FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 years (IPCC)
“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
With the release of Al Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and with the help of the liberal media establishments the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no consensus on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are positively biased, Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising milimeters not feet, computer climate models are irrelevant, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are not caused by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.
Thousands of links debunking the global warming hysteria.
#31, oh really?
Follow Scott’s link above…
“Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research (…)
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council.”
So we have 10 million per year supporting global warming research and 1 million supporting the other side. Interesting how that is twisted around to suit your needs. Seems to me that they are on the GW side and are making a killing at it. the $1 looks like a token fund to justify their fking global rip-off!
#32 – JimR
>>Peer reviewed paper of Richard S. Lindzen.
Hmm. “Regulation”, published by the Cato Institute, is a peer reviewed journal?
What sort of peer reviewers do they use?
Scott, peer reviewed is god according to you. If you question the validity of the unknown reviewers of Richard Lindzen’s paper, then you also have to uestion the validity of all the unknown reviewers of any IPCC related paper.
Scott, your link to the hockey stick ‘vindication’ is just spin. They say that the recent warming is the most since 1600. Take a look at the blog page, and scroll down for the corrected hockey stick. The correct methodology yields a graph that shows higher levels of warming, only this was before 1600(how convenient).
This panel declared that they couldn’t verify the corrected graph, saying temperatures for that time period are too unreliable. In other words they DEBUNKED the hockey stick.
By the way, careful measurement in recent years has not shown the oceans to be warming. Everyone has kind of assumed that the oceans were warming, and it was a matter of time before they got so hot, we would have lots of water vapor in the air, and this would accelerate global warming.
1. Reducing pollution is good.
2. Increasing energy efficiency is good.
3. Reducing dependence on a single energy source (oil) is good.
Follow these 3 steps and global warming (or lack of) is irrelevant.
I am strongly against polluting our planet and hurting the eco system. however I am also strongly against this accelerating hysteria of global warming and/or climate change that is only positioning the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
There are more humane, sensible ways to eliminate our dependance on oil. In fact it is possible to eliminate the need for gasoline altogether over a period of 10-15 years. The only people to get hurt financially would be the middle and upper class. You can see how that will never happen. No one is a team player on this earth.
The 2 graphs showcased in that picture seem to have very different stories to tell. What’s the source of the data in the bottom picture? I have a lot of trouble believing that a 10°C increase/decrease in mean temperature of Europe has ever been experienced. It looks bogus.
0.6°C increase in mean temperature is not insignificant. It is new. Negative Nancy conservatards have always been with us. They have always thought we’re crazy for giving a shit. Don’t let them win. They are wrong, and they don’t understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
If the mean ocean temperature were to increase by 2°C, please calculate based on the expansion coefficient of water what the new volume of water would be. If your temperature went from 98.6°F to 102.2°F, how would you be feeling? Is 102.2°F a sustainable human temperature over the long term?
I’m so fucking tired of the “debate” coming from “debunkers” who don’t understand basic science. STFU and crawl back in your rat hole.
MikeN,
Good, now you’ve added Cato to the list. Do you think you can make your case without known ExxonMobil sites?
Cato
Perhaps you’d like to try JunkScience next.
Seriously, go ahead, make your case with peer review or with reputable journals citing peer reviewed works. Then I’ll start to listen.
Until then, you may want to reassess whether you have a case at all.
DieFundie said, you don’t have to be a scientist to see the big picture. Untruths are being passed around by both sides of the debate. Your loathing of the “debate” is your own choice. You must be very satisfied with the sudden increase of worldwide food, the shortage of grain and the loss of jobs, while a few fat shits get filthy rich and CO2 production accelerates. So, if you have nothing constructive to add I suggest you take your own advice.
#37 – JimR
“Scott, peer reviewed is god according to you. If you question the validity of the unknown reviewers of Richard Lindzen’s paper, then you also have to uestion the validity of all the unknown reviewers of any IPCC related paper.”
Weeeeeeeeel, I think there’s a difference between Dick Cheney’s bootlickers “peer reviewing” an article published by a company that’s a shill for the oil companies, and Real Live Scientists reviewing an article for a legitimate scientific publication.
