Comments

Global Warming theories based on deliberately falsified data — 27 Comments

  1. Do you really, honestly believe that China would/could be hoodwinked by the west over this?
    They are doing some of the biggest movements on fixing this…..they have their own world-class scientists/labs.

  2. Dunno, Grandad. For me to accept that Global Warming is ‘made up’ by scientists all over the world who have managed to all stay quiet about the consipracy is a bit much. Also, we’ve been releasing carbon into an enclosed environment (the atmosphere) at an extraordinary rate ever since the Industrial Revolution.

    That carbon does not evaporate by itself. If you sit in a room with a blocked chimney and a fire lit sooner or later you are going to start choking.

    I can certainly understand why climate change sceptics would want to scream ‘conspiracy’ (for what? Where’s the profit?) as they are mostly Americans who think that the righte to drive an overpowered car is some kind of human right – but try lighting a cigarette anywhere near them! Suddenly its their human right to clean air.

    There is a reason why so many kids in urban areas in the developed world are getting asthma and its got an awful lt to do with urban pollution. We now have ‘dead zones’ out in the Atlantic and the Pacific where we are getting rubbish collecting in islands … and that red tide that kills plankton that washes up on shorelines (including Ireland) is not a natural occurrence.

    Its a nice though that scientists everywhere are striking out for global power by what? By yelling ‘wolf’ when there isn’t one? If you want a conspiracy take a look at the amount of funding made available by Exxon and co to discredit climate change.

    An oil company wouldn’t lie. Would it?

  3. Cap’n – There is a very large [and growing] body of opinion in the scientific community that is not convinced that the current theories are correct.

    With regard to your analogy of the smoking fireplace, that is somewhat exaggerated.  CO2 makes up less than 400 parts per million, so it would be more akin to lighting a candle in the Albert Hall?

    I agree completely about pollution.  There is no argument at all about that.  We have been dumping our shit into the oceans and the atmosphere for too long, but that is an entirely different science.

    With regard to the motives behind the current research – it’s all down to money.  Billions are being piled into the subject, and for the scientists to hold their hands up and say that it’s all a heap of crock would be financial suicide for them.  If you want funding, just say you are doing climate research, and the funds will pour in.

  4. Sorry old chap, but you are off your noggin on this one.The overwhelming body of scientific opinion is clear about man made climate change.  The small minority against the theory are either “cooks” or are paid off by Mobil.

  5. TT – Sorry.  I’m sticking to my guns here.  To be a little facetious – there was once an overwhelming body of evidence that the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe?

  6. Trouble is, you guys are playing the most appallingly dangerous game there ever was. Imagine our grandchildren years down the road saying. “You knew about it and yet you did nothing.” I mean it seems you guys are prepared to wait forever to act. At least until it is too late. As for the earth being flat. Don’t even try a switcheroo here. You are the ones with your heads in the dirt ignoring the evidence.

  7. TT – Don’t forget that back in the 70s scientists were convinced that we were entering a mini ice-age.  There was serious talk at the time of laying down a layer of coal dust on the polar ice caps to absorb heat.  Suppose they had done that????

  8. China and any country with sence would of just nodded at the crazy westerners while going on with what they were doing

    capn’con – you ask were’s the money? its pritty clear where the money is the goverment gets to tax you for useing carbon (ie every thing that needs fuel to run or make) companys that make awful inefficent wind turbinee and such get to compeate with far better oil/coal due to goverment interference in the free market and even bankers and co can sell fresh air to industry with “cap and trade” programs its all about money and none of it is possible unless you can “prove” global warming which if you have enough money to throw at “scientist’s” you can prove anything and remember their jobs would not excist if the goverments didnt spend the money its in their interest to keep it going (the us alone has spent around 80 billion on this nonsense) that’s where the money is.

    tt- christ *emotion emotion emotion* THINK OF THE CHILDREN *emotion emotion emotion* as for being payed off by oil companys considering governments pour 10’s of billions into this crazyness and you have evidence of data tampering already who is being bought off by who? your right though its best not to question your priesthood eh blind faith works well no matter what happens around you thats a good drone.

    *edit*Oh …for chirst sake “science” doesnt work by a load of people nodding and agreeing thats how politics works (enough people vote it then its right) you could have 9.99 billion people convinced something is such and all you need is 1 guy to go “no thats not true and heres why” science is about whos right not who has enough nodding dog’s agreeing with them it’s telling that that’s basicly the argument for global warming “but but but like lots of people say so”

  9. OK for all you climate change deniers explain how for the first time in known history both the North West and North East passages were open??
    The Russians actually ran a couple of convoys of merchant ships through.
    I agree the CRU mess is a cluster fuck but that doesn’t negate the actual events !!
     

