Lies and Deciet of the Climate reform movement.

Really?

Who?

I know people laugh at Lord Monckton:
[/QUOTE][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w833cAs9EN0"]The Hamster Wheel: Lord Monckton - YouTube[/ame]


Who else is laughing?

And the point of this is....?

And who is behind it?

Al Gore? Margaret Thatcher? The entire scientific community? the Lizard People? The voices in your head? The military-industrial complex?

Who?

 

You keep gravitating to your science. i told you. i could give 2 poops about your whacked science.

I dont care about the science, true or not true. Whatever.

I have repeatedly proven that politicians, and corporations are using the science to make themselves rich. And you have yet to prove me wrong about that. im still waiting...

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The earths climate will continue to change whether or not we were here.


OK - now we have that all cleared up.

Could you please explain why you think that the dramatic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses in recent decades from anthropogenic sources is not impacting on the planet's climate?

And if you really think that the dramatic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses in recent decades from anthropogenic sources is not impacting on the planet's climate - what exactly has been the cause of the observed warming of recent decades?

Any answers?

 

You don't care about "whacked science"!?!?


Then what was this all about?

Are you claiming that politicians are affecting your weather?


You have no idea what is being discussed - do you.

 

Define "vast majority". How many is in this alleged "vast majority"? Who decides what is scientific literature?

A point of contention is not proof.

Again, no proof offered.

I see, then you are conceeding that you cannot prove that AGW conspiracy Theory is a fact. Well, I guess we can all go home now.

Are you calling the OP "retarded"? Because that would be a personal insult and is against the forum policies.

 

never read a scientific paper ... have you?

 

LOL. Now i can say Charles Manson is a Global warming believer...


http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/382818/april-26-2011/charles-manson-believes-in-global-warming

 

Because the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is inconsequential. It is a small percentage of greenhouse gases. It has gone from 280 ppm to 388 ppm. If your screen was the atmoshere, that 280 would be smaller than a period, and 388 smaller than a comma.

The end of the Ice Age is the cause of the planets warming over that last 10,000 years. Since then, it has fluctuated up and down as it will. There was the Medevil Warming Period AD 950 to 1250. Then it got cooler again and that was called the Little Ice Age. Then it got warmer again. Now over the last ten years, it has gotten cooler again in spite of CO2 levels confounding AGW Conspiracy Theorists Scientists so much that they have even been caught fudging their math and their scientific findings.

I have all the answers. Got any more questions? I am always glad to educate Aussies.

 

LOL. You are awesome at the science part of the discussion. I am awesome at the Conspiracy part of the discussion. it really goes hand in hand...

 

This is exactly the type of snide, arrogent condiscention that I'm on about. You must be so smart.

 

Who reads that crap? are you a scientist? can you understand it?

Well i cant, because im not a scientist... What i am, is an investigator, and i dug up a lot of dirt on the foundation of your Climate hoax.

I could take it a step further, and start recording temperatres, which have been trending downwards, because that is a average thing to do. I dont read science papers. dont shove them down my throat. I wont read them. What you have to disprove is that the science is being used for monetary gain...

 

Thats what the ninny neocons do. they talk to you like their poop dont stink

 

No, that is not an explanation because it does not describe what is causing the change in temperature

Just saying "it is a natural cycle" does not explain what is happening and why

Got an explanation?

 

Oh! I would say people like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I could say the same about your argument

But there IS ample proof backing what we say - where is yours, of course that is WHEN you decide what is causing climate change in the first place

Easy enough to verify - it is called Google scholar

Why should we try to "prove" a conspiracy theory that is coming out of a handful of people's over active imaginations?? I prefer the science - you know that process of investigation that weighs evidence and demonstrates which is the more likely and RATIONAL explanation for events

If you think it is an insult contact a Mod

 

If you put 1 ppm of india ink into water, will that change the light-absorption properties of the water?

Why is air any different?

The ice age ended because of orbital forcing. Orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago and has been declining since then. And Earth's temperature has been declining since then too, except for the last few decades. So no, it's not the ice ages.

Climate changes when forcing changes. It's not magic, and the causes are known.

No, it hasn't been cooling over the last 10 years it has been warming. The regression slopes for four of the five global datasets are positive over the past 10 years, and the BEST regression slope is positive too. The only one that's negative is HAD, but HAD omits the rapidly-warming Arctic.

