GloBull Warming Bullshit
Here is another example of GloBull Warming being blamed for two opposite events.
Heavy snowfall in the East Coast? GloBull Warming
Light snowfall on the Sierra Nevada's? Glo Bull Warming
The blizzards that have buried the Northeast, (Al Gore) writes, are proof of global warming because record evaporation due to warming is what produces record snows. Except that supporters of his theory not long ago argued exactly the opposite.
He writes that we should "not miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm." He should explain why last year Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., warned that lack of snow in the mountains was threatening California's water supply.
Boxer, who along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, is trying to ram through a Senate version of the House's Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, said: "Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snowpack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood."
Can the left admit that when GloBull Warming has been used to explain things like the collapse of the 35W bridge, the movement has gone off the rails?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (33)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 02, 2010
The entire movement has been discredited. The "scientists" would have been refuting the most outrageous claims if they really believed in the facts. Instead, they competed to see who could come up with the scariest scenarios. These flights of fancy have been found out and labeled correctly: LIES.
written by Fred , March 02, 2010
I don't believe the "entire movement" has been discredited and some scientists have had their data and methodology exposed for inaccuracies. There are thousands of scientists looking into this problem and just because a few have been discredited and it snows in new York does not discredit the science.
written by K-Rod , March 02, 2010
Fred, are you asking them to disprove something that wasn't proven in the first place?
If you don't use scientific method you can't call it science.
Your faith that MMGW is a "problem" shows your Branch AlGorean tendencies.
written by Nobody , March 02, 2010
Premice; climate should not change and if it does mankind is to blame. WRONGO!
written by Fred , March 02, 2010
Nobody, you must not have paid any attention to my past comments on this subject. It is not as simple as you make it to be as indicated by your comment. I'll spell it out for you again: I believe that emissions of GHG's into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution have contributed to some degree to global warming and I am in favor of reducing emissions of these gases not so much for MMGW sake but for the sake of cleaner air and water. Climate change is cyclic and I believe current cycles are being influenced by the increased concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere and the resulting changes in moisture content and global temperatures as indicated by increasing global temparatures and increased frequency/intensity of precipitation events. There, I hope that helped!
written by Sequel , March 02, 2010
Fred-
For your reading pleasure.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
written by K-Rod , March 02, 2010
Fred, do you really think reducing human CO2 output equates to, and I quote you, "cleaner air and water"?
written by Kermit , March 02, 2010
There are also thousands of scientists who dispute AGW. The IPCC is a UN front group, and I would not trust them any more than I trust the IAEA, which has done such stellar work on Iran's nuke program.
The climate changes. All by itself. All the time.
written by Fred , March 02, 2010
"In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field".
I couldn't agree more! As much as scientific malpractice reduces the integrity of the science to some degree you must realize that this malpractice is not rampant but discovered thru the process of FOI inquiries and peer review. I also acknowledge the scientists that dispute AGW but I am of the opinion that their case is not as strong not so much in the review of the data but putting the data down and looking at physical evidence such as satellite photos, weather observations and historical phenology observations. Thanks for the IP Memo; I'll give it a read.
written by K-Rod , March 02, 2010
Fred, real scientists are waiting for the MMGW Branch AlGoreans to scientifically and statistically prove MMAGW.
There has been NO statistical global warming since 1995. How's that for statistical evidence? How does that match your hockey stick graph?
written by Kermit , March 02, 2010
"This malpractice is not rampant". How do we know this, exactly? Thus far all of the evidence indicates that it is not just "rampant", but SOP.
written by Fred , March 02, 2010
Kermit - I have not seen the evidence that this is rampant. I would be interested in seeing this if you have a source. There are a hell of a lot of scientists out there studying climate/climate change. I would be curious as to what percentage of these scientists are engaged in MMGW fraud.
written by Kermit , March 02, 2010
I read a statement signed by around 10,000 scientists that dispute AGW. We posted it a couple of years ago at the old sight. It's public domain, Fred.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 02, 2010
15 years of no statistically significant temperature change is a sign of MMGW?
More snow and less snow is a sign of MMGW. More fog and less fog is a sign of MMGW. MMGW is a religion as anything that happens in our volatile climate is given as proof of MMGW.
Has man altered the environment? Hell YES! You can see the Great Wall of China from space. The Panama Canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There is a hole in Russia that has it's own weather patterns.
What should we do about all of this? not much. CO2 is not a pollutant, trees breathe it in. The main GHG is water, not much we can do about that.
Climatology should be an obscure science with no political agenda, like Geology. They should track the inevitable warming and cooling of the globe and otherwise STFU.
Telling the developed world to spend trillions on a problem that is less deadly than malaria or clean water is just plain evil. Millions will die from misplaced incentives and reduced industrialization.
What is by far the biggest force in bringing people out of poverty? Capitalism. What is anti-capitalistic? MMGW Assholes. If you support Al Gore, you support killing millions of people so liberals can feel good. That is some seriously sick shit.
written by K-Rod , March 02, 2010
Fred, I have not seen any proof of MMGW.
In God We Trust, all others must bring DATA.
written by Fred , March 02, 2010
Did I say I support Al Gore?? Why must you insist on lumping everybody into categories (Al Goreans, MMGW assholes, etc, etc..)
"you support killing millions of people so liberals can feel good. That is some seriously sick shit."
That statement you made is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard you say.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 02, 2010
"I would be curious as to what percentage of these scientists are engaged in MMGW fraud."
How many scientists are pimping themselves out for money? Most of them. Read a few grant applications and you'll see that the average street walking whore has more respect and honesty than a scientist begging for money.
Honest, hard working scientists don't go into climatology as the field is run by hacks and everyone knows it. Plus, really smart people don't just do research, they actually participate in the real world. Losers afraid of the private sector stay in academia. Trust me, I have met quite a few of them.
written by K-Rod , March 02, 2010
Fred, do you really think reducing human CO2 output equates to, and I quote you, "cleaner air and water"?
Fred, Do you really think "The dog ate the data" is a strong case?
There is no proof, the MMGW science in not settled, and the MMGW is not based on a "strong" case.
To claim otherwise only shows you're a part of the Branch AlGorean Sect.
written by Sequel , March 02, 2010
You may not want to expose yourself to the horrors that is a trip to Hot Air so I'll cut and paste a list of global warming... um problems.
The point of the post is that the American media refuses to cover these things and so the British press is doing the investigative reporting.
* University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
* The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
* NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
* East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
* No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
* IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
* IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
* Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
* Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
* Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
* Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
* Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
* African-crop claims exposed as false
* IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
* Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
* Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
written by Clark Carter , March 03, 2010
When Fred wrote the above, he wrote of the whole key to this affair. No one can look at the record of fraud & lies surrounding the global warmers without realizing it was all a hoax. But as Fred finally pointed out, our betters on the coasts decided to scare the American people with the specter of global warming so that we would clean the environment far beyond the level that makes scientific and economic sense. It's a scam, Fred. You know it. I know it. The readers here know it.
And if the environmentalists don't recognize and deal with this fact, the resulting anti-environmental backlash will not be kind to your god, the earth.
written by Fred , March 03, 2010
CC - I'd be careful telling people what they know and who their God is. Thanks.
written by Clark Carter , March 04, 2010
True, I know nothing about your religion. I also know that if this global warming fraud was in front of a jury, since it could be proven that the perpetrators 1) hid data to publish false conclusions 2) tried to destroy the reputations of those like Lomborg who tried to keep the environmental movement fact-based, suppressing their research & 3) personally profited from government & private actions (e.g. "carbon credits" that were engendered by the data those same people manipulated, the verdict would be guilty of fraud. Regardless of whether we're warming the earth, these people lied and manipulated data to gain power and enrich themselves
The American people, those who don't pay a lot of attention to the news, might wake up and realize how their lives were almost turned upside-down, and their standard of living destroyed, on the basis of a fraud. If they do, the Republican party is dead, as the anger then unleashed will punish that party for power-grabbing empty suits like Graham.
written by Fred , March 04, 2010
"I also know that if this global warming fraud was in front of a jury, since it could be proven that the perpetrators 1) hid data to publish false conclusions 2) tried to destroy the reputations of those like Lomborg who tried to keep the environmental movement fact-based, suppressing their research & 3) personally profited from government & private actions (e.g. "carbon credits" that were engendered by the data those same people manipulated, the verdict would be guilty of fraud. Regardless of whether we're warming the earth, these people lied and manipulated data to gain power and enrich themselves"
Sounds like a slam dunk; what are you waiting for then; bring it on. I'm sure nothing would bring more pleasure to the angry conservatives than to see Al Gore imprisoned in a 10 x 10 cell with a 120W incandescent light bulb. Bring it before a jury now if you have the evidence and the stones.
written by Sequel , March 04, 2010
That would require a federal prosecutor with the stones to buck Eric Holder.
