The Hottest Hoax In The World

Yes. Endless amounts of money would be transferred from First World, industrial nations to the Third World. Trillions of dollars worth of productive people’s wealth have already been thus moved, and the Third World remains the Third World.

Implementation of all the fanciful notions floated address “Global Warming” also entail numberless international bureaucrats --primarily from those same Third World countries-- being granted authority over previously sovereign nations – and individuals.

And it nearly came to pass…

At the Copenhagen conference, the left wing ideologues from western nations went there willing to make the cash transfers and also there were the greedy third world plundering dictators with their paws extended. Mugabwe of Zimbabwe, who has trashed his economy and human rights during his dictatorial and brutal reign laid the blame for AGW at the feet of capitalist system. He seems to forget that it is the capitalist system which supplies his starving countrymen with food aid because his regime has ruined Zimbabwe’s capacity to feed itself. Mugabwe was ably ably supported by Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who said "….a ghost is stalking the streets of Copenhagen… it’s capitalism, capitalism is that ghost…The destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life."

Read here how Zimbabwe has fallen into the depths of economic despair under Mugabwe. Then read here who the biggest donors of food aid are. At the top of the list and a long way ahead of any other nation is the United States of America, which was singled out by Mugabwe and Chavez for criticism.

These two represent the great hoax of AGW ideology.

Hum! And the Arctic ice hasn’t been melting at all? And what about the glacier in Groenland? If it’s not global warming, thank God, but then what is it?
Also, our industries are so engrained in having to pollute the air and the waters that even when they don’t cause “global warming” per se, they still have been doing a lot of damage to our city environment and elsewhere too. This one thing isn’t a hoax, is it?

I find Thegreatpiper’s location, “Taxachussetts”, though fictitious, quite in tune with topics of social justice such as this one… I just saw it… Sorry! This has nothing to do with the topic here per se!

My! It’s Thegreypiper, not “Thegreatpiper”! Sorry, this error was not intentional… That’s how it is when you have some memory problem and still try to write down names you see for the first time from memory!!! When are we going to act more wisely???

There are a series of questions one must ask when thinking about this whole issue.

  1. Is the earth warming?

  2. If it is, does it matter?

  3. Does it matter enough that it is a crisis that needs our action?

  4. If it is a crisis, is there anything we can do about it?

Question 1: I think that enough doubt has been thrown on this that I don’t know. Why doesn’t someone (without a dog in the hunt) host some kind of debate? Let the alarmists put up their best and the doubters put up their best and let each make their case.

Question 2: Maybe it doesn’t really matter! Maybe we should just make some adjustments and ride it out. Respond to effects as they occur.

Question 3: Are we doomed to swelter away as we eat our children and drink battery acid? If that’s the case, then we should do everything we can to reverse the trend or else start storing up food and water and get armed and ready to defend it for your family.

Question 4: Is there anything we could do that will reverse it? I heard somewhere that even if all the suggested measures were implemented across the globe (very unlikely) then it would have very little effect.

I’m all for clean air. Remember acid rain? We were pretty much able to stop that weren’t we? There are even fish in Lake Erie now! Anyway, I just don’t believe that CO2, the stuff we exhale is such a huge problem. I think the earth was created as a balanced system that has endured much longer than Man has been around. I think it is arrogant in the extreme to believe that humanity’s emmissions would throw the ecosystem out of kilter. As if God hadn’t designed the system to handle some CO2!

A couple things I’ve been thinking about…

The world’s oceans naturally absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. The warmer the water, the more CO2 it can absorb. (Phytoplankton anyone?) So, if the earth warms because of CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans will restore the balance, naturally! If you believe life developed from pond scum on this earth, it would be ludicrous to assume that it could be knocked off balance so easily–otherwise life would never have developed to such a high level! And if you believe God created everything as it exists today, then you display a deep distrust in God to think he would not have built in self-correcting mechanisms in his creation.

Another one. The sun’s energy has more to do with the earth’s temperature than any other factor. What if the sun’s radiation is cyclical?

Another one. Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gases in one good eruption than all the pollution man has emitted in the entire industrial age. Again, if the earth’s system was so fragile, it would have collapse a long time ago.

Another one. I’ve heard stories of temperature sensors set up in locations where the surrounding conditions change. If a building goes up and the shadow crosses over it at a certain time of day, then the average temp goes down. If trees are cut down, the temp goes up. Due to urban sprawl, many out-of-the-way remote temperature measurement stations are being overtaken and that changes their readings. Also, since they’ve started measuring the temp from satellites, the readings have been declining (since 1998) whereas before, when the temps were taken from those remote stations there was a steady increase. Maybe the previous data cannot be trusted?

