If you haven't figured it out yet Global warming is a fraud
 

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal ? NOAA Disgraced

Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.

A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.

The web pages at the center of this latest climate storm were created by NOAA in partnership with Michigan State University.

Disgraced Administration Mired in Another Climategate-style Data Fix


http://www.examiner.com/x-50809-Bost...NOAA-Disgraced


Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan Monday, August 16, 2010
US Government admits global warming satellite sensors ?degraded? - temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603



Climate Scandals
94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
145 links to reports with details


http://www.examiner.com/x-50809-Bost...NOAA-Disgraced

Well them it's settled.

It is my understanding that the majority of scientists do not question that the earth is going into a stage of warming...but many do question that it is being caused/influenced by man.

Wait so is Global Warming not real now or is it just not man made?

Cause without question for like 50,000 years earth has been warning up (give or take a few years if needed) - Most Americans homes were under a mile think of ice at one point, the oceans have risen for the longest time. Forget what's happening to the other planets. Truly it would take some pretty thick skulls to say Global Warming isn't happening.

Man made though, that's a different story.

The ice caps on mars are melting too...I guess that's our fault as well. Fuck Al Gore and his money making scheme.

Unless you have a condo on Mars, I fail to see how the hell anything over there is relevant to us.

I'm pretty sure people talking about global warming as a major issue are talking about it from a manmade perspective, because if it's simply a planetary cycle thing, then there's not a whole lot of shit we can do or affect. We are however human and think the universe revolves around us and nothing else could possibly affect Earth more than us, so omg control those emissions!!!1

It's kinda funny - I think we're having one of the coolest summers we've had in a while. I've turned on my AC all of 2 times this summer. Yes I realize it's "global" warming but still...it's clearly not getting warmer everywhere all the time.

i am currently building section 8 homes on mars..

we need to put the negros somewhere, what better place than mars... :thumbsup





.

The point is man doesn't live there and the ice caps are melting anyways. It suggests that something other than our CO2 output as claimed by Al Gore is going on in our solar system that is raising the temps.

there isn't any money in clean air.

The climate changes.. Man's CO2 output has nothing to do with it. It is and has always been a scam to tax a basic element of all life on Earth. A man made myth for taxation purposes..

You cannot reason with climate change denier loonies. They know all they know from laughably ignorant websites run by other loonies, and there's no changing their deranged little minds.

Rule of Thumb: Whenever you see the global warming debate touted as being a "fraud" or a "hoax", the author is a loony. The fraud or hoax word identifies them as being a) wacko conspiracy theorists, and b) as having no clue how science actually works.

Rule of Thumb: If you believe your CO2 output is causing global warming KILL YOURSELF. Problem solved.

So, the National Geographic website is run by loonies?

I just love it when I'm right :)

There are thousands of well respected scientists who disagree with the Global Warming theory.

Are they loonies too?

You'd have a point if the only source of Earth temperate came from those sources.

They don't.

Global warming is not something you can be skeptical about. I put people who deny global warming in the same category as those who reject germ theory and the holocaust.

Read a book, educate yourself and stop turning to shitty news sites for information on scientific issues. The vast majority of journalists have no understanding of the issues they're talking about - nor will they give an hour to actually learn the basics and look at the evidence presented.

To everyone else; please don't look at the title, walk away and bring this shit up at the next dinner party/barbecue you go to. You'll be adding to the hysteria surrounding this subject when there really shouldn't be any.

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

Logical fallacy.

Hi guys, I don't look at evidence, listen to the news and judge everything politically.

I think someone needs to back off typing as if they actually have a clue. Here's a tip; have a look at the number of papers that have been peer reviewed in the last five years that support climate change, compare that to the number of papers that have been peer reviewed which do not support climate change.

Now, read the papers, look at the reviews and actually learn about something. Honestly - I don't think you even know what CO2 is or where it comes from. I'm not blaming you for that - I'm sure a lot of people don't. But why feign an understanding for a subject and convince yourself that it's the truth?

I'm not picking on you, but there seems to be a huge ignorance in the world when it comes to subjects such as this. Fuck, do you deny evolution too? How about a spherical Earth? Gravity maybe? What about existence? Is that a myth to get your dollars too?