Don’t you?
Edit “DieFundie said” to just “DieFundie” for post #44. I copy/pasted sloppily. Thanks.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel, you don’t know who the reviewers are in either case, so the question is moot.
When did I add CATO?(not that there’s anything wrong with that)
For people on this blog who are wondering, the original debunkers of the hockey stick showed that if you took the original author’s program, you could get a hockey stick graph even if you inputted random noise. They were searching for a hockey stick in the data, and found one. All of the supposed ‘hockey stick is right’ articles involved going to other sources to say, yeah, it’s really hot right now.
DieFundie, the chart doesn’t show a 10 degree difference, it’s about 2 degrees.
Scott, I don’t like that blog any more than you. It lacks credibility because it tries to pass off some garbage and with good science. Obviously done by an amature. That, however, doesn’t make the good science irrelevant, or the problems that hyper reaction is causing.
#47 – JimR
“Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel, you don’t know who the reviewers are in either case, so the question is moot.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel, not really. Scientific journals have scientists as reviewers. And they list them, although you don’t know for sure who reviewed any particular paper.
The Cato Institute, on the other hand, probably doesn’t even know any scientists, as there’s no way to find a list of who would do the reviewing.
In fact, I don’t even see any evidence that the articles published there are peer-reviewed in the first place.
Perhaps you could help me out?
I like McCain’s approach. Global warming is real and manmade, so let’s open more nuclear power plants. Hopefully Barack Obama will flip-flop on this and agree.
Aw fk, I really am trying to squeeze this in to a busy day. My post #44 to Defundie #42 is gibberish because I left out a few critical words. Sorry. “the sudden increase of worldwide food” should read the sudden increase of worldwide food prices” if anyone cares.
Essentially, my retort was to sarcastically illustrate that the hysteria of GW is hurting the less fortunate where it hurts most, while the Nobel laureate Gore ladeda’s in his mansion eating $30/lb steak without blinking.
I’m going back to what I’m supposed to be working on now. Have fun.
MikeN,
I apologize. I got a bit mixed up in who posted what.
JimR,
My comment #43 should have been directed at you.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel Scott, Peer reviewed means peer reviewed. Have fun debating. 🙂
#53–JR==If you do goof off some more explain how biofuel has anything at all to do with GW and not everything to do with oil price shock and the search for energy alternatives as a result of that issue alone?
#55 – JimR
>>Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel
>>Scott, Peer reviewed means peer reviewed.
Naw, it doesn’t. Having scientific articles reviewed by one’s scientific peers, who are leaders in their field, is one thing.
Having political propaganda reviewed by an unidentified group of political hacks who all share your point of view is quite another.
And we’re still waiting for that evidence that articles in the Cato Institute’s “Regulations” journal is reviewed by anyone at all.
Do you have that evidence? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
People who promote this crap are either crooks or idiots.
#59 – Señor Colina
>>Someday you will be as worshiped as I am
>>by these insects.
Didn’t I see you at the Comedy Club? Haw! Buffoon!
#55 – JimR,
Peer review is peer review, that’s mostly true. Would you mind telling me in what peer reviewed journal that 16 year old article originally appeared? I’m not finding it in any peer reviewed journal, only in Cato’s own journal. I tried Google Scholar and didn’t find the original.
#60 – Scottie
>>Would you mind telling me in what peer reviewed
>>journal that 16 year old article originally
>>appeared?
“That article” never appeared in peer-reviewed fashion anywhere.
According to his opinion piece in the Cato journal, meteorologist Lindzer finally got an article published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1989, after having it rejected out of hand by Science (Haw!) and who knows where else.
Of course, whatever he said in the original article is known only to denizens of libraries that subscribe to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
All we get are is Cato-filtered version of it.
shit. this place really DOES need an edit function, or at least a preview function.
“are is” = “is”.
All well and good, than why Cheney censored testimony on Climate Change to both the House and Senate? If this was all nonsense, why would he aim to censor it?
Here’s the skinny: http://tinyurl.com/5mlu4g
@MikeN:
Clearly the bottom chart shows approximately +9.75°C @ 1200 AD.