is climate change a hoax? $2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?

[Red + 252]

12 hours ago, Illurion said:

NO....

The changing and bastardizing of raw data is a NEW THING....

It was unheard of prior to the 1990's.........

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

To begin, there is no agreed "global temperature".  Different scientific bodies use methods they prefer based on principles they believe give the most reliable outcome.

Next, it is impossible for anyone to arrive at a global temperature unless they use a methodology which incorporates many temperatures from around the globe, and then a process to reach a single best estimate of what it was.  

[edited for community guidelines]

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Rodent
violation of community guidelines, harassment/attacking other forum members

[Illurion + 894]

12 hours ago, Red said:

As if I care who blocks me!

I post at five other forums, but this one takes the cake for people making regular baseless comments.  

If you want to make a claim, and don't want to substantiate it, that's your call, and you are good at it.

So you sit in front of a pc blogging all day ?

[edited for community guidelines]

Edited February 19, 2019 by Rodent
violation of community guidelines, harassment/attacking other forum members

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

My parents believed in education, and I received scholarships in college and graduate school based on merit. 

I am grateful that I do not believe in unsubstantiated conspiracies.

There is corruption in our world, but the solution is transparency, not echo chambers.

 

The mainstream media does not offer transparency but obfuscation. That is obvious to anyone who actually looks for the truth.

 Critical Information on the Trump and Hillary Investigations

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1choW_wq0D5DfjRPjqLlAkfxCnnVJhRzrHeXppE6D4E8/edit#

[specinho + 470]

11 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

These numbers are from the Pew Research Center

Trust them or not, this explains a lot about the dialog in this forum.

I am reassured that the majority of the U. S. population thinks Climate Change is a real problem.

Conservative Republicans especially skeptical of climate scientists’ research and understanding

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/04/conservative-republicans-especially-skeptical-of-climate-scientists-research-and-understanding/ 

 

Not sure how true this is........ 

Confucius stated “I Hear and I Forget, I See and I Remember, I Do and I Understand”

 

We get confused easily with facts claimed by different parties lobbying for different funds trying to be the first of releasing something new and not so new............. Therefore........ regardless how many reports are published; how many roads and areas are flooded.......... you need the houses or residential areas of the representatives to be flooded (and regularly or out of normly so) so that they can understand............. and want to finally do something to prevent shifting too often............. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Illurion said:

Clownfest is an accurate way to describe what Red writes,  and the way he writes it...........

Hopefully n the future,  he will please abide by the POSTING RULES OF THIS WEBSITE,  AND INPUT his RESPONSES "SEPARATE" FROM WHAT HE IS RESPONDING TO LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES...........

In other words,  he should stop inserting his garbage into the various sentences of my posts........

Just hit the QUOTE button,  and add his thoughts at the bottom of the dialog box that appears.................

.................

AS FOR THE STUDIES FROM THE 1970'S,   THEY ARE ALL "pre-internet"  ,  AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AS FAR AS I KNOW..

However,  i read them back then,  and remember what they said,  and i am not the only one that remembers it also,  as others on this site have mentioned them too...

I do not know how old you are,  but you are probably too young to know these things given that you state you have never heard of them...

[edited for community guidelines]

There are countless studies, pre internet that have been scanned and put on University Websites. Surely you can find one to support your claim. 

As for my Age - I did my Undergraduate Degree in the pre internet era

Edited February 19, 2019 by Rodent
violation of community guidelines, harassment/attacking other forum members

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Illurion said:

As i have stated for you on many occasions.  I will not do your research for you.

The proof you seek is in the form of hundreds of articles over the last few years which succinctly show how NASA, NOAA, etc have used various methods,  including algorithms, to ACTUALLY CHANGE THE REAL DATA READINGS IN VARIOUS DATABASES.

In addition,  on the NOAA side,  it also has been shown that not only did they create new databases based on "changed" data from the original databases,  but,  they even went so far as to "destroy" the original database information.

these people are currently being protected by the swamp creatures,  who are not allowing them to be prosecuted at this time...

But,  it is quite possible that once the swamp is drained,  and the rule of law is re-established,  that some of these "scientists" that you admire so much will be going to prison...

If you make a claim that challenges the mainstream scientific consensus then its incumbent upon you to provide the evidence to back that claim up. 

A reliance on the 'Google it' answer to any challenge pretty much betrays that you have never done any research of any sort at a Tertiary level. 

So come on - lets see those academic papers predicting an Ice Age / Cool phase in the 1970's. They will be have been scanned and put on university websites since the internet was developed. Surely the WUWT / Fred S Singer etc brigade would have got hold of them? 

