PDA

View Full Version : Climate Alarmist Caught in ‘Largest Science Scandal in U.S. History’




donnay
10-13-2015, 09:03 AM
Climate Alarmist Caught in ‘Largest Science Scandal in U.S. History’

by James Delingpole

The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/climate-alarmist-caught-largest-science-scandal-u-s-history/

Danke
10-13-2015, 09:11 AM
How do you settle “scientific disputes” once and for all in the US?




Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial’

A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change.

We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage.

Last week I mentioned that the Prince of Wales had sent a message to this conference calling for the UN’s forthcoming climate meeting in Paris to agree on “a Magna Carta for the Earth”. But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (on Nofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended).

It could be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again
including senior judges and lawyers from across the world, the three-day conference on “Climate Change and the Law” was staged in London’s Supreme Court. It was funded, inter alia, by the Supreme Court itself, the UK government and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

As one of the two UN sponsors of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP has been one of the main drivers of alarm over global warming for 40 years. The organiser and chairman of the conference was the Supreme Court judge Lord Carnwath, a fervent believer in man-made climate change, who has worked with the Prince of Wales for more than 20 years, and with UNEP since 2002.

The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was “overwhelming”, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to deny “the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas”, and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role “in finally scotching these claims”.

“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

India and China will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels.

The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over the life of our Western societies.

For perspective, we need only think of the likely responses to all this claptrap by China and India (which has just announced that it intends to triple its CO2 emissions by 2030). Not only have they already kicked into touch any chance of a “binding climate treaty” in December. At the thought of these self-important lawyers trying to force them to comply by international law, they will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels to power what will soon be the two largest economies in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11924776/Judges-plan-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial.html

donnay
10-13-2015, 09:38 AM
Global warming 'is FAKE': Volume of ice caps is INCREASING, claims top geologist
THE WORLD is not heating up, some areas are actually getting colder and the volume of polar ice caps is INCREASING in some places, a leading geologist has claimed.

By Jon Austin

James Kamis suggests "conflicting temperature trends" between oceans and the Earth's atmosphere could dispel the "myth" of man-made global warming.

Put simply, he says our atmospheric temperature has remained static for more than 18 years, the Atlantic has got colder, and it is only the Pacific Ocean where things have heated up.

Mr Kamis said: "Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere."

"It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling."

He said the temperature variances do not fit previous climate model predictions.

He added: "Climate scientists favoring the theory of man-made global warming are flooding the media with new, and this time supposedly very reliable, explanations that are generated from their latest super-computer climate models."

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/610261/Global-warming-FAKE-Ice-caps-INCREASING-geologist-climate-change-el-nino-pacific

donnay
10-13-2015, 09:42 AM
TOP PHYSICIST FREEMAN DYSON: OBAMA HAS PICKED THE ‘WRONG SIDE’ ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”

So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”

This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.

It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation.

It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.

Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.

It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/13/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-picked-wrong-side-climate-change/

tod evans
10-13-2015, 09:47 AM
Still gets hot here in the summer, cold in the winter......

How many tax dollars are being spent on this BS?

Grants, studies and propaganda for what?

Sola_Fide
10-13-2015, 09:49 AM
Still gets hot here in the summer, cold in the winter......

How many tax dollars are being spent on this BS?

Grants, studies and propaganda for what?

Control.

Zippyjuan
10-13-2015, 12:12 PM
Note that one or even five or ten years of warmer or cooler weather does not mean that long term changes are or are not occurring.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record/


2015 May Just Be Hottest Year on Record
2015 will very likely beat 2014 as the warmest year

If you’re a betting person, it would be close to a sure bet to go all-in on 2015 taking the title of warmest year on record.

“I would say [we’re] 99 percent certain that it’s going to be the warmest year on record,” Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist with ERT, Inc., at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said during a press teleconference on Thursday.

According to the global temperature data compiled separately by NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, this July was the warmest July on record going back more than a century. It follows three other warmest months this year, with the remaining months ranking among the top four hottest, meaning that 2015 is the warmest year-to-date.

With an El Niño that could rank among the strongest on record expected to last through the rest of the year, the odds are good that 2015 will surpass 2014 atop the charts.

“We are now fairly certain that 2015 will be the warmest year on record for the globe,” Jake Crouch, a NOAA climatologist, said during the press teleconference.

