Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/13/2009 12:30:33 PM PST by Welshman007
After nearly a month and counting since the story broke on the biggest scandal in scientific history, a major daily newspaper has finally undertaken a thorough examination of the evidence in the Climategate scandal.
Granted, the newspaper in question is not in the United States but the U.K. And still, even after a month the television news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to ignore the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
People who talk about Global Warming are clowns. I won't let them breath a single word in support, without coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
NO, no, no, you have this all wrong! Bush is the one who lied - the Democrats have copywrights to that accusation as well as “You’re a racist!”, which is why Asians can’t be victims of “hate crimes” like in Philadelphia.
I was surprised and a bit appalled that it has taken so long for some of these so-called "scientists" to reject this theory. But I am even more disgusted that they have hidden and deleted data to protect it. While all along leading the charge to proclaim that the "science is settled" in favor of what they should have admitted to themselves was total fraud.
And yet it was these charlatans and frauds who were promoted to the top of the food chain in climate science with huge grants and political backing. I guess power corrupts, even those who wear lab coats.
But it does not corrupt everyone. I salute the media ignored thousands of marginalized climate scientists who may have lost the grants but were able to keep their integrity.
By the way the following NASA definitions are interesting but telling:
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.<
Note that their "Global Warming" definition attributes GW solely to greenhouse gases and no other sources or reasons. Also, the "Climate Change" definition allows for "regional" changes, which substantially alters the popular meaning. This is all pretty sneaky, if you ask me. Something tells me that we need to seriously investigate NASA before they cover it all up.
And for the sake of completeness, here is the "Role" of the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
Hmmm. They already have their minds made up, don't they. Only human induced climate change is of interest to them. Little wonder why agencies submitting climate info to them started fudging and telling them what they wanted to hear. The mark of true consultants.
“According to NewsBusters, news commentator Cal Thomas answered that question quite well—’scientists can’t get grants if they don’t toe the line on climate change.’ “
I disagree. It is a “cart before the horse” argument. In this case, I think that it was idealistic, or even philosophically socialist scientists that created the issue, to which politicians eventually latched on, for their own purposes.
If you go back a generation, likewise you see the science fraud Paul R. Ehrlich, a butterfly expert, who published a nonsensical book filled with bad science, called “The Population Bomb” (1968).
Lots of naive scientists latched on to his nonsense, but there weren’t enough radical in high political power yet to do anything about it.
Had George McGovern been elected in 1972, instead of the second term for Richard Nixon, he likely would have fully embraced Ehrlich’s wild theories, but more importantly, Ehrlich’s authoritarian remedies.
Very importantly, what Ehrlich proposed then is very similar to some of the radical legislation trying to get through congress today, like Cap and Trade.
One of Ehrlich’s critics noted: “As soon as one predicted disaster doesn’t occur, the doomsayers skip to another... why don’t [they] see that, in the aggregate, things are getting better? Why do they always think we’re at a turning point — or at the end of the road?”
Now *that* was a prediction that came to pass.
It appears in this article on global cooling as "climatic change" :
"The Cooling World"
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
It seems to me that the most powerful arguments are in the physics & chemistry & atmospheric papers.
“GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES”
Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007
(Any imbalance our CO2 emissions caused [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. His calculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.)
Summaries of the paper:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Einstein-like-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
(Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.)
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
The Great Global Warming Hoax?
James A. Peden
(Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.)
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Greenhouse Misconceptions
by Tom Kondis
November 2008
(speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven’t verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth’s climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.)
http://www.junkscience.com/nov08/greenhouse_misconceptions.html
Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies
by Tom Kondis
May 21, 2008
(advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth’s surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.)
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
******
GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007. (Any imbalance [in] CO2 emissions [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. [C]alculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.)
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE, Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD. (Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.)
The Great Global Warming Hoax? James A. Peden. (Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.)
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008. (What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet destroying toxin.)
Greenhouse Misconceptions, Tom Kondis. November 2008. (Speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven’t verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth’s climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.)
Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies, by Tom Kondis. May 21, 2008. (Advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth’s surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.)
*******
Any economic scheme to exchange worthless papers or certificates is theft from working people and producers to politicians and big business who are driving this insanity. The only disagreements in this discussion are which wolf gets the best, biggest share of the sheep.
The science is not settled. It has not even been discussed. All opposition has been squashed. The IPCC’s arguments rest on 1) a motley collection of suspect historical data about temperatures and 2) the idea that the earth’s atmosphere is analogous to a backyard greenhouse.
The IPCC cannot refute these arguments:
GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007. (Any imbalance [in] CO2 emissions [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. [C]alculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.)
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE, Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD. (Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.)
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? James A. Peden. (Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.)
CLIMATE SCIENCE: IS IT CURRENTLY DESIGNED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008. (What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet destroying toxin.)
GREENHOUSE MISCONCEPTIONS, Tom Kondis. November 2008. (Speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven’t verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth’s climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.)
GREENHOUSE GAS FACTS AND FANTASIES, by Tom Kondis. May 21, 2008. (Advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth’s surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.)
Sorry about the duplication — I promise I will preview from now on. Pls forgive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.