Double post

Der....the only thing you have here is a report which states that someone came up with fraudulent global warming data. This neither confirms nor denies that climate change is happening, but the fact is that the earth is undergoing rapid climate change right now, and according to 100's of scientists around the world humans are the cause of the rapid increase in change.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=79981
All of this is of course a moot point as its already too late to do anything about it. Soon large parts of the earth will be rendered unihabitable, and then things will get worse.
Have a great day!

Just one more of many.

Just noticed my link above is wrong..

94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
145 links to reports with details

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/


It's a fraud, a scam, a con..

Anyone who says anything different is either
A. A part of the fraud
B. dependent on it IE. $ invested.
C. In severe denial because you don't want to believe you could have been FOOLed into such a grand conspiracy.
D. All of the above

Your inability to comprehend a fairly simple sentence is quaint. I only referred to loonies who used the work "fraud" or "hoax", nothing more. Scientists disagree all the time--that's how the scientific method works.

From the National Geographic article: "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural?and not a human-induced?cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."

The article you linked to is nothing more than a piece of straight reportage--"according to one scientist's controversial theory" You're an idiot... or a loony.

As I posted in another thread, you need to check your sources.

national geographic is a decent lay publication, but it is not part of the peer review scienctific method publishing community. It's news, not science.

That one single russian scientist who is quoted in that popular article has not yet published anything about his theories in the real scientific liturature - presumably because he has no measurements to back up his suggestion. He would instantly become world famous and a media darling if he did publish such a scientifically argued theory. So, while he might. the fact that he hasn't in the 4 years since suggests that he won't.

No other scientist on this planet has presented a similar theory - so all your mars foolishness is based on one russian scientist who won't defend his theory.

Here's some backstory, cut and pasted from the earlier post I made on this mars claim:

I can't expect you to look at the science behind the rightwing claim that there either truly is global warming on mars, or that, if there is, it can be compared to global warming here on earth.

understanding the science isn't your political motive, and I understand that.

but if you don't wnt to be a buttpuppet for the oil companies, you might want to check your sources.

Here's a relatively recent and well formulated rsponse to the "mars is warming too, therefore warming here isn't anthropogenic" oil company story.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rming-too.html

Quote:

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto. ... What do we know? Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated). This may be the result of the whole planet warming (see Mars images hint at recent climate swings). Dwarf planet One theory is that winds have recently swept some areas of Mars clean of dust, darkening the surface, warming the Red Planet and leading to further increases in windiness - a positive feedback effect (see Dust blamed for warming on Mars). There is a great deal of uncertainty, though. The warming could be a regional effect. And recent results from the thermal imaging system on the Mars Odyssey probe suggest that the polar cap is not shrinking at all, but varies greatly from one Martian year to the next, although the details have yet to be published.

Summary - the rightwing argument is that an increase in solar radiation must be causing the warming on both mars and earth - THEREFORE we don't need to conserve our fossil carbon, we can drive and burn as much as we like because its the sun that will kill us not carbon dioxide.

BUT - we have been measuring solar radiance officially for 30 years (and unofficially for hundreds), and there has been no increase in solar radiation.

The one scientist who has promoted this theory - yes, that's ONE, as in a single guy, is a russian who hasn't had a single article on this published in the scientific literature - so it can't even be discussed seriously by scientists, it has yet to be stated as a real theory in the peer review process.

Here's the famous 2007 article which is the base of it all, published in national geographic, which is not part of the peer review liturature.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Quote:

Quote: In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

Only reason climate would be getting warmer is due to the fact that stars burn hotter until they reach apogee, then start to cool down.
The time span is almost infinite.
Global warming is a hoax in the context being presented as due to the 'evils of man'.
Which btw, is an age old tool of control, Platonistic... and used to dupe you.

The UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ?only a few dozen experts,? he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

?Claims such as ?2,500 of the world?s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate? are disingenuous,? the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered ?the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.?

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...#ixzz0x1Judqkq


That's how the scientific method works..

Fraud and hoax are not too strong to describe this situation.

Global Warming proponents did not do thorough science. They operated from a political goal, not a goal of truth. They falsified and hid data. They intentionally forged results. They intentionally did bad science to get a particular result.