Alternatively as Red says, you read this is some comic circa 1976 and assumed it to be true and relied on this anecdote ever since. 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Illurion said:

Frankly Red,   many of the other members of this forum have you "BLOCKED", so that they never see what you write,  which is why they do not respond to your posts.

Haven't you noticed that there are members that never respond to you ?

 

I know this because they have messaged me asking me WHY I HAVE NOT BLOCKED YOU..,  and suggesting to me that i should block you......

I always respond with the same thing,   i have an opened mind,  and try to hear everyone's opinion...   Even when i disagree with it...

 

But this is getting really old.......

 

Forum Definition

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

 

Once forums / forum members start blocking content and members they disagree with then they risk turning into an echo chamber and the forum slowly dies a gradual death. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

If you make a claim that challenges the mainstream scientific consensus then its incumbent upon you to provide the evidence to back that claim up. 

A reliance on the 'Google it' answer to any challenge pretty much betrays that you have never done any research of any sort at a Tertiary level. 

So come on - lets see those academic papers predicting an Ice Age / Cool phase in the 1970's. They will be have been scanned and put on university websites since the internet was developed. Surely the WUWT / Fred S Singer etc brigade would have got hold of them? 

Alternatively as Red says, you read this is some comic circa 1976 and assumed it to be true and relied on this anecdote ever since. 

Since neither one of you could be bothered, here's an article from Forbes on the subject.  Looks like it could have been interpreted either way really.  Of course, the article is from 2009 so one or both of you will probably discount it as well.  Oh well, just trying to be helpful.   

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

[Illurion + 894]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Forum Definition

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

 

Once forums / forum members start blocking content and members they disagree with then they risk turning into an echo chamber and the forum slowly dies a gradual death. 

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BLOCK PEOPLE IN ORDER TO LIVE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER.......

YOU are part of your own echo chamber...........

YOU are singing to your own Choir..........

YOU are part of the "CULT OF GLOBAL WARMING"......

And you attack everyone that is not a member of your cult......

 

Over the last year or so,  i have presented many pieces of evidence that Global Warming does not exist......

And so have other members............

 

And you and Red have attacked all of us,   and ignore our evidence,  and then demand MORE evidence.........

 

Why should we waste any more time on YOU...?

.............................

In another of your posts above, you wrote:  " As for my Age - I did my Undergraduate Degree in the pre internet era."

..............................

Golly Gee......   You have a Bachelors........   I am ssssoooo intimidated........

..............................

As for me,   i had completed my Masters by then..........   But who cares............

..............................

At least i learned something from my education.......

 

You are just full of propaganda...............

[Illurion + 894]

33 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Since neither one of you could be bothered, here's an article from Forbes on the subject.  Looks like it could have been interpreted either way really.  Of course, the article is from 2009 so one or both of you will probably discount it as well.  Oh well, just trying to be helpful.   

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

Thanks......

What a great article that was....

I had forgotten about it....

I usually do not read Forbes,  but when i read that back then,  it reminded me of a really great article on the coming ice age that was in the Naval Institute Magazine - "Proceedings",  from around 1974 or 1975.........

[NickW + 2,714]

35 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Since neither one of you could be bothered, here's an article from Forbes on the subject.  Looks like it could have been interpreted either way really.  Of course, the article is from 2009 so one or both of you will probably discount it as well.  Oh well, just trying to be helpful.   

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

Exactly as Red said. A media article then. 🤦‍♀️

It references the cooling period of 1940-70 (it actually flatlined rather than cooled) which is primarily attributable to high aerosol emissions over that period. Other than that it talks about Weather. 

Next....

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Illurion said:

Thanks......

What a great article that was....

I had forgotten about it....

I usually do not read Forbes,  but when i read that back then,  it reminded me of a really great article on the coming ice age that was in the Naval Institute Magazine - "Proceedings",  from around 1974 or 1975.........

As Red said - a media article......

[NickW + 2,714]

Here is a challenge. Go and find some peer reviewed and published scientific papers* from the 1970's that predicted the imminent onset of the next Ice Age. 

This does not include newspaper articles, political campaigns, opinion pieces or extracts from Judge Dredd, Marvel Comics

 

[Illurion + 894]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

 mainstream scientific consensus

There is no "mainstream scientific consensus" that Global Warming exists.........

There is only a cabal of perpetrators that are pushing the story to make money......

And many cult members that have fallen for the scam.....

Fortunately the President of the USA is removing the USA from playing a part in the scam...

 

But do not worry,   "this too shall pass."

 

There will no doubt be an interesting read about this time in history in future textbooks......

 

They will no doubt list the "Global Warming Fad" as an example of what can happen when things go horribly wrong in peer-reporting.......

[Illurion + 894]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Here is a challenge. Go and find some peer reviewed and published scientific papers* from the 1970's that predicted the imminent onset of the next Ice Age. 

