Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Climate Deniers
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    United States Government  ›  Climate Deniers Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 89 Guests

Climate Deniers  This thread currently has 2,070 views. |
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Recommend Thread
Shadow
May 16, 2013, 6:11pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
11,107
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
448 days 17 minutes

Friday, May 17 2013 12AM  59°F 3AM 60°F 5-Day Forecast
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along  

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 05:40 EST, 1 May 2013
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.

But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.

Its source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.

Predictions of global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how  fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING

In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine cover  pictured here illustrates.

Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.

Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards  the next ice age’.

While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes’.

The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year – leading to a combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ‘biofuel’ ethanol.

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.

Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’

And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’

Climate scientist Dr James Annan, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said higher estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’.

Avowed climate sceptics are more  unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....g.html#ixzz2TVIJAvLO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Logged
Private Message Reply: 30 - 51
Box A Rox
May 17, 2013, 7:03am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes


At best global warming is an unproven theory.


LMAO!  And the earth is flat, and evolution is "just a theory"!!!

There is Scientific agreement on Climate Change, there is only political (Conservative) dispute about
Climate Change.

"Scientists Agree Overwhelmingly on Global Warming.
Why Doesn’t the Public Know That?"

Quoted Text
A recent survey by Pew Research found that 69 percent of Americans believe the
earth is warming, but only 42 percent believe human activity is largely the reason.

More surprisingly, only 45 percent of Americans said they believed there was scientific
consensus, with 43 percent believing science has yet to come to a clear conclusion on
what causes global warming.

If climate scientists seem to agree on global warming, why doesn’t everybody else?


NY Times
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytime.....he-public-know-that/


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 31 - 51
BuckStrider
May 17, 2013, 7:07am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
3,188
Reputation
76.47%
Reputation Score
+13 / -4
Time Online
71 days 23 hours 59 minutes
Yeah Boxy, if I were you, I'd stick with this thread.

You *might* actually convince someone of leftist bullshit here.




"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for
GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'

Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'

Logged
Private Message Reply: 32 - 51
Box A Rox
May 17, 2013, 7:16am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes
Quoted from BuckStrider
Yeah Boxy, if I were you, I'd stick with this thread.

You *might* actually convince someone of leftist bullshit here.


I'll stick with SCIENCE.  You can follow the Politics.


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 33 - 51
DemocraticVoiceOfReason
May 17, 2013, 5:25pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
12,321
Reputation
20.83%
Reputation Score
+10 / -38
Time Online
151 days 7 hours 5 minutes
Quoted from Box A Rox


I'll stick with SCIENCE.  You can follow the Politics.


But you don't seem to understand that science has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with consensus or majority opinion.   Therefore, you are guilty following the politics of the lunatic left wing environmentalists.

You never seemed to explain why one of the most liberal area politicians who pushes alternative energy and the global warming agenda opposed new transmission lines in the state for over 20 years -- which if they had been allowed to be built would have reduced our use of carbon based energy.  You never addressed why these same politicians want billions of tax dollars spent STUDYING alternative energy or funding alternative energy companies but then they blow a gasket if someone proposes a windmill farm or solar panel farm.

My theory is that all they want to do is create a panic which allows them to spend tax dollars which they send to the special interest groups that contribute to their political campaigns.   They ( the "green" politicians) really don't care about solving the energy or environmental issues.  Just make sure that the steady stream of campaign contributions and speaking honorariums keep coming in.


George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016
Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]

"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground."
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
Private Message Reply: 34 - 51
Box A Rox
May 17, 2013, 8:14pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes


But you don't seem to understand that science has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with consensus or majority opinion.   Therefore, you are guilty following the politics of the lunatic left wing environmentalists.

You never seemed to explain why one of the most liberal area politicians who pushes alternative energy and the global warming agenda opposed new transmission lines in the state for over 20 years -- which if they had been allowed to be built would have reduced our use of carbon based energy. .


I don't explain your post about LIBERAL AREA POLITICIANS... I don't give a monkey's crap about their
political position.  

A consensus of not just "OPINION" which is just that... an "OPINION".

Peer review is more than just a collection of opinions.  There is a very small minority opinion -3% who
disagree with present climate change views.  The vast majority of WORLD SCIENTISTS, not US Liberal
or Conservative SCIENTISTS, are of one view on Climate Change and it's causes.