In data released Thursday, NOAA measured July at 1.46°F above the 20th century July average. Because July is also climatologically the warmest month of any year, this was also the warmest month the globe has seen since 1880, topping the previous record-holder, July 1998, by 0.14°F. For the year-to-date, 2015 is 1.53°F above the 20th century average, and 0.16°F ahead of 2010, which had the previous warmest January through July.

Acala
10-13-2015, 12:25 PM
Note that one or even five or ten years of warmer or cooler weather does not mean that long term changes are or are not occurring.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record/

Generally in science, when a scientist proposes a theory and based on that theory makes a prediction about how nature will behave and the prediction turns out to be wrong again and again and again, the scientist accepts that there is something wrong with the theory and goes back to the drawing board to come up with a new theory. With so-called climate scientists, when their predictions fail they simply add a fudge factor, make up an excuse, change the name, backtrack on the prediction, and apply for another grant to do more computer modeling.

Acala
10-13-2015, 12:31 PM
Note that one or even five or ten years of warmer or cooler weather does not mean that long term changes are or are not occurring.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record/

Here's a quick science quiz:

In a geological time scale a century is:
a. A long time;
b. A long enough time upon which to base predictions about systems we clearly don't understand; or
c. Essentially no time at all.

Dr.3D
10-13-2015, 12:31 PM
Yeah, it's what's called "Political Science."

timosman
10-13-2015, 12:44 PM
They have no data, no proof of anything. All they have is the 97% meme. If you voice your opinion publicly you will get on a black list and never receive another grant.

Dr.3D
10-13-2015, 12:47 PM
They have no data, no proof of anything. All they have is the 97% meme. If you voice your opinion publicly you will get on a black list and never receive another grant.

Well, that's probably true if your opinion is contrary to what they want it to be.

Danke
10-13-2015, 12:49 PM
Record high myth:

http://drsircus.com/world-news/global-warming-that-never-was-this-summer/

luctor-et-emergo
10-13-2015, 12:50 PM
People that want to 'save the planet' piss me off. Regardless of the truth on the climate, it's not the planet we want to save. It's ourselves. The planet is fine. Been here for a while and will be destroyed by the universe once the time is right. Oh and 'the planet' could care less about global temperatures, it's a rock with some water.

Now I equally dislike people that throw trash on the ground or waste energy 'because they can'. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Modesty is a virtue and the world certainly looks nicer if we all took a little care.

Anti Federalist
10-13-2015, 01:25 PM
Control.

Bingo...I could not care less about the costs and nest feathering at this point.

This is a grab for total, global, unlimited control over every single thing you do.

Anti Federalist
10-13-2015, 01:28 PM
Note that one or even five or ten years of warmer or cooler weather does not mean that long term changes are or are not occurring.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record/

Centuries ago it was much cooler.

Centuries before that it was much warmer.

Millions of years before there were any such things as humans, the global climate varied wildly.

This is a power grab by global tyrants, nothing more.

Anything else is just smoke, bullshit and obsfucation.

donnay
10-13-2015, 01:43 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/70vQLWIx6LEre/giphy.gif

Acala
10-13-2015, 03:11 PM
People that want to 'save the planet' piss me off. Regardless of the truth on the climate, it's not the planet we want to save. It's ourselves. The planet is fine. Been here for a while and will be destroyed by the universe once the time is right. Oh and 'the planet' could care less about global temperatures, it's a rock with some water.

Now I equally dislike people that throw trash on the ground or waste energy 'because they can'. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Modesty is a virtue and the world certainly looks nicer if we all took a little care.

Well said. I owe you rep.

donnay
10-13-2015, 03:13 PM
Well said. I owe you rep.

Gotcha covered.

parocks
10-13-2015, 04:47 PM
People that want to 'save the planet' piss me off. Regardless of the truth on the climate, it's not the planet we want to save. It's ourselves. The planet is fine. Been here for a while and will be destroyed by the universe once the time is right. Oh and 'the planet' could care less about global temperatures, it's a rock with some water.

Now I equally dislike people that throw trash on the ground or waste energy 'because they can'. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Modesty is a virtue and the world certainly looks nicer if we all took a little care.

You know, I care a lot about all the ways we're being poisoned. I'm not sure that the Ron Paul / Libertarian "sue them for trespassing" model would work. Everything from Vaccines to Monsanto is us being poisoned and that, to me, is the environment. I'd want that fixed and I have no confidence that the Fed Gov is anything but on the side of the bad guys here.

