papymandarin
Shohin
i'd even say, it's not even the heat that will doom us, but the greed and selfishness causing it, 2 things at the very opposite of basic christian values they are pretending to fight for
Climate change
- Thread starter Cypress187
- Start date
Zach Smith
Omono
The audit was by John McLean, PhD. Just search for "independent audit of global temperature dataset" using duckduckgo (Google would probably censor the result, though I didn't try Google myself). All of the data source citations can be easily found.
That it was reported in a blog by someone who ran afoul of the law is of no consequence. Truth is truth, regardless of the source.
Manmade climate change is simply one of the new religions, which must not be challenged for fear of a cracked skull when the shouting, ad hominen attacks and online censorship fail.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
So said thiss was not published somewhere where people can actually READ the report, without the author making money of it. In say, and open publishing platform. No, instead he goes off and starts his own publishing house and charges everyone for reading his report. Then starts to make a big fuss about the first audith (Hm.. Gyuess he does not understand the scientific process).
In any case. The link, as Zach cannot be bothered to find the sources to what he claims himmself.
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com...crut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/
In any case. The link, as Zach cannot be bothered to find the sources to what he claims himmself.
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com...crut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/
papymandarin
Shohin
i'd love to see a count of cracked skulls by climate scientists compared to cracked skulls from the other religions....
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Yeah, it is a really silly claim.
Odd that only in the USA this discussion takes place.
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
Like I said earlier...fraud! The best they have, though.
Point 1
For some unknown reason, the loopy warmists seem to believe that we need to maintain our little habitat just the way it is. Firstly, that is impossible. Whether humans are on the planet or not the climate will change. We don't even have a good definition of climate. Humans are incapable of understanding or comprehending very long time periods so they have artificially defined climate as the average weather over a 30 year period. That in itself is complete made-up utter nonsense. So to use that span of time to extract some kind of long term trend is also nonsense. Being tree lovers, we should all be aware of the fact we have empirical proof that at least some species (notably the gingko and the Australian Woolemi Pine) have been on this planet, growing without pause, for 200 million years as the fossil records show. Now, given that we also have proxy evidence that the co2 concentration of the atmosphere has varied widely in that period (up to ten times higher than it is now) , we should also assume that the planet is not at all sensitive to co2 and it is not a driver of climate as at least part of the earth's temperatures need to have remained between about zero C and perhaps 40c or something like that. This cannot be disputed.
As far as I understand, the difference between minimum temperatures of the ice ages and the present is a matter of just a few degrees. Sure, these species would have moved about with the temperatures but it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to think about it that the planet has a self regulating climate and co2 in itself cannot cause runaway global warming as is claimed by many alarmists and doomsdayers.
Point 2
There is no empirical evidence that showing co2 is causing increased warming. Don't bother looking it up because it doesn't exist. It is simply a theory. A proposition upon which is based everything you hear and read about co2 driven climate change. The historical correlation between rising temps and rising co2 can just as validly be explained by heat causing co2 release not the other way round. Because we happen to find ourselves with a (very slight) temp rise and increasing human co2 emissions proves nothing at all despite what is claimed.
Humans have just begun to scratch the surface of understanding of the multitude of Earths, and the solar system's, various cycles. It is rather pathetic to assume that we can understand - let alone predict - how the planet ''works''. We just don't know and probably never will. There is no evidence that increasing temps cause more violent weather or less rain. I have instead read of a correlation between decreasing temps and drought and wilder weather.
Point 3
Again, based on the above theory (co2 and warming), trillions of dollars are being poured into research and the climate change industry and it's various bodies such as the IPPC. Their recent ''report'' was nothing if not completely predictable.
Ask yourself this question.....If good news (there's not much warming and we have nothing to worry about) meant dismantling the IPPC and losing your funding and your job overnight, and bad news (we need to continue our research and you need to listen to us when we predict the end of the world in 10 years if you don't) meant continued support and continued trillions poured in whenever you asked for it, then WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? The obvious conflict of interest is breathtaking. Any questioning of their ''findings'' are immediately dismissed as denialism regardless of who they are.
Point 4
The popular media from which we are fed our daily dose of impending catastrophy...
eg....There was a very recent directive from the BBC (as just one example) that it was now disallowed to have contrary views presented during BBC discussions of climate change. How outrageous do you want to get? The ABC here is also very heavily skewed. I cannot remember one contrary view to present climate change theory being aired on TV here ever. What you do see is young female (for some reason they're always girls) uni students wading in the tropical waters of the great barrier reef crying that the ''shells are dissolving!'' Nothing but nauseating, nonsensical theoretical crap based on ridiculous lab experiments using acid. It goes on and on.
