Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 1,101 to 1,119 of 1119

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1101

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;909271]
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Here's a list of 125 errors in the Monckton "research" paper:http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
    ahhh this disagrees with everything I've said, no point reading this past E1


    FTFY

  2. #1102

    Default



    What caused the acceleration in global warming in 1690-1740?

  3. #1103

    Default The TRUTH. The obvious fudging of the land based temperature record.

    Ladies and gentlemen of Alberta. Temperature records of the past are created using different methods. Proxy records use indicators other than modern instruments to determine the temperature. Instrument records (thermometers) have been used by the US, Britain, and other countries (depending on development) since the 1800's. GISS, NOAA and Hadcrut are land based thermometer readings, or ship based ocean readings of temperature that go back to the 1800's. Radiosonde, UAH, and RSS are atmospheric readings that go back about 40 years.

    Radiosonde, UAH, and RSS show no significant warming in the last 20 years, and increasingly even the 40 year trend is coming into question.

    Climate advocacy at NASA, NOAA, Hadcrut, has given the keepers of the temperature records the leniency to fudge the data to fit the global warming theory. They present a picture of of a worldwide, smooth, exponential, warming curve that correlates well with CO2. But this close match is collusion and fraud. The dust bowl of the 1930's has been erased, record high temperatures are recorded all over the world where there is no data, the 1970's cooling has been erased, the early 1900's records have been lowered. And with all that fudging, 5 independent records from NOAA, NASA, Hadcrut, and others are shown to be identical, an irrefutable indication of collusion.

    Tony Heller explains the fudging and collusion of the land based records in this video. Tony uses past versions of GISS, Hadcrut, newspaper clippings, and other records to show the 1930's warming was real, and has been erased from the temperature record. You can argue about the validity of the fudging of the data, but with past records (still) available on the internet, you cannot argue the records aren't being fudged.

    Watch this comprehensive video on the comprehensive fudging, and misrepresentation of the land based temperature records..............

    Last edited by MrCombust; 06-11-2018 at 07:14 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #1104

    Default The TRUTH. Exactly where does "climate science" come from?

    One source of "climate science" is the IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was formed by the UN to summarize all the published climate science to produce a cohesive summary report for nations of the world. The IPCC has many scientists working on technical reports, followed by a summary report by, and for, policy makers.

    But the IPCC went a little berserk, instead of "summarizing" science, they became eco-climate activists. Instead of "summarizing" the science, the policy makers began to dictate the science. Here's a report from the IPCC explaining why 16 pages of changes to the technical report had to be made to fit the policy report. That's changes to the science reports to fit the policy reports.........................

    "Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_...ckle_backs.pdf

    So the next time CBC says we gotta reduce our carbon footprint, ask them....... according to the science, or the IPCC policymakers?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 10-11-2018 at 03:32 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1105

    Default The TRUTH. The climate change gravy train.......

    It's always comical when the climate advocates slander some guy because he sat in the same restaurant with an Exxon employee. They pretend climate denial is based on big money from the fossil fuel corporations. Nothing, NOTHING compares to the ocean of money, glory, fame, and adulation of climate advocacy. Who doesn't love somebody trying to "save the planet"?

    Watch this video on the massive money stream to keep the climate change agenda alive.

    Look who's making the REAL money.........

    "Follow the Money" by Marc Morano.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #1106

    Default The TRUTH. No end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend!



    What cooling trend? Where'd it go?


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #1107
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,922

    Default

    ^^

    mark morano?

    really???

    this mark morano:

    MarcMorano is the real-world fossil fuel industry version of Nick Naylor. His career began working for Rush Limbaugh, followed by a job at Cybercast News Service where he launched the Swift Boat attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. In 2006, Morano became the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who is perhaps best known for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor and calling human-caused global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

    Thus it’s unsurprising that in 2009, Morano began directing fossil fuel funded think-tanks designed to cast doubt on the reality of and dangers associated with human-caused global warming. As he admitted in Merchants of Doubt, Morano frequently embodies the strategy of climate denial known as ‘fake experts’…


    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-million-users

    that mark morano?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #1108
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    If you actually follow the money, you realize the trail leads to people like him. Because there's a whole lot more money in the oil industry than in the "climate change industry" or whatever.

  9. #1109

    Default The TRUTH. The left wing CBC has a schizophrenic break. More fraud from the CBC.

    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    Last edited by MrCombust; Yesterday at 10:42 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #1110

    Default The TRUTH. US heat wave index, courtesy of the EPA

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #1111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    climate change is causing polar bears to migrate from traditional areas into areas where there is population as their food sources become less and less.


    Your line of reasoning is just incredibly...

  12. #1112

    Default The TRUTH. Jordan Peterson tells the TRUTH about global warming.

    In this video Jordan Peterson tells the frank truth about global warming in a short synopsis. He's asked if "climate change" will unite us all in a common cause. Jordan answers "no", and talks about the "Low resolution thinking" of the climate activists.

    "Climate change is a catastrophic, nightmarish mess"

    I guess he will now be slandered by the climate change liar blogs as an Exxon Mobile funded denier.

    Climate change is thug science, and Jordan Peterson will now be attacked.

    Notice the poser of the original question asks if the climate issue will "take us beyond debate". Her question is actually her answer. In science there is no such thing as "beyond debate". When the budget of solving a problem is a quadrillion dollars over the period of a century, the issue will never be "beyond debate". Climate activists do not want debate, they want submission and agreement with their position, and the poser of this question is no exception. She doesn't even understand her own folly while asking when the issue will be "beyond debate".

