Climate change ?? Really?

[Huntingwithyour]

Some people are placing the blame on animal farming, watch this.
https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/v...5/?pnref=story

[mosquito]

Some people are placing the blame on animal farming, watch this.
https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/v...5/?pnref=story

There have been a couple several articles I have seen about the amounts of methane and how much more of an effect it has on the atmosphere...

Dinosaurs' Gaseous Emissions Warmed Earth?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ce-flatulence/


Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Ilan Samson's problem was interesting and his conclusion on change is exactly right!



Another excellent one, essentially saying show me and let's look at the data, climatologist Dr Richard Alan Keen reveals the data and explains how the 'mainstream climate modelers' have got it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

[fishermccann]

Yup 97% of the worlds scientists are lying to you about climate change, and what causes it.

[mosquito]

Yup 97% of the worlds scientists are lying to you about climate change, and what causes it.

No, just liars keel saying it and gullible ones believing about it being 97%, as for what the 97% actually shows...

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

... and according to climatologist above .... you know the scientists that actually study climate... not fruit fly "scientists" like Suzuki, that .8 can be accounted for in the changes in technology, number of monitoring stations, locations of stations.... etc. and the number is perhaps .2 degrees using reliable data locations and looking at satellite measurements.

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."


So the whole point of the "97%" is the idea that man has had some effect on the climate and 97% of the papers looked at imply some man made effect ... which a climatologist looking at he data... which you seem to not like but that doesn't change the reality, says can be seen to be .2 degrees in 150 years. So that is what the 97% (according to Cook) agree upon.... solar, volcanoes and even the measuring methods and equipment and locations account for the remaining .6 degrees in 150 years.

"Therefore,the persistent effort to make the public believe 97% of all scientists agree can only be understood as an intentional manipulation of data and public opinion for commercial gain."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepst...-is-100-wrong/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ensus_Myth.pdf

[terrym]

Give it up Mosquito. The left has found a way to hoodwink the dimwits into financing a very comfortable life by exploiting fear. None of the Paris BS and Carbon tax schemes actually reduce emissions they only fill government coffers. Pretty sure there weren't enough dinosaurs and cavemen farting to melt the last ice age yet that warming period happened? Hmmm. Do you think maybe things like the sun and moon and the planet's orbit have a bit to do with climate? Nope, it had to be Harper who caused the last ice age to end and melt glaciers. What is it again that PT Barnum said? Not saying we don't need to clean up our environment but wrecking economies will be counter productive not helpful.

[Jakezilla]

Great post Mosquito

Yup 97% of the worlds scientists are lying to you about climate change, and what causes it.

I already posted these once in this thread. Please read them and get back to me with your counter argument.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/1...nge-modelling/

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...o-science.aspx

Climate change is a scam and there is nothing scientific about it. Climate change is the new socialist movement. Governments are using it as a means to control their populations.

[yellow dog]

Well done mosquito, very informative.

[terrym]

Well done mosquito, very informative.

Absolutely.

[mosquito]

Give it up Mosquito. The left has found a way to hoodwink the dimwits into financing a very comfortable life by exploiting fear. None of the Paris BS and Carbon tax schemes actually reduce emissions they only fill government coffers. Pretty sure there weren't enough dinosaurs and cavemen farting to melt the last ice age yet that warming period happened? Hmmm. Do you think maybe things like the sun and moon and the planet's orbit have a bit to do with climate? Nope, it had to be Harper who caused the last ice age to end and melt glaciers. What is it again that PT Barnum said? Not saying we don't need to clean up our environment but wrecking economies will be counter productive not helpful.

I tend to agree, in this tread alone I posted links to climatologists and the founder of Greenpeace appearing on the Rebel and another larger post on the number of scientists and percentages and the "fraud" to use their words.

http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post941157

But like a trained pet (or troll) the Liberal speaker comes back with the ridiculous 97%. Now even if it is true and if man made global warming is true (I think it has some SMALL effect), some think it may be delaying the next ice age and in the end we don't know if it will be good with longer growing seasons and more food production. It would truly be sad if he actually believed the 97% actually thought it was doom like the media and left money grabbers portrait it so often.

[terrym]

Climate change is a scam and there is nothing scientific about it. Climate change is the new socialist movement. Governments are using it as a means to control their populations.

Climate change will soon be bigger than Islam.