(Treat em like mushrooms....keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.)
I have studied this debate rather closely for about a year now and it's so plainly obvious just how little the average scientist (let alone commentator) realizes about the subject or is willing to allow to be heard. If it was not for the internet the suppression of true science would now be complete.
Point 5
The climate change industry is based on non-knowledge mixed with some truth and a bunch of outright lies and no-one wants to or is allowed to sort it out. It's a big expensive mess which I believe will slowly end when it starts getting colder again. Although - I would not put it past them to quickly find a new reason (perhaps it's getting colder because co2 is doing something weird?) for further research funding.
Point 6
It has been claimed that 80% (?) of scientific findings are at best incomplete and at worst just plain wrong. So, when you next hear the words ''A new study found''.......remember it's probably wrong!
For some unknown reason, the loopy warmists seem to believe that we need to maintain our little habitat just the way it is. Firstly, that is impossible. Whether humans are on the planet or not the climate will change. We don't even have a good definition of climate. Humans are incapable of understanding or comprehending very long time periods so they have artificially defined climate as the average weather over a 30 year period. That in itself is complete made-up utter nonsense. So to use that span of time to extract some kind of long term trend is also nonsense. Being tree lovers, we should all be aware of the fact we have empirical proof that at least some species (notably the gingko and the Australian Woolemi Pine) have been on this planet, growing without pause, for 200 million years as the fossil records show. Now, given that we also have proxy evidence that the co2 concentration of the atmosphere has varied widely in that period (up to ten times higher than it is now) , we should also assume that the planet is not at all sensitive to co2 and it is not a driver of climate as at least part of the earth's temperatures need to have remained between about zero C and perhaps 40c or something like that. This cannot be disputed.
As far as I understand, the difference between minimum temperatures of the ice ages and the present is a matter of just a few degrees. Sure, these species would have moved about with the temperatures but it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to think about it that the planet has a self regulating climate and co2 in itself cannot cause runaway global warming as is claimed by many alarmists and doomsdayers.
Point 2
There is no empirical evidence that showing co2 is causing increased warming. Don't bother looking it up because it doesn't exist. It is simply a theory. A proposition upon which is based everything you hear and read about co2 driven climate change. The historical correlation between rising temps and rising co2 can just as validly be explained by heat causing co2 release not the other way round. Because we happen to find ourselves with a (very slight) temp rise and increasing human co2 emissions proves nothing at all despite what is claimed.
Humans have just begun to scratch the surface of understanding of the multitude of Earths, and the solar system's, various cycles. It is rather pathetic to assume that we can understand - let alone predict - how the planet ''works''. We just don't know and probably never will. There is no evidence that increasing temps cause more violent weather or less rain. I have instead read of a correlation between decreasing temps and drought and wilder weather.
Point 3
Again, based on the above theory (co2 and warming), trillions of dollars are being poured into research and the climate change industry and it's various bodies such as the IPPC. Their recent ''report'' was nothing if not completely predictable.
Ask yourself this question.....If good news (there's not much warming and we have nothing to worry about) meant dismantling the IPPC and losing your funding and your job overnight, and bad news (we need to continue our research and you need to listen to us when we predict the end of the world in 10 years if you don't) meant continued support and continued trillions poured in whenever you asked for it, then WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? The obvious conflict of interest is breathtaking. Any questioning of their ''findings'' are immediately dismissed as denialism regardless of who they are.
Point 4
The popular media from which we are fed our daily dose of impending catastrophy...
eg....There was a very recent directive from the BBC (as just one example) that it was now disallowed to have contrary views presented during BBC discussions of climate change. How outrageous do you want to get? The ABC here is also very heavily skewed. I cannot remember one contrary view to present climate change theory being aired on TV here ever. What you do see is young female (for some reason they're always girls) uni students wading in the tropical waters of the great barrier reef crying that the ''shells are dissolving!'' Nothing but nauseating, nonsensical theoretical crap based on ridiculous lab experiments using acid. It goes on and on.
(Treat em like mushrooms....keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.)
I have studied this debate rather closely for about a year now and it's so plainly obvious just how little the average scientist (let alone commentator) realizes about the subject or is willing to allow to be heard. If it was not for the internet the suppression of true science would now be complete.
