Lies to enable policy. And, its not the only place you see the same people doing the same thing: nationaljournal.com

The first assumption you see in all their climate work... is the assumption that a static condition is normal, and any change from that static condition they select... is abnormal, and needs to be stopped.

Obviously wrong.

Including obviously wrong in seeking to foster any authorization that enables them in exerting control...

Change is normal. Variation is normal. Change... is NATURAL. We don't know what the range of normal is... and we don't know what causes variation within the range of normal... we don't know what's causing change now... and we don't know what caused change in the past. If they're not explicitly stating their assumptions about change... and defining a well understood basis for the NORMAL range of variation in climate history... the entire effort begins in fraud...

Then, the fact of a thing existing... is NOT a proof of its CAUSALITY...

The same stupidity can be used to prove anything... if obviously fraudulent assumptions aren't questioned.

"Humans exist on the planet (and, since I assume they couldn't exist if they weren't placed here by an alien civilization) therefore, aliens exist."

The assumptions matter.

"Change exists (and, since I assume it shouldn't) therefore it is caused by... (choose anything else that is also obviously changing, and claim it is the cause)".

Proof of causality requires MORE from reason than only predictions that are validated by observation... but, the scientific method does require any theory makes predictions that ARE validated by observation ?

Without that validation... there is no proof... making the claim there is proof... a lie.

And, as long as the liars run things... we're stuck with the same medieval mentality as Galileo faced.



To: Don Hurst who wrote (3758)2/11/2014 10:06:39 PM
From: weatherguru  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4326
 
I saw the jet fold. Message 29373880 I was excited (from a meterological standpoint) that it potentially could burst like a pimple and spill cold air into Florida. That doesn't look to happen, sigh, but I was expecting a southern tracking storm. Look at the jet stream. It's weather. I said "cruddy meteorology", because it's "back of the envelope" meteorology.

Again referring to "Prof Jennifer Francis of Rutgers in her scientific presentation of June 2013"...I said this "amplified" pattern formed in March 2013. It slowed sea-ice melt in spring 2013 (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1). An anomalously cold polar summer slowed the melt, too. Now the Arctic is gaining sea-ice from a year ago. In fact, we have as much global sea-ice now as we did at this time in 1982. Again, how many models predicted that? Hmmm.
drroyspencer.com

I tried to stick up for some scientists. Bet yes, here are some whore examples.
climatecentral.org - warmists are geared up for an El Nino. It's hiding the heat from CO2.
redorbit.com - If oceans are strong enough to offset warming from CO2, then well, never mind ever suggesting they could cause warming in the first place.
enn.com - And Obama brags about making coal companies go bankrupt.
news.yahoo.com - A lot of clauses in here...but, if, but, if, further research needed.
cleantechnica.com - I discovered while reading this article that 84.543% of all statistics are made up.
livescience.com - I was wondering why the olympics are in Sochi, now I see why.