I guess, on the whole, I’m a doubter. I doubt that it’s been proven that the earth is warming and I doubt that if it is then it is really so much of a problem. And even if it is a problem, what can we do about it that will make any difference. The proposed measure do more harm than global warming.

One last thought and I’m done. Who stands to benefit from these anti-AGW measures? Those are the ones who are pushing it. Who stands to benefit with the status quo? Those are the ones who are opposing it. I don’t trust either one to be telling the whole truth.

Jeff

**The Hoax is exposed and the name of Science is muddied.
**

, with a worldwide membership of over 36,000The Institute of Physics has presented a damning memorandum to the British Parliament on the behaviour of the climate scientists and the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

**7. **Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

Climate Science is now in tatters.

Apparently the Vatican:yawn: takes it seriously. But, they probably don’t listen to enough talk radio…

It is just a shame that Mr. Gore didn’t just quit after he invented the internet. My Dear Lord thanks for the Florida outcome way back when. It’s really scary to think what could have been.:thumbsup:

University accused of misleading British Parliament.

The University of East Anglia, at the centre of the leaked climategate emails, has now been accused of attempting to mislead the British Parliament.

From The Times Online -

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act. …Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

The letter also confirmed the ICO’s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.

The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement …The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter.

“The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.”

Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee, said: “It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.

The ‘science’ behind climate change/global warming is looking more and more like a fabricated thesis, full of dubious data and cerried along by scientists who have gone a long way to destroying the credibility of science.

Actually, this statement seems an effort to mislead people of faith, IMHO.

IPCC embraces Abortion, Eugenics, Euthanasia now, for convenience as a solution along with Carbon Credits, as the answer to Global Warming Schemes. Via Marie Stoples International…United Nations Population Control Fund UNPCF ]…International Planned Parenthood IPP ]…et al

The Vatican does not now, or ever has, embraced these ideas.
The Vatican demands a dignity of all life.

There is a huge difference between being good stewards of our envirorement, the dignity of all life… and that what the United Nations Global Warmist IPCC ] sells.

I hope this helps

Remarkable, what sort of people suddenly respect the scientific authority of the Pope when it’s convenient.

Al Gore still doesn’t get it. He has written an op-ed piece in the New York Timesand he tells us

what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption

All bow to the new religion!

He admits to flaws and innacuracies in the data used by climate scientists to form reports which substantiate the new religion. He even admits that scientists at East Anglia University may not have correctly followed Freedom Of Information procedures. The reason, he says, is because they were inundated with hostile demands from deniers! The man is a lunatic. He does not mention that a British Parliamantary Select Committee is investigating East Anglia for subverting the truth. He forgets to mention that the University is being investigated for not simply not following procedures, but for actually destroying evidence of climate data manipulation.

Has Gore no shame at all?

Batten down the hatches.

.Adolf just found out about the collapse of Global Warming

From the article:

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

Don’t confuse me with the Facts!

For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Never mind that it’s cold out, it’s really HOT!!

Pronunciation: \ˈhät
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): hot·ter; hot·test
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hāt; akin to Old High German heiz hot, Lithuanian kaisti to get hot
Date: before 12th century

1 a : having a relatively high temperature b : capable of giving a sensation of heat or of burning, searing, or scalding c : having heat in a degree exceeding normal body heat

3 : having or causing the sensation of an uncomfortable degree of body heat <it’s hot in here>

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade,

When all else fails, resort to slandering the opposition!

scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the*** hottest*** decade since modern records have been kept.

Medieval Warming period doesn’t count because surface temperatures weren’t measure at that time. Nevermind all the other evidence of MWP.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Never mind the lies and doctored evidence! It was done out of benevolence!!

Any chance still that there might exist a real climate change threat even when you put everyone-who-would-use-it-to-promote-a-hoax-involving-phoney-organizations aside?

In medievil times, the Vikings settled Greenland and grew grapes there. So what’s the threat?

Does it mean that there was no glacier in Greenland back then? It may not have covered the whole of the island then.
Of course, that the glacier is melting these years doesn’t automatically mean there won’t remain a single part of it some time soon…

Glaciers “melt” and glaciers grow. Sometime they melt due to warm water, sometime due to evaporation. Glaciers need snow to grow. When it is too cold for the ocean waters to evaporate sufficiently to snow, they will evaporate. This evaporation takes place at a much slower rate than water evaporation in warm air. Yes, ice evaporates!

So basically, if it snows, the glacier grows,

According to the article, snow is a sign of global warming.

not quite sure how an article in a glossy weekly magazine negates the fact that CO2 is transparent to UV but opaque to IR :shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.