Point 5
The climate change industry is based on non-knowledge mixed with some truth and a bunch of outright lies and no-one wants to or is allowed to sort it out. It's a big expensive mess which I believe will slowly end when it starts getting colder again. Although - I would not put it past them to quickly find a new reason (perhaps it's getting colder because co2 is doing something weird?) for further research funding.
Point 6
It has been claimed that 80% (?) of scientific findings are at best incomplete and at worst just plain wrong. So, when you next hear the words ''A new study found''.......remember it's probably wrong!
Last edited:
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Very good point. But maybe if you do not understand it, you should stay out of it?
really, just because you do not know how it is done, does not mean it cannot be done. Your comment remindss me a lot of input I received from the head of the science department of a large african game reserve that my PhD topic was impossible. 4 years later I showed him wrong. Clearly a gap between your own ability to figure out how things work, and that of others.
Last edited:
These comments alone show me you don't know how to formulate a coherent response.
I don't even know what you are referring to but explain it to me. Teach me ''how things work''!
papymandarin
Shohin
again all this is typical of denialist flawed arguments, not having the slightest idea of what they are talking about or how science work, no doubt "with an interest on the subject for one year" you can lecture scientists who spent their whole life working on the subject..... that's ridiculous and arrogant to say the least
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Firstly, please stop linking that ridiculous skepticalscience site. John Cook is the most biased cherry picking climate creep and all his stupid argument/response nonsense is brainwashing bullshit, most of which has been debunked.
Secondly, you have no idea what you are saying but instead just parrot Cook. Nothing of what I wrote was a ''flawed'' argument because it is all simple facts. I'm afraid you seem to be just another non-thinking lemming.
papymandarin
Shohin
first, i do what i want ;-) so keep your orders untill you have been made chief moderator and i've broken a ruel of the forum, thanks.
secondly i'm not the one "cherry picking" when 97% of article produced on the subject acknowledge human induced warming, cherry picking is thinking the 3% of discordant voices have the same weight than all the rest of the scientific community conclusions. Ho yes i forgot, they are all (all over the world from countries having vastly different interests) in a supposed conspiracy that was never uncovered in more than 50 years in an era where even i knows everything about the size and shape of your president genitals. And don't worry about lemmings, their supposed blind mass movements are a myth, and they are anyway one of the species suffering the most the OBSERVED warming and ice regression
secondly i'm not the one "cherry picking" when 97% of article produced on the subject acknowledge human induced warming, cherry picking is thinking the 3% of discordant voices have the same weight than all the rest of the scientific community conclusions. Ho yes i forgot, they are all (all over the world from countries having vastly different interests) in a supposed conspiracy that was never uncovered in more than 50 years in an era where even i knows everything about the size and shape of your president genitals. And don't worry about lemmings, their supposed blind mass movements are a myth, and they are anyway one of the species suffering the most the OBSERVED warming and ice regression
Cypress187
Masterpiece
Merchants of Doubt. --Naomi Oreskes. The same company campaigning pro-smoking is now selling doubt about climate change to oil company's, welcome to the free market.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
But why would compagnies hire them?
Is there a profit to be made by oil compagnies in not changing our ways?
THEY would not have alterior motives right? They just what is best for the world? Nooo it is the big bad scientists that are in it for the big salaries..
Cypress187
Masterpiece
Starfox
Masterpiece
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
Observation:
Floods have been more and more frequent here.
Today, 13 dead in the South of France, in an area about 7,000 sq. km (as a comparison, North Carolina: 140,000 sq. km)
More rain in 4 hours than in 6 months. The highest flood since 1830.
Facts.
Will you "pray for the victims and their families and friends", or at least think how to limit, if not prevent that to happen again?
OK, I heard that in Australia, it's getting better and better each year: fewer fires, more rain, more biodiversity.
Conclusion: don't worry, his eye is on the sparrow and he's watching over me (never tought of thinking about "us"?)
My favourite version is a lower quality video, but such a powerful interpretation that it almost makes doubt of the non-existence of god.
But....
if people don't suffer, will they ever be able to sing such beautiful songs? Instaed of choosing to ble blind, wouldn't it be wiser to go deaf?... 
Neither for me.
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
Holy cow!
I understand why you dared not post the title of the article, but I shall, I must:
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause 'dramatic' beer shortages
M. Frary
Bonsai Godzilla
Because hops need just the right temps and enviornment.Holy cow!
I understand why you dared not post the title of the article, but I shall, I must:
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause 'dramatic' beer shortages
Like their cousin cannibis.