Again, there is practically no opposition to the Science of Climate Change...
Only Political opposition to Climate Change.



The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 35 - 51
DemocraticVoiceOfReason
May 17, 2013, 9:07pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
12,321
Reputation
20.83%
Reputation Score
+10 / -38
Time Online
151 days 7 hours 5 minutes
Some people still don't get it -- consensus is NOT the same as the scientific method.  Therefore to say that a consensus of scientists believe something is NOT the same thing as saying something has been scientifically proven.

Furthermore, the left wing nuts can't seem to understand the concept that YES the earth and therefore the climate is ALWAYS changing.  An ocean once covered the center of the U.S. and the area that we live in was under a mile thick ice sheet -- and now they neither are and that change was NOT caused by anything that humans did.


George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016
Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]

"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground."
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
Private Message Reply: 36 - 51
A Better Rotterdam
May 17, 2013, 9:48pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
903
Reputation
60.00%
Reputation Score
+6 / -4
Time Online
38 days 7 hours 17 minutes
Box, your arguing with DVOR about science and reason.... take a second and think about that.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 37 - 51
Box A Rox
May 18, 2013, 9:15am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes
Quoted from A Better Rotterdam
Box, your arguing with DVOR about science and reason.... take a second and think about that.


You are right of course.  How foolish of me.  



The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 38 - 51
CICERO
May 18, 2013, 10:02am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
18,232
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
702 days 15 hours 7 minutes
I have to admit, DVOR is right about box's wrong definition of science.  Peer review and consensus does not equal scientific fact as even recognized by trained scientists.  

Box does not have the ability to reason because his reasoning relies on his redefining of science and scientific fact.

His arguments rely on convincing people to accept his redefinition of science.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 39 - 51
Shadow
May 18, 2013, 1:37pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
11,107
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
448 days 17 minutes
When you fudge the scientific evidence to for your agenda you end up with junk science. Even the useless UN admits that the sun plays a larger role in climate warming, cooling, and CO2 generation than they thought.   http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....greater-than-thought
Logged
Private Message Reply: 40 - 51
Box A Rox
May 18, 2013, 3:39pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes
Quoted from Shadow
When you fudge the scientific evidence to for your agenda you end up with junk science. Even the useless UN admits that the sun plays a larger role in climate warming, cooling, and CO2 generation than they thought.   http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....greater-than-thought


Shadow's source?
Extremist Right Wing "New America".  
and they quote:
FOXSNOOZE!... hardly a bastion of Scientific Expertise!


How about something from a Science Journal and not from an OPINION Journal?


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 41 - 51
Box A Rox
May 18, 2013, 3:47pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes
How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Scientific Integrity
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 42 - 51
DemocraticVoiceOfReason
May 18, 2013, 4:48pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
12,321
Reputation
20.83%
Reputation Score
+10 / -38
Time Online
151 days 7 hours 5 minutes
The solution to the "global warming problem" if there is a problem) is quite simple.  Round up all of the left wing nuts shoot them way into deep space (one way trip) and then they won't be sucking up our oxygen and other scarce resources nor would they be producing methane anymore to harm our atmosphere.  God knows, it would be a hell of a lot more pleasant without them around.


George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016
Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]

"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground."
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
Private Message Reply: 43 - 51
Box A Rox
May 18, 2013, 5:33pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
25,926
Reputation
58.62%
Reputation Score
+17 / -12
Time Online
514 days 11 hours 54 minutes
The solution to the "global warming problem" if there is a problem) is quite simple.  Round up all of the left wing nuts shoot them way into deep space (one way trip) and then they won't be sucking up our oxygen and other scarce resources nor would they be producing methane anymore to harm our atmosphere.  God knows, it would be a hell of a lot more pleasant without them around.


Yea!  With out the Left, you'd have polluted water... Polluted land... Polluted air,  Polluted chemicals
in our homes.
No EPA, so you'd still have plenty of toxic chemicals (DDT, Mirex, Dioxin) in your backyards and
playgrounds.
Supertankers would still be dumping oil in our rivers and ports.  Oil spills would be left for nature to
clean up.  All the endangered life on earth would now be extinct.  Worker safety laws would be similar
to those in India...

Yea... who needs the Left!  


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 44 - 51
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Recommend Thread
|


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread