Global warming hoax fools millions

Medieval warm period compared to 1960 - 1991 reference:

Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif


Current decade (1999-2008) compared to 1960 - 1991 reference:

Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg


The astute observer will notice the uneven nature of the MWP. In particular Greenland features quite strongly - which is why the denialist stuff loves to concentrate on Greenland and ignore the rest of the world.

Now, what was that about the politics of GW?
 
Quote from dcraig:

The astute observer will notice the uneven nature of the MWP. In particular Greenland features quite strongly - which is why the denialist stuff loves to concentrate on Greenland and ignore the rest of the world.

Now, what was that about the politics of GW?
More...
More misdirection. The data has been faked, no question. How does describing global changes in temps also prove that those changes are caused by man or that governments can do anything to change it? Why the need to fake the data to match the agenda?
 
Quote from slacker:

More misdirection. Great. How does describing global changes in temps also prove that those change are caused by man or that governments can do anything to change it? Why the need to fake the data to match the agenda?
More...

Mr Slacker,

You posted a politically inspired blog post sprouting a lot of nonsense about MWP. My reply graphically demonstrates that post's failings. How does that constitute misdirection?

The evidence for human induced GW is extensive.

1. The physics of greenhouse gas behavior is well known and is not contested by anybody.

2. It has been conclusively shown that accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is due to human activity. In particular, the isotopic composition of the carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere has been shown to be due to the burning of fossil fuels.

3. Spectrographic observation by satellite has confirmed the greenhouse effect of CO2, methane and so on. This is not laboratory data, but direct observation of the planet.

If you want to make accusations that the books have been cooked, the obligation is on you to provide some real evidence. HINT: you could start with random samples of raw data and show how the accepted records using corrected data statistically diverge from the raw data. Oh wait - that has already been done and no problems were found.
 
Quote from dcraig:

If you want to make accusations that the books have been cooked, the obligation is on you to provide some real evidence. .
More...

I am not obliged to prove anything. Reading some of the email and looking at some of the crap software code would be enough evidence for anyone looking for the truth. AGW is a fraud and a hoax designed to enrich a few individuals and organizations. I am not trying to get funding with government grants or venture funding to build my green business, like Gore or Dr. Rajendra Pachauri making a fortune off of 'carbon trading' interests. Pachauri sometimes described as "the world's top climate scientist" was head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics. He has no qualifications in climate science at al!!! These "scientist" should be fired tor fraud. If there were laws broken I would love to be part of the jury!
 
Quote from slacker:

I am not obliged to prove anything.
More...

Yes, you are. If you want to claim that global warming is a "hoax" and that every single National Academy of Sciences on the planet is in on a big, worldwide conspiracy, you'd better have some amazing evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top