Besides Gore is just a snake oil salesman.
It's the "scientists" who should be in trouble.
Looks like some folks in England could be in for some criminal trouble for obtaining grants by fraud.
written by Kermit , March 04, 2010
I'd say this has already been tried in the court of public opinion. The acolytes lost.
written by Fred , March 04, 2010
Neither of you make a convincing argument. I hope your Federal Prosecutor with stones has a thicker file than that.
written by Sequel , March 04, 2010
I'm not sure what you mean by a thinker file Fred.
However- If you show a jury that an academic falsified data to produce a super scary result, then went to the government asking for grants based on the ubercrisis shown from the faked data...
Yeah, sounds like guilty of fraud to me.
Will anyone actually do time over this? Prolly not.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 04, 2010
When Republicans take back the House and the Senate they will run the committees. Cuurently every attempt to have Al Gore testify before congress has been blocked by Democrats. When the Democrats are in the minority Al Gore won't have them to cover for him.
Look for Senator Rick Perry to team up with Senator James Inhofe. Perry has the stones and Inhofe has had Gore's number for years. Unemployment will still be at 8% or higher so dragging Al Gore, Michale Mann and James Hanson through the mud will be great political theater. (I predict that at least one of them will defy a Congressional subpoena. This set the stage for stripping away their jobs and government grants) Republican wins in 2010 will set the stage for the end of the MMGW movement. Americans will be forced to confront the lies of Al Gore and his profiteering from his lies.
This alone should motivate everyone to work their asses off to get the Democrats out of office.
written by Fred , March 04, 2010
It's thicker Sequel; not thinker. here I thought I made a typo when you made a reado.
written by Clark Carter , March 05, 2010
Unfortunately, the GOP is full of first class fraudulent jerks like Lindsay Graham who will back the known fraud or anything else that increases the power of government. If the GOP gets in charge again, all they will do is spend money differently. remember, W started this madness. They won't cut back on government. They will back a carbon tax. There are Republicans like Bachmann (sp?) who deserve a vote, but many more who deserve a third party challenge.
We must kill the GOP.
And Fred, I'd be glad to bring the prosecution. Unfortunately, our legal system has been so perverted by politics (e.g. no probable cause for a domestic violence arrest) that it no longer does justice - yet another thing the GOP never fought. And just to reply to your next snotty post, I hope the next lover you have accuses you of something so you can enjoy the pleasure of mandatory arrest without probable cause.
written by Clark Carter , March 05, 2010
For everyone's edification, conduct that is fraudulent as defined in the criminal law is explained quite well on page 2 of this complaint:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/...21433.pdf
I have no idea if the defendants in this case are in fact guilty or innocent. But the conduct the government thinks it can prove occurred consists of the defendants here using statements they knew to be false to enrich themselves.
In other words, when you know the data is false but you use it anyway, either to enrich yourself or to gain something else you want (power, control) you have committed a fraud. Notice the first facts alleged in the complaint were knowingly false statements by the defendants.
Directly comparable would be a situation where you were getting many more grants than you used to - or if you're a failed politician starting corporations to cash in on carbon credits - and when you find out the real data doesn't match your theories, thereby threatening your gravy train, you "hide the decline." It's certainly a case where there is enough probable cause to be investigated.
Well, I'm an X-GOPer (as well as a recovering attorney), but when I was in the party I noticed I wasn't the only lawyer there. And I couldn't help but notice some of them were prosecutors. Please GOP lawyers grow a gonad, or better yet two, and at least investigate this fraud. Certainly forcing libs to explain WHY they hid the data wouldn't hurt in an election year.
written by Clark Carter , March 05, 2010
I don't really understand computers & etc., or why my link didn't go through, but if you expand the sec.gov URL with the following, you can read a complaint that has some eerie parallels to what the warmists did.
litigation/complaints/2010/comp21433.pdf
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