Global Warming is nothing. I care about the environment a lot and actually think that if we had a trustworthy government, the government should fit it. But I know that there was an Ice Age not really all that long ago. Where I'm at, was under a mile thick sheet of ice. On the earth, it's been a lot colder, a lot warmer, and we're somewhere in between. Which one is best? Is warmer best? If we were hit by an asteroid, the temperature would go down quickly for a long time. I'd think it'd be better if it was warmer. Longer growing seasons. And that disaster cushion. Volcanos always tend to cause a lowering of temps. Is there any distaster that causes the temps to rise and not fall? It's not like it's getting too hot to grow crops in Alaska. It seems like we have a lot of good turf left to grow stuff if it gets warmer. So, some people will have move if the sea level rises. Not a big deal.

Zippyjuan
10-13-2015, 07:08 PM
Record high myth:

http://drsircus.com/world-news/global-warming-that-never-was-this-summer/

Global temperatures look at temperatures all over the world over the entire year- not a few selected days in selected places where it was a record cold. There were heat records set too. Not going to bother listing them. (they look at differences from the normal/ average temperature over time).

Eh, why not share some current weather news? (keeping in mind that the US is only about 10% of the global landmass so it does not necessarily reflect what is happening in the rest of the world): http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/historic-october-heat-fargo-dakotas-nebraska-colorado


Historic October Heat Shatters Records in Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado

Sunday took late-season heat to unheard-of extremes in parts of Colorado, Nebraska and the Dakotas. For much of the region, temperatures were higher than any on record for so late in the year.

A few places were so hot that October 11 will go down as the hottest day of all of 2015 – an extraordinary feat in the central and northern Plains, where October is typically part of a rapid transition from summer's heat to winter's chill.

North Dakota

Fargo was one of the places where Sunday was hotter than any other day in 2015, surpassing the city's high of 96 from Aug. 14. The mercury hit an astonishing 97 in Fargo, establishing several records:

It was a new all-time record high for the month of October there, crushing the old record of 93 set Oct. 3, 1922, and Oct. 5, 1965.
It was by far the latest 97-degree or hotter day in any calendar year in Fargo, beating the Dust Bowl-era record from 1936 by a margin of 19 days.
Even more impressively, it appears to be hottest temperature ever recorded in the entire state of North Dakota on or after Oct. 11, beating a 95-degree reading taken in Buford on Oct. 11, 1911.

South Dakota

Temperatures in South Dakota soared as high as 96 in Yankton on Sunday, based on preliminary data.

Aberdeen hit 93 Sunday, its highest reading on record this late in the year. The October record of 96 from Oct. 5, 1963, remains intact.
Pierre hit a daily record of 95 Sunday, also surpassing any temperature on record on or after Oct. 11. The capital's October record is still 98 last set Oct. 2, 1997, during another strong El Niño.
Sioux Falls tied its Oct. 11 daily record of 90.

Nebraska

Many of Nebraska's long-term weather observation sites recorded their highest temperatures ever measured this late in the year:

Norfolk hit 98 degrees Sunday, setting an all-time record for the month of October. This was also three weeks later than the latest 98-degree (or hotter) day on record in Norfolk – Sept. 20, 1895.
Broken Bow also topped out at 98 degrees Sunday, setting an all-time record for the month of October.
Grand Island hit 97 Sunday to break its all-time October record of 96 set Oct. 5, 1947.
Nearby Hastings tied its October record high of 97 set that same day. Sunday also tied for the hottest day of 2015 in Hastings.
Lincoln reached 94 Sunday – shy of the monthly record (98) set Oct. 5, 1947, but still the hottest Lincoln has ever been this late in the season.

North Platte and Valentine also hit 94 Sunday, marking the hottest readings so late in the season there as well.
Norfolk established a new record high for any day in autumn. On March 16 of this year, Norfolk hit 92 to tie its all-time March record high and break its all-time winter record high, joining many other Nebraska cities in setting records for the earliest 90-degree day on record.

The state high Sunday appears to have been 99 degrees, reported by a cooperative observer near Ellsmere in the north-central part of the state.

Iowa

Just over the Missouri River from Nebraska, Sioux City reached 91 to set a daily record high. The reading came 208 days after the city logged its record-earliest high of 90 on March 16.

That 208-day span of 90-degree days is more than five weeks longer than the previous record of 172 days from April 13 to Oct. 3, 2006.

