Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
I didn't believe in global warming before not believing it was cool.
-New round of leaked emails about the hoax released today-
One example from the emails of the scientist-activists:
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.
One example from the emails of the scientist-activists:
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.
Another from today's round of leaked emails:
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I canât overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and donât want to be made
to look foolish.
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I canât overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and donât want to be made
to look foolish.
The scientist-activist Mr. Adams:
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
that is how "science" works basically... it's a fallacious argument, philosophically speaking, an appeal to experts.
Try showing people the gaping holes in the arguments supporting Macro Evolution and they will go batshit. They appeal to experts, they reframe the argument as "science" vs "blind faith", etc... and there are very well funded people with the job of SELLING scientific ideas. They are not interested in the truth, they are paid to win by any means.. This climate change thing is a launching pad for more control at the UN level, including some taxes. Once they get some money they will use it for further control...
Go to my first post in this thread.
You will see the liberal-scientist-activists warning you that 2012 will be the last full year of ice at the north pole.
But, you didn't listen to them. Or accept their activist solutions.
Now you will pay the price.
Global warming will now turn our planet into a swamp with water levels covering Pike's Peak.
We can only give you swimming lessons starting at $350/hour. Meet at my house. Cash only.
You will see the liberal-scientist-activists warning you that 2012 will be the last full year of ice at the north pole.
But, you didn't listen to them. Or accept their activist solutions.
Now you will pay the price.
Global warming will now turn our planet into a swamp with water levels covering Pike's Peak.
We can only give you swimming lessons starting at $350/hour. Meet at my house. Cash only.
OK, so that was one guy's guess/simulation. The IPCC and the vast majority of scientists were and still are saying sometime in the mid to second half of 2100.
Here's some quotes from Maslowski....
" My statement you quoted and was printed in The New York Times of 2013, my first presentation where I actually had this projection stated exclusively was about 4 or 5 years ago in San Francisco, at American Geophysical Union poll meeting. So, I'm not actually upgrading my projection, I'm just saying that it may happen sooner but we were one of the early people who were saying that it might happen within the next decade, instead of by the end of this century."
", the multi-national climate simulation study have predicted the ice might be disappearing in summer, the northern summer in the Arctic, maybe sometime by the end of this 21st century.
There are some model simulations, single model simulations, that are suggesting that it could possibly occur as early as 2050 or maybe even as early as 2030."
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/medi...e-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma
This is an example of how news outlets grab on to the most sensational of stories and put it out there is if this is what all of science believes. When really they just want to sell papers. The same thing happened with the much hyped ice-age predictions which also was a minority and mostly unsupported opinion. The Guardian seems to have done this a lot. Then the deniers hold these up as if they should be some condemnation of the science as a whole.
Here's some quotes from Maslowski....
" My statement you quoted and was printed in The New York Times of 2013, my first presentation where I actually had this projection stated exclusively was about 4 or 5 years ago in San Francisco, at American Geophysical Union poll meeting. So, I'm not actually upgrading my projection, I'm just saying that it may happen sooner but we were one of the early people who were saying that it might happen within the next decade, instead of by the end of this century."
", the multi-national climate simulation study have predicted the ice might be disappearing in summer, the northern summer in the Arctic, maybe sometime by the end of this 21st century.
There are some model simulations, single model simulations, that are suggesting that it could possibly occur as early as 2050 or maybe even as early as 2030."
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/medi...e-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma
This is an example of how news outlets grab on to the most sensational of stories and put it out there is if this is what all of science believes. When really they just want to sell papers. The same thing happened with the much hyped ice-age predictions which also was a minority and mostly unsupported opinion. The Guardian seems to have done this a lot. Then the deniers hold these up as if they should be some condemnation of the science as a whole.