Hide the Decline...yeah!

---

Global Warming: The Other Side In the end, the truth always reveals itself.

AND...still the world hasn't warmed since 2001, even though we pump out more emissions than ever. I hope Al Gore loses his investments in the Carbon-Credit industry to the point where he has to live out the rest of his life in a trailer park. It all was never about anything except money.

Who cares, gas emissions will stop in the next twenty years anyways because we are running out of oil.

This fits real well in Al Gore's book..."An Inconvenient Truth"

Originally Posted By: TechnicalWho cares, gas emissions will stop in the next twenty years anyways because we are running out of oil. Ah...so pay no attention because the sky is falling. Again.

Originally Posted By: readytogoThis fits real well in Al Gore's book..."An Inconvenient Truth" As far as Gore is concerned, at least the title fits.

Hillarious!

The damn is breaking... ...and the water is beginning to leak out.

My guess is the American media will never expose on a massive scale how one of the greatest cons of all time has been pulled. That is, of course, because Democrats are at the center of this thing. And Democrats are rarely exposed by the press for who they really are._________________________________________________________________ Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By Jonathan Petre Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010 Comments (530) • Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing • There has been no global warming since 1995 • Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying. Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change. That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades. According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’. Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted. But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made. Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. ‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’ He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled. Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world. Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. ‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’ Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now. Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’. Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made. But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

The meltdown of the climate campaign.

Climate Change Deniers use the OJ Defence  Quote:The doubters of climate science have launched an enormously clever -- and effective -- campaign, and it's worth trying to understand how they've done it. The best analogy is perhaps the O.J. Simpson trial. If you buy their smoke screen, you should be ashamed, but also angry that these deniers are treating you like an idiot.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

Climate Change Deniers use the OJ Defence

Quote:

The doubters of climate science have launched an enormously clever -- and effective -- campaign, and it's worth trying to understand how they've done it. The best analogy is perhaps the O.J. Simpson trial.

If you buy their smoke screen, you should be ashamed, but also angry that these deniers are treating you like an idiot.

OJ was trying to get out of being sent to prison. Who stands to benifit from the presence or absence of "global warming"? Find out who stands to make a ton of money by duping the public and you'll understand what's going on real fast.

LMFAOdid you read the article or just look at the title and draw a literal connection between the environment and OJ Simpson?if you want to chase the money trail, I suggest you look to the deniers. i.e. politicians and businessmendon't know who you think will get rich from trying to solve the problem... Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it - Albert Einstein

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedLMFAOdid you read the article or just look at the title and draw a literal connection between the environment and OJ Simpson?if you want to chase the money trail, I suggest you look to the deniers. i.e. politicians and businessmendon't know who you think will get rich from trying to solve the problem... Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it - Albert Einstein Sigh Must I always do your homework for you? You know you won't learn anything if I keep doing it.Al Gore and the head of the IPCC are both hip deep in the industry supporting the trading of carbon credits...as are a lot of bankers. You know...some of the same ones who just got a chunk of bailout money from the Fed? They stand to make more money than anybody else. Who do you think would be effected by setting the public into panic over "global warming"? Explain why.Consider, if you will, that the article you posted lies. The past 15 years have NOT been the warmest in recorded history...unless you only pay attention to the "global warming" proponents who have cooked the books. Lies upon lies. The facts paint a different picture. Check the scientific records from satellites...check the recorded records of ALL the reporting stations (including the ones that show a warming trend...excluded by the so-called "scientific" scam artists). You'll see that you've been lied to...and are being played just like a cheap piano. The amount of backpeddling by "global warming" pundits over the past month or so should be a good clue that something is amiss.

ok, let me see if I have this straight.bankersconservative bunch that they are, responsible for the subprime mortgage thingy that crushed your economy while under the watchful eye of a conservative government.yes? bankers?so these bankers are looking to profit from trading in carbon credits, a theoretical commodity.Therefore, the science is wrongwow, you rally have been brainwashed btw, Gore is a douche bag so don't cite him as a reference when talking to me please, thanks