This does not include newspaper articles, political campaigns, opinion pieces or extracts from Judge Dredd, Marvel Comics

 

silly you......

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, Illurion said:

There is no "mainstream scientific consensus" that Global Warming exists.........

There is only a cabal of perpetrators that are pushing the story to make money......

And many cult members that have fallen for the scam.....

Fortunately the President of the USA is removing the USA from playing a part in the scam...

 

But do not worry,   "this too shall pass."

 

There will no doubt be an interesting read about this time in history in future textbooks......

 

They will no doubt list the "Global Warming Fad" as an example of what can happen when things go horribly wrong in peer-reporting.......

That first sentence has about as much plausibility as the statement

There is no mainstream scientific consensus that the Earth is round. 

Predictably you fall back on the good old - its a cabal, cult etc in the absence of having any reasoned science to back yourself up

I think you have found a Kon-spiracy there..........

 

 

[Illurion + 894]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

Here is a challenge. Go and find some peer reviewed and published scientific papers* from the 1970's that predicted the imminent onset of the next Ice Age. 

This does not include newspaper articles, political campaigns, opinion pieces or extracts from Judge Dredd, Marvel Comics

 

"peer reviewed" is your Achilles heel........

You still believe it has not been corrupted.........  despite all the evidence that it has.......

History will show that a breakdown,  and corrupted manipulation of the "peer review" process on an international basis,  was the cause of the "Global Warming Fad " fiasco.......

And you just do not see it.....

You have blinders on......

Open your eyes....

Edited February 19, 2019 by Illurion

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Illurion said:

I did,  it appears to be inserted into your rear.........

Insults - they hurt so much😄

[Illurion + 894]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Insults - they hurt so much😄

Finally we can agree on something.............

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, Illurion said:

"per reviewed" is your Achilles heel........

You still believe it has not been corrupted.........  despite all the evidence that it has.......

History will show that a breakdown,  and corrupted manipulation of the "peer review" process on an international basis,  was the cause of the "Global Warming Fad " fiasco.......

And you just do not see it.....

You have blinders on......

Open your eyes....

Welcome to 1750 and the beginning of the modern World where peer reviewed science took over from religious dogma and has been the basis for most scientific advancement since then. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by NickW

[Illurion + 894]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

Welcome to 1750 and the beginning of the modern World where peer reviewed science took over from religious dogma. 

Welcome to 2019,   and the continued resumption of the religious dogma called "Global Warming" and the cult that follows it........

 

ps:  my apologies.. i typo'd a previous post and wrote "Per" instead of "Peer"...

Edited February 19, 2019 by Illurion

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Illurion said:

Welcome to 2019,   and the continued resumption of the religious dogma called "Global Warming" and the cult that follows it........

So where is the serious research then to show that AGW is a cult? 

There are numerous countries with strong factions that would like to see the back of AGW - Major coal producers, Gulf states, Russia, Poland, Czech R and the USA. 

Why didn't Trump Uni get into this and take on Harvard, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford etc? Oh silly me - they were to busy competing with Hamburger Uni for prospective students😄

[Illurion + 894]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

So where is the serious research then to show that AGW is a cult? 

?????????????

You have got to be kidding me.......

What is wrong with you,    that you have to be SHOWN everything ?

And what is wrong with you,    that you think you are so GODLY,     that everyone has to explain themselves to you. ?

 

You seem to think the world revolves around you.......

[Illurion + 894]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

Clearly you have no understanding of academic process. 

You challenge the consensus its incumbent upon the challenger to come up with the evidence to support your position. 

Seriously - you expect me to search for evidence (that probably doesn't exist) to support your position?  

Whether you chose to take up the challenge is up to you but don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't. 

You have it backwards......

I haven't "challenged the consensus",   there is no "consensus."

A group that calls itself "a consensus"  has challenged the scientific community,  and the common sense of the people......

Many people, and governments have been fooled,   but not the majority of us....

 

You really think highly of yourself......

 

You are always spouting statements to me and others that we "do not understand", this or that........

As if YOU do......

 

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong ?

 

Is humility even in your vocabulary ?

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, Illurion said:

You have it backwards......

I haven't "challenged the consensus",   there is no "consensus."

A group that calls itself "a consensus"  has challenged the scientific community,  and the common sense of the people......

Many people, and governments have been fooled,   but not the majority of us....

 

You really think highly of yourself......

 

You are always spouting statements to me and others that we "do not understand", this or that........

As if YOU do......

 

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong ?

 

Is humility even in your vocabulary ?

 

[edited for community guidelines]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consensus

a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*

Edited February 19, 2019 by Rodent
violation of community guidelines, harassment/attacking other forum members