What they did in misleading Congress and the US government might even be criminal.

:thumbsup

I have to ask--what's the payoff for being willfully stupid?

Greenpeace global warming hippies ..

Oh... please!!! The author of that piece, Lawrence Solomon, is a notorious climate change denier, and the article you linked to is an opinion piece, not reportage.

I have to ask you too--what's the payoff for being willfully stupid?

I remember the long winters and going skiing/skating here in the 70's and 80's. Can't do that anymore. Warming is not a fraud here. It's a fact. Same with rest of the world.

I see global warming cultists always use this as if the isolated case of one location being warmer somehow proves global warming. Lets just ignore that there is no proof that possible global warming is man made, .. sure some places are hotter, but many places are also cooler. Infact recently the planet has cooled a tiny bit... but there is no money in global cooling is there ?

Face it... this is all about money. There are trillions of dollars to be made. Not many scientific studies are funded by good will... they are funded by those with a vested interest. A scientific study can be tailored to produce the result you want it to ...

Back then it was called Global Cooling.. It led to my mom who just graduated via an Gore scholarship program to put solar panels on her house in the early 80's. The two 4x10 panels powered just the water heater.. Never recouped the costs at around 20k. Said panels are now taking up room in her garage. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." - Frederick Douglass

So what does stupidity make a man fit for?

and al gore sold her those solar panels? china is developing big huge commuter rail system and part of it is solar powered. Boy Al gores reach much be long. lol

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh um.. Read what you just wrote, stupid slave.

If your freezer sucks, there is always someone trying to sell you alternative solutions. Even scam you. But that doesn't change the fact that your freezer still sucks. It's not an argument against the facts.

Like I said, it happens worldwide, not just locally. The northern hemisphere is hit hardest, especially in the polar regions. The gletchers further south are reduced everywhere, so it happens there too. Southern hemisphere is less hit, but overall it's warmer everywhere. Including the oceans, which contain 90% of the heat energy.

This is about climate, not money. Just like locally, recently doesn't mean much when speaking of climate. Climate is the average change through a minimum of 30 years and regarding temperatures it's heading up. There is no doubt about it, don't let the pseudo-science at think tanks confuse and mislead you. Denying global warming today is stupidity. What cause it, is another debate.

No she bought into what Al's been selling since at least the 80's.

I dont think Al was talking about that then nor did he have the media exposure. In 80's the media wasnt like it is now.

It is now publicly admitted Earths temperatures have been in decline for the past 10 years. The temperature figures were manipulated to fit the theory.. They've been caught numerous times hence the origiinal article. All other scientists were basing their findings off of these manipulated figures. The original figures have been "dumped"

There's no denying that climate changes and has since the beginning of the Earth millions if not billions of years ago. Making Al Gore rich isn't going to change that. Creating loads of government agencies dictating how everyone lives isnt going to change that. Creating a carbon trading ponzi scheme isn't going to change that.

its right thinking like this is why china is kicking our asses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/bu...q=china&st=cse

they will own solar before we wake the fuck up.

He's from our state hence the scholarship program..

"As a congressman in the late ?70s and early ?80s, he held the first congressional hearings on climate change, and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming."

http://earthfirst.com/who%E2%80%99s-...green-al-gore/

You, sir, are a retard.

By what retarded math (ie short bus stoichiometry) can you possibly add billions of tons of CO2, SO2 and other pollutants to the earth's atmosphere every year and it will have no effect?

There is no more basic logic than global climate change.

Have you ever been to LA, Houston, Phoenix? What is all that brown shit in the air? Fucking fairy dust?

That is pollution. Basic chemistry dictates that if you add chemicals to a system it will change. As a species we add millions of tons of chemicals to the atmosphere daily.

Argue with my logic you knuckle dragging, flat earth, know nothing idiot.

carbon monoxide=pollutant carbon dioxide=basic element of life

They pump carbon dioxide into green houses to help plants grow..

Flat Earth idiot.. The reason people believed the Earth was flat is because the "Al Gore's" of the time told the masses it was. Even though they knew otherwise.. For thousands of years.. Anyone who said anything differently were treated just as "climate deniers" are today. Even jailed. It was for control purposes. Can't collect taxes from people if they seek greener pastures. So people didn't leave because they figured they would fall off the face of the Earth.