Actually I do:

1. Why does 1 ppm of india ink mixed in water radically change the light absorptive properties of the water?
2. Why is the stratosphere cooling?
3. Why is oxygen in the atmosphere declining?
4. Why is downwelling infrared radiation (observed from the surface) increasing in the greenhouse gas bands?
5. Why is upwelling infrared radiation (observed from space) decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands?
6. Why is arctic sea ice declining?
7. Why is the diurnal temperature range decreasing?

 

I do, yes, and yes.

An "investigator" who works from home and has found nothing but other people's ideas.

That's painfully obvious.

You're the one making the bizarre claim here, so you're the one who has to provide evidence for it. Show us pictures of all those climate scientists on their yachts, or attending thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraisers. If you're right, the internet should be full of them.

 

Your 600 scientists against my 31,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

I have a thread for that:
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...peer-reviewed-articles-debunk-agw-theory.html

AGW theory is a conspiracy theory.

I did.

The answer to that is in the light absorption properties of water thread.

Air has a different index of refraction than water.
Air = 1.000293
Water = 1.33

Silly rabbit, Ice Ages are a result of orbital forcing which is cyclical. But there is variations, it is not a straight line. What do you mean Earth's temperature has been declining since the Ice Age? I thought you were arguing the globe is warming?

And anthropogenic global warming is not among those "known" causes.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200903300035

I have no reason to answer your 7 questions because they are irrelevent and off topic on this thread. But if you actually are curious about those seven question, I suggest you use google searches.

 

Oh! My! Goodness! This is getting embarrassing

For a start - that was not a list of scientists - but of scientific societies each of which represents hundreds of scientists - and as a counter you give me OISM

Thank-you that is like a gift from the Gods - you ARE aware that OISM has been debunked more often than a drunken sailor in a cyclone aren't you? You ARE aware it was founded on a well established fraud?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...rming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

It was an online petition that many singed for fun - I think even I signed in once as "Ned Kelly" Some of the more obvious jokes such as "Donald Duck have since been removed but I can assure you that there still remains an awful lot of fake names

Good I will also debunk there

In what way? What criteria does it meet to be called a conspiracy theory, because you see you have to have a core belief, i.e. that a group of people are out to get you, before it can be called a conspiracy

 

According to Oreskes' study of 928 papers in 2006 -
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

0% of papers disagreed with the general statement that “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

That sounds like a "vast majority" to me

 

You should be embarrassed because your single link that you provide does not contain proof of or even hints of the assertions you are making. There is no debunking of the OISM, nor suggestion that the organization is fraudulant. This is what I am talking about when I say you people keep making accusations without any proof whatsoever.

 

WTF?!?!

You were told that your statement about the world cooling over the past decade was wrong. And you post this link in response?!?!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903300035


Did you even read it?!?!


It describes how the parts of the media has been spreading falshoods:
Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting the planet, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the Earth is in a period of "cooling" or that the issue of global warming does not need to be addressed....

Nonetheless, media figures have, on numerous occasions, advanced this falsehood or allowed it to go unchallenged:



And it appears you are one of the ones gullible to believe it and repeat the lies:
Now over the last ten years, it has gotten cooler again

No - you have every reason to answer Poor Debaters questions


Poor Debater's questions are not irrelevent. And the fact you think they are "off topic" pretty much sums up how little you understand the subject.


You were the one that said:

Come on Champ. Answers please.

 

Of course. Ginger Spice would never sign any petition that was fraudulent.

 

I chose that source and quote on purpose just to demonstrate that there are those who are saying that the globe is getting cooler over the last 10 years. Not to prove that it is getting cooler the last ten years, but that the argument is out there that it is getting cooler. If there were nobody making that argument, why would they say this (which is what I quoted...duh):

Come on Champ, did you even read my post?

Gee, I really like how you think you can pick my fights for me, decide what is relative to my arguments. Well I am here to tell you that you are not. Mind your own business.

 

Mind your own business I said.

 

You wrote:
Now over the last ten years, it has gotten cooler again

You are completely wrong.

You were simply caught spreading the lies you have heard on media like Fox - as you link illustrated

Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting the planet, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the Earth is in a period of "cooling" or that the issue of global warming does not need to be addressed....

Nonetheless, media figures have, on numerous occasions, advanced this falsehood or allowed it to go unchallenged:

The earth has not gotten cooler over the last 10 years.
Stop spreading these sill lies.