Climategate, the sequel:

Fascinating article on how we are being deceived on this warming BS. Don't be afraid to read the whole thing.

"Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

 

Hard to believe the Globalists would falsify data to pursue political ends, especially Obama. But then......

If I thought that climate change was the greatest threat to future generations, what else could be surmised from my position? Well, it seems reasonable for one to conclude that I was against any fossil fuel industry. I would probably go after coal and oil. I would also propose assistance to clean renewable energy.

Some, but not all, would realize that energy consumption increases as standards of living increase. Some, but not all, may question the disproportionate impact of higher energy prices on lower income people. The same could be said for food, clothing, healthcare and other basic needs prices like housing. To camouflage the impact, I would speak about the struggling middle class and income inequality. My inner thoughts would be kept to myself.
Inside, I would think that greed and corruption were pervasive in the profit seeking private sector. Big oil, banks, Wall Street, media companies, pharmaceutical and insurance companies particularly illustrate the negative consequences of Capitalism. The fossil fuel industry in particular is willing to destroy the planet in pursuit of profit. Climate change therefore is the result of Capitalism, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. I would smugly ignore the notion of influence peddling and government corruption.

Remember that increased energy consumption and therefore pollution is the result of individuals pursuing their own selfish interests and corporations pursuing profit. In this light government must step in to educate and protect individuals from their own pursuits and society at large from the pursuit of profit. Capitalism and freedom are the root cause of a looming environmental catastrophe. Therefore, we need to fundamentally transform our expectations and behavior. Furthermore, America is the largest consumer of energy on the planet.

Therefore, America must be transformed. Remember I believe that Climate change is the greatest threat to future generations. Not terrorism, a Nuclear Holocaust, unemployment, Famine or disease. The threat is climate change. How then can we protect a free people from themselves? How can we take their freedom without an uprising? Many believe that freedom will be willingly sacrificed for security. Hence terrorism is not a significant threat, it is indeed a useful tool.

Remember, to save the planet which is for the greater good, freedom must be sacrificed. People need to be controlled for their own good. Freedom is indeed the greatest indirect threat to humanity. Individuals cannot see the consequences of their behavior, and technology is not capable of advancing to solve the problem. Higher cost, green energy, is the only sustainable option. We have to save the planet for mankind at large. Government has to do this. We can offer energy credits for those disproportionately impacted. In fact, because energy is a basic need for all mankind we can envision a time where energy is so abundant the government can provide it. Like water.
Yes, the economy will change, opportunities will change, but sustainability is the paramount objective. We cannot kill the planet and survive. There is only one solution. The science is irrefutable. There is enough wealth to sustain everybody we just need to distribute it differently. The private sector has not and cannot do this so government must step in to ensure the greater good is pursued and achieved.

Obviously populations cannot continue to grow indefinitely. Some standards must be developed and adhered to. These decisions cannot be left to mothers and fathers. Governments must control birth rates for the sake of us all. There is a limit to the life the planet can support.

Question, are we trying to save the planet and therefore mankind? Or are we trying to expand government? Is one different than the other?
The religion of the left is Climate change, health care, gun control, redistribution, political correctness, higher taxes on the wealthy, and fighting for the middle class. Oh and corporations and Wall Street are bad as well. You know, who needs government when you have a good job. Sure, corporations are bad.

Of course this line of thought is just a fairy tale, outlandish, nobody today believes that climate change is the number one threat to future generations. Obama was just joking. Unless climate change is just a tool to achieve a larger role for government. Wouldn’t it just be easier to expand food stamps, disability benefits, entitlements and regulate lending from banks?

 

Climate change happens; we need better technologies that can help solve the problems associated with it.

 

Just ask Paul Ryan, Eric Holder, Mitch McConnell, and Obama. They covered up an FBI fraud prosecution, and Ryan is still covering it up to help Hillary beat Trump...

 

Channeling Obama? Lmao

 

As soon as you develop a way to stop the tectonic plates from moving, you will be the big climate hero...

 

Stargate Atlantis technology, anyone?

 

71 million year old dino fossils were recently found on Antarctica. Was Antarctica on the South Pole 71 million years ago???

 

Going to call possible BS on this one.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Also, this particular area of Paraguay is home to the highest deforestation rate in the world - which would give more credence to deforestation/temperature variation
theories.


To the OP - if your theory is that scientists can be bought off or swayed by their agendas or greed and hence are subject to falsifying data, then it is intellectually dishonest to state that said theory can only apply to scientists who disagree with you.

Understand?

 

Climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to the environment.

 

Fact checking an entirely different person? That's a bit desperate.

 

So the Paul Homewood you use to prove your story is different than the Paul Homewood investigated in the FactCheck story.

Really?

 

So you think a satirical writer is the guy to listen to when informing yourself about global warming? He helped found and wrote for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye

He is also a critic of evolution no less.

This would be worth noting about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Furthermore the opinion piece is from January 2015? You don't think this would have created more or a stir since if it was true? Why would you even bring it up after another year of record breaking warmth globally?

 

More precisely, tectonic plates move, and when Antarctica moved from the southern tip of Africa to the South Pole, it got a tad colder...

 

We recently emerging from an Ice Age.

 

We, meaning those on North America, recently emerged from the North American Ice Age. Ice Ages are continent specific. Antarctica and Greenland ARE ice ages. One is just a bit larger, colder, and older than the other...

Indeed, Greenland's ice is less than a million years old. Antarctica's is at least 50 million years old. Ice ages start when a land mass moves within 600 or so miles of an Earth pole. There, the Sun is so weak, the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt during summer, starting the "stacking process." Run that "stacking process" for 50 million years and you get 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica today, complete with dino fossils from before that ice age...

 

Can you produce any evidence that Tectonic Plates have not ALWAYS been in motion? Is that motion a constant or a variable in the equation? Do you have data
on all Tectonic Shifts in relation to global temperatures - or just one?

 

South America and Antarctica broke off together from Africa approximately 120 million years ago, and were attached until 50 or so million years ago. I'll find links later, but Antarctic fossils of dinosaurs are all 70 million years old or older. I promise you, those dinosaurs did not live on top of 2 miles of ice in temperatures that range from 12 to minus 135F...

Nope. Antarctica got cold because it moved to the South Pole, not because of any trace gas changes in the Atmosphere..

 

So you are talking temperature changes which occur over millions of years - not 200 years or less? Isn't that true?

 

with no input from Man; why do we need to play shell games with Statism now, instead of solving some of our problems through infrastructure development?

 

Indeed, yes, as Antarctica moved closer to the South Pole, it got colder. As its ice age grew, it got a lot colder...

- - - Updated - - -

That is what our Israeli owned "US media" wants... as well as the US at war in the Middle East with all of Israel's enemies who had nothing to do with 911...

 

It is why I believe, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is our solution to our problems.

 

Dave Leviathan, the author of the fact check opinion piece is a well known AGW cultist and he is obviously biased. Can you trust someone who wrote the following to give a fair look at this subject?

"You can escape the office and the hustle and bustle of daily life. But you can't escape climate change"

http://archive.onearth.org/author/davelevitan

 

Typical cult member and leftist, attempt to destroy anyone who opposes you.

 

It has been warming for over 400 years after the Little Ice Age so potentially every year for 400 years could be the latest warmest year through the whole period. You seem to be alarmed!