Originally Posted by
Brick Top
If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me.
Have you not heard about Climategate and now the sequel, Climategate 2? Recently another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​​ground zero of Climategate I in 2009 were released​. They have been even more damning than the originals.
Here is a little bit that touches on the consensus lie.
One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter),
the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​​namely, that there exists a firm consensus about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.
In the editing process before the IPCCs 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation,
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short summary for policy makers​​usually the only part of the IPCCs multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around.
This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the consensus recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats included and what is left out.
Wake up and smell the Mango Haze, dude! Man made or man driven global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of this rock we all live on.
Nothing but a true right wing cocksucker this guy.Crap invented by republicans and you believe it. Your posts are always full of shit old man.
No, you are wrong. This old man tells nothing but the truth, unlike you and Al Gore and your ilk.
The drowning polar bear story was a lie. Polar ice caps and on Greenland are expanding and getting thicker. The temperature rise of the planet ended in 1998 and since 2003 the temperature has been dropping.
The religious cult of man-made global warming is dead. It's high priests have been caught in numerous lies, found to have withheld data, found to have manipulated data, found to have misrepresented data, known to have lied about there being a consensus. The vanishing Himalayan Glaciers story was a total fabrication. The claim about there being larger numbers of and more powerful hurricanes and typhoons and tornadoes was a complete lie.
NASA blew massive holes in the religious cult of man-made global warming with their research. The central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.
Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is
NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it.
Here are some of the email exchanges found in Climategate 2: The Lies of Liberals:
/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
Subsequent evidence [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge more evidence. What is it?
And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.
<0714> Jones:
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
<3205> Jones:
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I cant overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and dont want to be made
to look foolish.
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
<3655> Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy
<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
global icons [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local reason for the
destruction cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
unchanging environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? Thats the sort of thing we need to think about.
Right there in the words of the peudo-scientists who are doing their damndest to perpitrate this hoax on mankind you see then dreaming up schemes and ways to distort information, to hide information, to embellish information to make it scare people, trying to dream up some far fetched scenario where a single weather event could be portrayed as what will be normal weather in the future.
In Al Gores video, Climate 101, it shows how to do a simple experiment at home to prove carbon dioxide causes global warming.
But if you watch closely, youll see an inconvenient truth of the worst kind. Watch the portion of the video that begins at 1:00 and ends at 1:20. You see, he faked not only the experiment but also the results with video editing tricks. Video analysis proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You cannot believe
anything that comes from the chicken little - the sky is falling religious cult of man-made global warming alarmists. Time and time again they have been caught in lies, trickery and deceptions. They have never been honest, not once from day one. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe them has to have an IQ that is pretty much the same as the coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica, that being −129.3 °F
.