  10. Ugh no one “denies” climate change thats perfectly natural for a planet wasnt long ago that vikings were colonizing greenland which had a mild climate then by all accounts (lest some of it did) or ireland was under a mile of ice etc we(i) denine that humans have anything to do with it and taxing the ball’s off people or crippling industrial activity will not “fix” the planet i also resent self apointed moral high horse guardians telling me how to live my live what to eat where to go etc while they jet  around the place to tell us about the dangours of jets.

    Oh and the northwest passage was first navigated in 1906

  11. Peter – [Welcome, by the way!].  There are two issues here.  Is there Climate Change, and is it man made.  The question of Climate Change is pretty obvious, as the climate has been changing since the formation of the Earth and will continue to do so.  The question of whether the current variations are man made is another matter altogether.  As I said, the World Climate is changing.  There is not a shadow of a doubt about that, and the opening of the passages is an indicator of this [as are the floods which seem to have become an annual occurrence in Ireland and the UK].  What I think is happening though is scientists are shaping data to fit the theories rather than the other way around.  The CRU episode tends to support this?

  12. the importance of these emails is to confirm that the “science” is surely not settled as all the sky is falling people maintain now maybe even more rational people will come out of the woodwork and debate this stuff instead of the one sided mainstream crap we here about constantly.

  13. These mad scientists. Bwah haw haw !  One thing I have noticed debating this issue and others in the public arena is that most of the conspiracy theory guys never finished high school. You won’t find many naysayers who finished MIT or Cambridge. Maybe Jimmy Swaggart’s college of Theology in Louisiana.

  14. tt- you swear that every scientist in the world agreed with you or something and im surprised you debate people? all your agruments so far have been “think of the children”  “omg you dont have a collage degree lol your opinions are clearly invalid due to my paper mill cert here”  “big oil!!!!!!!”or something to that effect you offer nothing to back up your opinion but “other people say so”  its amusing you throw in a little religion dig there as your blind faith is quite clear even when faced with clear evidence of data tampering.you really should get off your pc go off and buy yourself some carbon offset so you can bypass purgatory …er i mean save the planet as your a lost cause nothing will make you question the religion.
     

  15. Roosta – I don’t know the finer points of China’s agreements, but I think there was a certain amount of American ‘persuasion’ involved?
    TT – D has a point.  It is not cut and dried 100% certainty.  I would maintain that it is far nearer 50%, if only the naysayers were allowed have a platform without being drowned out by the cynical abuse by the politicians and pros.
    I can’t speak for others, but I studied science to third level in college, though I can’t really see the relevance of that?  Oh dear, indeed.

  16. Climate change or no climate change, man made or not, can’t see countries pulling together on this one anyway when it comes to a crunch.
    China is currently building about two large power stations every week, whilst knocking out windmills like Guinness produce pints. It’s all about energy security and the trick is to become independent. Yep they’ll shake hands at summits, but then it’s back to number one jack!
    If Ireland was smart we’d take some of those NAMA billions and run a hydro-electric pilot test along the west coast. If it worked we’d build another 30 or so damns and get on with it. Less dependence on external suppliers, more jobs at home, and something with a bit of optimism about it.
    Feckin hell GD, you’ve almost got a serious debate going here!
     
     
     

  17. energy security is a worth while goal nuclear energy, wind power coupled to dams (i think you can use the wind to power pumps to fill a reservoir for the dam to generate electricity? which is more reliable than just wind which is horrible unreliable as you would always have some potential power in the reservoir reguardless of wind speed’s etc) are all things we could look into however i think that will all happen naturally once/if oil becomes to expensive and assuming nothing else come’s online before then (hydrogen?) forcing people to accept it now however when every thing is hunky dory with made up crap will only lead to a backlash and  resistance (rightly)

    the world wont end and oil wont run out tomorrow the free economy will dictate when we need to adopt new sources of power government interference will only lead to short term implementation if at all imho.

  18. Good God Gertie, but look at these comments will ya’. I’d love to join in but it’s a bit late where I’m at and I’m afraid my mind is a bit too fuzzy at the moment to guarantee coherency (I hate to lose track in the middle of a serious comment). So I’ll just check back here tomorrow with a fresh mind to see how things are going and put in my two cents then.

    By the way Grandad, I’ve been meaning to track down these emails myself but I haven’t hardly had the time to get on the old ‘puter so thanks a bunch for providing the links.

  19. I have no problems at all with alternative sources of power and agree that there should be major investment in that field.  What I do object to is doing so under the banner of ‘Global Warming’, as somehow they will use that excuse to levy ‘carbon taxes’ or whatever.

     

  20. I think the problems in whether or not there’s actually a global warming trend and whether or not it’s man made are many fold. I’m forced, however, to look at the nature of the two questions themselves:

    Is there climate change?

    and

    Is it man made?