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedok, let me see if I have this straight.bankersconservative bunch that they are...Bankers are not conservative...they're "money". Nothing, I repeat, nothing else matters to them. Quote:...responsible for the subprime mortgage thingy that crushed your economy...Wrong again...they were forced into that one. Threatened by ACORN cronies on the liberal side of our government that they would be penalized if they didn't support the sub-prime mortgage market. Smells like affirmative action (another liberal stupidity), to me. Quote:...while under the watchful eye of a conservative government. roflmaoStarted under a liberal president (Clinton) and orchestrated by the organization of a future liberal president (ACORN/Obama). I'll admit that Bush sat and did nothing to stop what Clinton started...though McCain was very much opposed to what the liberals were doing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Quote:...so these bankers are looking to profit from trading in carbon credits, a theoretical commodity.Big time. Quote:Therefore, the science is wrongScience is correct...people are wrong when they omit data to show a result that they want instead of accepting the result that the scientific data actually shows. And people are also wrong when they accept this falsified data because it tells them what they want to hear. Quote:wow, you rally have been brainwashed Yes you have.

Here's a couple more for you...one from Canada Free Press! IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda (The sewage is beginning to smell pretty bad...and is getting worse!) IMF Head Calls For Huge Global Warming Slush Fund (Yep...still trying to find a way to squeeze money out industrialized nations based on fraudulent motives.)

I somehow missed this entire thread, but don't worry, The Truth has arrived! Originally Posted By: thorClimategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995I saw that headline and I actually lol-ed. Do you just read the headlines? Is that all that is required to convince you of anything? Its hilarious that this story was copied almost verbatim all over climate denial websites and blogs within hours of its original posting. But have you ever read the interview? No? What a shock!BBC Interview with Phil Jones Your Daily Mail article states "There has been no global warming since 1995". Anyone want to have a look at what was really said in the interview? Quote:B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warmingYes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. If you're wondering about what the "significance level" is, its a term used in statistics to determine whether a result is due to a certain event/influence or whether it would have occurred by chance. A 95% significance level means that there is only a 5% chance of the results occurring by some other means such as background fluctuations. Prof Jones says that the positive trend recorded since 1995 doesn't have the 95% that most other results have when recorded over longer periods of time, but that its close.Thor, please save yourself from more embarrassment by checking your sources. If crap like the Daily Mail can be used as evidence, then I shall stun the world by presenting the 101 year old GOAT WOMAN! Personally, I think she is the second coming of Moses.

Originally Posted By: thor

Here's a couple more for you...one from Canada Free Press!

Canada Free Press "...Because without America, there is no Free World"
that's a very silly organisation and not very Canadian lmao!

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI somehow missed this entire thread, but don't worry, The Truth has arrived! Originally Posted By: thorClimategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995I saw that headline and I actually lol-ed. Do you just read the headlines? Is that all that is required to convince you of anything? Its hilarious that this story was copied almost verbatim all over climate denial websites and blogs within hours of its original posting. But have you ever read the interview? No? What a shock!BBC Interview with Phil Jones Your Daily Mail article states "There has been no global warming since 1995". Anyone want to have a look at what was really said in the interview? Quote:B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warmingYes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. If you're wondering about what the "significance level" is, its a term used in statistics to determine whether a result is due to a certain event/influence or whether it would have occurred by chance. A 95% significance level means that there is only a 5% chance of the results occurring by some other means such as background fluctuations. Prof Jones says that the positive trend recorded since 1995 doesn't have the 95% that most other results have when recorded over longer periods of time, but that its close.Thor, please save yourself from more embarrassment by checking your sources. If crap like the Daily Mail can be used as evidence, then I shall stun the world by presenting the 101 year old GOAT WOMAN! Personally, I think she is the second coming of Moses. Too little, too late. The truth has surfaced and is gaining momentum on this scam purpetrated on a generally unwitting populace. Falsified data, leaked attempts to cover it up, intentionally faulty models and outright deception have put the nails in the coffin of this money-making scheme of the liberal (self-proclaimed) elite. If there was a functioning world court in existance, a lot of your buddies would be going to jail over this one. Oh, sure, there are and will (for awhile) continue to be attempts to exume this corpse...just as liberal atheists did the peppered moth. But as a scheme, it's already among the walking dead.