If its true then it doesn't surprise me a bit.

Your body is 90% water.

If I throw your ignorant ass in my pool tied to a cinder block nothing will happen?

Water isn't poison, will you die if I drop 100 lbs of ice on your head? God I hope so.

You are splitting hairs because you are stupid and apparently your tin foil hat blocked your ears in high school chemistry class. CO2 is a pollutant, but not because it's poison. By increasing levels of greenhouse gasses - like CO2 - you change the absorption characteristics of the earth's atmosphere.

Just accept that you are stupid and try to listen to smart people and do what they say.

It has never been hidden or a secret that temperatures haven't been rising the past decade. But at the same time, the solar activity has also been low, and even so, the decade had years warmer than any of the others the past 150 years. That means much of the heat is still trapped and as soon the sun and other natural influence kick in, the temperature will jump up again. 10 years is nothing when speaking of climate.

Think of it like this:
If you start smoking and the more you smoke, the more your "system" will be out of balance. One day, when you smoke 30 cigarettes per day, you decide to smoke 2 less cigarettes per day, but 28 cigarettes today doesn't prevent the inevitable.
The think tanks and their "scientists" who also work for tobacco industry will try to tell you something else. Same will scientists who work against tobacco and politicians and companies with other motives. But your common sense, and the majority of science and doctors, will tell you are already out of balance and more out of balance than beginning. You have to stop, the sooner, the better. You shouldn't keep smoking, just because you want that freedom. That's stupid. It's your influence on your lifetime that matters, not what happened billion years ago.

CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere

As of April 2010[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume.[1]

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

Mans contribution to that is estimated to be around 3.5% of that...


Total CO2 put out by humans every year:

27 gigatonnes.

Total CO2 put out by all other sources every year:

220 gigatonnes -- Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes

220 gigatonnes -- Respiration by vegetation

332 gigatonnes -- The oceans

772 gigatonnes -- TOTAL from all other sources.

27/772 = 3.5%


What happens if we GAS IT UP? How about 1000x current?

In human subjects exposed to low concentrations (less than 4 percent) of carbon dioxide for up to 30 minutes, dilation of cerebral blood vessels, increased pulmonary ventilation, and increased oxygen delivery to the tissues were observed (Gibbs et al. 1943, Patterson et al. 1955). These data suggest that carbon dioxide exposure can aid in counteracting effects (i.e., impaired brain function) of exposure to an oxygen-deficient atmosphere

http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=250



Whats happening to most of the CO2?

Oceans Absorbed Missing CO2

"The ocean has removed 48 percent of the CO2 we have released to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and cement manufacturing," Sabine said after reviewing data gathered between 1989 and 1998 from three major studies of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. The studies collected more than 72,000 ocean samples.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2004/07/64236


Why does CO2 rise?

CO2 rises always follow the warming up of the earth

Why is it rising?

Because the Earth is starved for it. Nature is correcting itself.. Man's contribution is only helping..

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/co2...es-plant-grow/


Now if you were someone who wanted less life (humans) on Earth you would sell them on this myth that they are killing themselves by producing what naturally exudes from them in an attemt to cut back on carbon emissions in turn kill off the food which feeds them. Along with other means such as vaccines/eugenics, geneticly modifying their food, etc

Should be 100... That's if all sources increased their emissions 100%. Keeping in mind humans only produce 3.5% of that.

"Carbon Dioxide Therapy is a seminal monograph documenting the use of carbogen in psychiatry as a treatment for neurosis. Carbogen is a psychoactive mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen that exerts anesthetic and visionary effects. The book's author administered a blend called "Meduna's Mixture", consisting of 30% carbon dioxide and 70% oxygen, to hundreds of patients, and the results of his research are copiously document in this engaging monograph. Exposure to increased levels of carbon dioxide can be dangerous or even be fatal, but Meduna encountered no serious problems in administering his 70/30 blend in sessions of up to 50 breaths in length.

Meduna concludes that carbogen was effective in generating improvement in 68% of the subjects he evaluated in this book"

http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=250

hmm huffing carbon dioxide..