It also made Sioux City the hottest location in the state of Iowa Sunday.

Kansas

Numerous daily record highs were set Sunday, mainly in the northwest quadrant of the state.

Among those, the town of Tribune reached 97 to set a new all-time high for the month of October. Records at Tribune, Kansas, go all the way back to 1893.

Highs also reached 97 at Great Bend and Hill City on Sunday.

Colorado
Unusual late-season heat gripped most of the area east of the Rockies in Colorado Sunday. The cooperative observer at Burlington, near the Kansas border, reported a high of 99 degrees, which (if accurate) was hotter than any other location in Colorado.

Colorado Springs hit 87 degrees Sunday, tying its all-time October record originally set Oct. 3, 1935.
Pueblo hit 94 on Sunday, tying its all-time October record set Oct. 16, 1991.
The high of 87 in Denver fell short of the monthly mark of 90 set Oct. 1, 1892, and was neither as hot nor as late as the city's 89-degree reading Oct. 16, 1991.

Zippyjuan
10-13-2015, 07:18 PM
Centuries ago it was much cooler.

Centuries before that it was much warmer.

Millions of years before there were any such things as humans, the global climate varied wildly.

This is a power grab by global tyrants, nothing more.

Anything else is just smoke, bullshit and obsfucation.

Does not disprove the theory that human activity can impact the environment or not. Consider a lake. Waves come in- wave peaks are warm temperature periods and wave troughs are low temperature periods. Now we drive a boat across the lake. Can the boat have an effect on the waves? Or will the waves stay the same even if it is a huge boat driving very fast? The boat is creating its own waves- its own peaks and troughs. Those waves react with the other waves- where peak meets peak, the wave is higher (hotter temperatures). Where trough meets trough, waves are lower. We still have the waves- just as we always have. But did the boat change the waves?

Can a volcano impact climate as it spews ash into the air? It blocks sunlight. That can make it cooler. Clouds of gas it releases may trap warmer air closer to the ground making some places warmer. Factories add dirt and pollution to the air. But so do forest fires. Will that have zero impact on the climate? How big is the human boat on the lake compared to other wave makers on the planet?

Next question is can we really do something about it? This is really the big question. Only "maybe" or "maybe not" and at extremely huge cost. But what about the cost of doing nothing? Unknown and unknowable except in computer simulations and those are only as good as their programmer. It is impossible to control for every factor.

To say it is proven real or proven false- that is a statement nobody can honestly make.

PaulConventionWV
10-14-2015, 06:18 AM
Does not disprove the theory that human activity can impact the environment or not. Consider a lake. Waves come in- wave peaks are warm temperature periods and wave troughs are low temperature periods. Now we drive a boat across the lake. Can the boat have an effect on the waves? Or will the waves stay the same even if it is a huge boat driving very fast? The boat is creating its own waves- its own peaks and troughs. Those waves react with the other waves- where peak meets peak, the wave is higher (hotter temperatures). Where trough meets trough, waves are lower. We still have the waves- just as we always have. But did the boat change the waves?

Can a volcano impact climate as it spews ash into the air? It blocks sunlight. That can make it cooler. Clouds of gas it releases may trap warmer air closer to the ground making some places warmer. Factories add dirt and pollution to the air. But so do forest fires. Will that have zero impact on the climate? How big is the human boat on the lake compared to other wave makers on the planet?

Next question is can we really do something about it? This is really the big question. Only "maybe" or "maybe not" and at extremely huge cost. But what about the cost of doing nothing? Unknown and unknowable except in computer simulations and those are only as good as their programmer. It is impossible to control for every factor.

To say it is proven real or proven false- that is a statement nobody can honestly make.

Exactly. That is where the burden of proof comes in. I am not saying it's false. I'm saying that the earth is probably going to continue as it has for thousands of years until proven otherwise. If you're making the extraordinary claim that something is going to change the earth's natural cycles in such a way that it will directly affect most of the world's population in a negative way, then the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, I'm just going to keep living and adapting to whatever comes without freaking out about all this BS fearmongering over climate change.

idiom
10-14-2015, 01:54 PM
Bingo...I could not care less about the costs and nest feathering at this point.

This is a grab for total, global, unlimited control over every single thing you do.

Well. The anarchists want that too.

dannno
10-14-2015, 02:05 PM
Well. The anarchists want that too.

Bernie Sanders believes in individual liberty. Makes about as much sense.