    These questions beg a black or white answer and when it comes to humans there’s no such thing as a situation that only has a black or white answer. It’s never a yes or no situation so taking sides in this matter is a bit of a farce. But us human types are always good for a farce. Otherwise we never would have invented the carnival.

    As far as the first question is concerned, it’s the wrong question. As you pointed out yourself, GD, the climate has been changing ever since day one. The better question is:

    Is there going to be a climatic shift?

    The answer to that is a definite maybe. At least as far as the first question goes. Plenty of room for discussion of course, but there’s no answer to that yet. After all, some say the world is warming while still others state the actual data points to a definite cooling trend. All we really know is this year’s been a real wet one. I mean I’m sitting here, 8 miles from the Canadian border and it hasn’t snowed yet or even been cold enough to think about it.

    Now for the second question:

    Is it man made?

    If that’s the actual question then I’m pretty sure the answer is no. We think far too much of ourselves as to be the sole cause of changes to and within the unbelievably monstrous system that makes up our world’s climate. The better question to ask is:

    Are humans affecting our climate in an adverse way?

    And the answer is–you betcha! We most definitely are having an adverse affect on our climate. But are we the sole cause of a climate change? No, absolutely not. Of course, if we want to satisfy our over inflated egos we could always detonate a few hundred nuclear missiles here and there and I’ll guarantee the resulting climatic shift would be solely our fault.

    But I digress.

    As it stands now, any real data coming out of the world’s so-called think tanks, such as the CRU, that have been set up to ponder the problems of climate change/warming trend/global warming/whatever the watch word of the day may be, can be considered corrupt before it ever hits the streets. Why? Because the only thing that really matters now is the bottom line–money and power. And there’s more than one bottom line considering which side of the fence any particular “powers that be” might be sitting on. The trouble is that this particular fence has quite a few more sides than just the regular two. 😉
     

  21. Just looking back on Grandads’ points.  The US doesn’t ‘persuade’ China of anything. The Chinese are not dependent on US policymakers or scientists. The US can’t even get China to revalue its currency and take the downward pressure off the dollar. Mainly because China effectively owns the dollar now (holding $2trillion of the little green beggars).

    ‘There is a very large [and growing] body of opinion in the scientific community that is not convinced that the current theories are correct.’

    I keep hearing this but what body of scientific opinion claims that? 

    With regard to your analogy of the smoking fireplace, that is somewhat exaggerated.  CO2 makes up less than 400 parts per million, so it would be more akin to lighting a candle in the Albert Hall?

    When you say Co2 makes up less than 400 parts per million- are you saying of our atmosphere? I’m sorry Grandad but if you think that the entire industry of China, India and the developed west pumping billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere over the past two hundred years is akin to candle in a cathedral I think you are dramatically underplaying the amount of pollution for which we are responsible.

    Its an enclosed system with no venting or refresh systems. I’d be a lot happier with climate change sceptics if I wasn’t convinced that (a) they are being encouraged bythe world’s largest fossil fuel burner- Exxon (b) Much of the climate change scepticism comes from the US,  a nation which regards it as almost a religious right to own and operate as much oil-fired machinery as possible. The constant attempts to link climate change with yesterday’s weather which does nothing more than highlight the ignorance of those sceptics.
    I have an idea. Why not move all the climate change sceptics to the coastline? All those who believe climate change and a rise on the ocean’s seas levels is a threat get to live 20 metres above current ocean levels.
    I expect it’ll take Florida disappearing before the rednecks get it.
     
     
     
     

  22. Cap’n – I have been trawling through the U.S. Department of Energy figures and have come up with the following:

    Water vapur is the most significant greenhouse gas [accounting for around 95% of the effect].  Of this, 0.001% is of man made origin, and the rest is natural.

    Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.117% is of man made origin – one part per thousand of a minor contributor.

    You say that it is an enclosed system, but you are ignoring the Sun.  The Sun’s effect on the atmosphere and climate is incalculable.  By comparison, the human effect would be akin to a mouse on the Titanic blaming himself for the sinking because of his extra weight.   I have to agree with Kirk M.  “We think far too much of ourselves as to be the sole cause of changes to and within the unbelievably monstrous system that makes up our world’s climate.

    With regard to your idea of moving the skeptics to sea level, you are missing the point once more.  No one is saying that sea levels aren’t rising.  The question is is man the cause?

    Again, as Kirk M said [and I originally stated in my post] – this is now a trillion dollar industry.  If you want a slice of the pie, then you have to subscribe to the man made theory.  Possibly [probably] China recognises that fact.

    Incidentally, I am not funded by Exxon.  I wish I was.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting
Gravityscan Badge