    Last edited by MrCombust; Yesterday at 06:33 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #1113

    Default

    Looks like a good read (below). This article is sure worth reading:



    Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science - Wikipedia

    “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science(1957)—originally published in 1952 as In the Name of Science: An Entertaining Survey of the High Priests and Cultists of Science, Past and Present[1]—was Martin Gardner's second book.[2][3] A survey of what it described as pseudosciences and cult beliefs, it became a founding document in the nascent scientific skepticism movement. Michael Shermer said of it: "Modern skepticism has developed into a science-based movement, beginning with Martin Gardner's 1952 classic".[4] ...”



    “Gardner says that cranks have two common characteristics. The first "and most important" is that they work in almost total...”

    The second characteristic of the crank (which also contributes to...) is the tendency to... There are five ways in which this tendency is likely to be manifested.

    The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

    He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.

    He believes there is a campaign against...”


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_a...ame_of_Science

  14. #1114
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    ^^Why is Jordan Peterson an authority on climate change? He's not a climate scientist, not an environmental scientist. He's not even well respected within his own field.

    He's simply someone who knows how to sound smart without saying anything of value, and how to pander to an audience that wants to hear their prejudiced ideas from an "educated" voice.

  15. #1115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    If Mr. Combust had bothered to read the key points accompanying this chart, he would know the chart does nothing to disprove global warming either in the contiguous 48 states or anywhere else in the world.

    Not that I expect these points to penetrate Mr.Combust's extreme case of confirmation bias, but others may find them informative:

    Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the Dust Bowl. Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
    and

    If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. Since the 1970s, however, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States (see Figure 6). The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.

  16. #1116
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The poor CBC had a big problem this week. The Inuit and "climate change" had a clash and they didn't know what to do. There are so many polar bears in Nunavut they're now eating local Inuit population. But climate "science" says the polar bears are going extinct. Who to back?

    As usual, the CBC trots out a "scientist" Dr. Andrew Derocher from the U of A, and published all the usual talking points. There's a "scientific consensus" the polar bear population is declining. Polar bears are declining because of "climate change".

    The ridiculous CBC calls Inuit being eaten by polar bears "local inuit knowledge" when discussing polar bear population, and that "western SCIENCE" says the polar bears are declining.

    I guess the "climate change" agenda trumps indigenous agenda.

    What Dr. Andrew Derocher, and the CBC don't mention is that Northern Canadian provinces have quotas for polar bear hunting licenses. The quotas go up when there are a lot of bears. This system has been in place for decades. What's the effect on the polar bear population by hunting?

    Why not send the CBC, or Dr. Derocher of the U of A an e-mail and ask him why hunting licenses weren't a part of the discussion?

    Isn't it time this ridiculous fraud of blaming EVERYTHING on climate change stopped? Can't we all be smarter? Or do we all have to listen to the CBC's endless propaganda drivel? When discussing "climate change" why do "investigative reporters" turn into sycophant cheerleaders"? And shouldn't we start calling them on that?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ears-1.4901910
    climate change is causing polar bears to migrate from traditional areas into areas where there is population as their food sources become less and less.


    Your line of reasoning is just incredibly...
    Why don't you do some reading on this Medwards? You know - exploding polar bear numbers in all Canadian polar bear ranges save one. The guy who started the polar bear scam went to jail for fraud while the other activist studies didn't set one foot in Canada. The actual Canadian wildlife sources on the ground and their continuous monitoring is completely ignored in favour of activist nonsense. Polar bear ranges are getting larger because of more bears needing larger territories - not migration nonsense. Their numbers and average weights have increased greatly through this harrowing climate change nonsense.

  17. #1117
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    227

    Default

    https://polarbearscience.files.wordp...2018-final.pdf A source for virtually every real polar bear survey by real scientific organizations.

  18. #1118

    Default

    This is disconnected but on Nature of things they just did a segment on how Polar Bears are now exhibiting different hunting behaviors at Hudson Bay Estuaries where they in masse occupy different boulders and as a collective effort catch more prey than they would otherwise. The key though is that more of the bears seem to be adapting to finding ways of catching prey closer to land, and not having to swim out into any Arctic Ocean pack at all. So that this seems transformative, and a solution for the bears, but no so much for the local people that have seen massive increases of Polar bears simply staying near the Arctic and Hudson Bay shore lines. This too could relate to the counts being higher. The Polar Bears now are frequenting more areas that are likely to be counted vs being hundreds of miles away on whatever ice they can find.


    Watching the Polar Bears feed in estuaries is similar to how Grizzlies or Bears have often fished en masse for Salmon. With enough bears around the prey cannot avoid them.

    In anycase a potential win for species adaptation in a changing world.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #1119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^^Why is Jordan Peterson an authority on climate change? He's not a climate scientist, not an environmental scientist. He's not even well respected within his own field.

    He's simply someone who knows how to sound smart without saying anything of value, and how to pander to an audience that wants to hear their prejudiced ideas from an "educated" voice.
    Its an interesting comment. As much as I happen to approve of some of his message its also quite clear, and has been throughout, that he see's himself as a renaissance man capable of tackling any topic or issue and being a self described authority. So that his forays into themes like this just seem silly. But not to him. Because his penchant for being an authority on every matter seems self learned. JP is a big mouth, but we knew that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •