Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

[Nanfeishen]

You said "control", not "encourage", "educate", etc.

Yes , Population Control - artificially altering the population by modifying human thought patterns.

 

[Arthur]

Yes , Population Control - artificially altering the population by modifying human thought patterns.

OK.

Then I don't say what you conjecture in your retort to my post about "control". I am against State compulsion. That is all I said.

I am all for education and information. However, there is also such a thing as miseducation, misinformation, and propaganda. So my agreement is not unconditional.

 

[Swa]

We are.

The "it's not us" and "it's changed before" are common myths.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Just love this second statement
"In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions"
No they haven't. They are not in sync but do follow one another overall. Surely humans aren't affecting the sun through GW so the opposite must be true. Got a bit further than Sauron but also not gonna bother.

Bollocks. You've been captured.

On the contrary. Government has and only has the power we give it. Something the current one should take note of.

Lets say Global Warming is a scam. Polluted air and water and the fact that oil and coal is running out is more than enough reason to continue to move away from polluting fuel sources.

Exactly what I've been saying.

/snip

Opinion statements aren't proof, raw data is.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The very first statement on that page already contradicts itself so I didn't bother reading any further.

What are you talking about?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Interesting, just as the topic is being discussed here, this comes out:

US govt agency manipulated data to exaggerate climate change – whistleblower



More at: https://www.rt.com/news/376512-whistleblower-noaa-pausebuster-fake/

Nope. Just more dishonesty from David Rose et al, as is his wont.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
http://www.popsci.com/regardless-ho...sts-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

Thing is this is not a "story" that is told only by them. If you watch the clips I posted (and I suggest you do), you'll see that this has been said many, many times before...from reputable, respected scientists. Citations are included for reference. Do yourself a favor...watch those clips.

(BTW, Ben Davidson isn't just some crackpot conspiracy theorist off the streets...if you have a look around his channel and website, you'll quickly notice that he presents the cold hard un-tampered data.)

Ben "Electric Universe" Davidson? Not a crackpot? Hahaha.

 

[Sl8er]

Ben "Electric Universe" Davidson? Not a crackpot? Hahaha.

Yeah, he didn't do the science, he researched it and references it. (Pretty sure he didn't change anything, he'd be found out pretty fast if he did, I'm sure.)

All the climate-gates happened.

You're more than welcome to point out exactly among the hundreds of papers from apparent thousands of reputable scientists where they're wrong. I posted the link to the list of citations. I'm sure those would lead you to the actual papers. (I haven't gone and checked them all out, but I'd be happy to hear your opinion.)

 

[Thor]

No, I'm touched by Splitner's solicitude and patience. It's not every day one encounters a critic so ready to point out the failings of others whilst so generous in the assessment of his own sagacity.

His exasperation is almost palpable, and I am sorry to occasion it.

Have rep.

 

[Thor]

Dammit, given out to much today

 

[Splinter]

Have rep.

Dammit, given out to much today

Sigh. Dude. Ah whatever. You are who you are.

 

[Splinter]

Though of course related, there is an important distinction between weather and climate. They are not the same thing, and one cannot argue in a straight line from weather to climate.

Care to explain this distinction?

Besides, the elephant in the room is our nearest star. It is the primary driver of planetary climate throughout most the solar system. And it's pretty clear climate is changing on the inner planets as well as the gas giants.

Ok, so you mean the sun. But pleaase tell us more about what is "pretty clear" about changes on the inner planets and gas giants. This will be the first I have heard about it.

 

[Arthur]

Use your fave search engine.

 

[Splinter]

Use your fave search engine.

Come on Arthur, you keep on making these preposterous statements; and then never back them up with any credible sources. Humour me and do such.

 

[Arthur]

http://tinyurl.com/jcxyqn6

 

[Splinter]

OMG! Has Arthur been reduced to posting urls and such? Fricken hell; the climate must be warming.

 

[SauRoNZA]

What are you talking about?

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths,

Climate MythvsWhat the Science Says
1"Climate's changed before"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are n

The scientific statement doesn't negate the mythical statement. It agrees with it that it has happened before but simply alters the reason for the change now being human instead of natural as it had been before.

Therefore the first statement isn't a myth (untruth) as the science agrees that it's true. It has happened before.

Or do you mean to say the ice age never happened?

 

[Splinter]

I know

But please don't fib here - you love showing off your vocabulary. You know it, I know it, and anybody else who happens to wade through your posts knows it.




Strange. Here I thought socialism was on the wane. You of course know better, and can prove it no doubt.



What did I question about this?



That's ok. I don't quite buy your grandiose notions either. While more and more businesses are jumping on the PR spin from environmental responsibility, they are not the warm and fuzzy entities you portray with lines such as, "They don't need legislation and state controls to teach them about fair employment practices, generous employee benefits, generous social spending, respect for the environment, and so on".

It's all about the bottom line for the vast majority of corporates.



Huh? You make it sound like "climate savers" control most of the Wests economies. What waffle. And you are mixing capitalism and mans innate greed and lack of real concern for the poor, with climate warming?

@Arthur - still waiting for a reply to my comments above.

 

[Arthur]

Splitner, you face a choice:

1. Do the research yourself, as I've already suggested

or

2. Die in ignorance.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Yeah, he didn't do the science, he researched it and references it. (Pretty sure he didn't change anything, he'd be found out pretty fast if he did, I'm sure.)

All the climate-gates happened.

You're more than welcome to point out exactly among the hundreds of papers from apparent thousands of reputable scientists where they're wrong. I posted the link to the list of citations. I'm sure those would lead you to the actual papers. (I haven't gone and checked them all out, but I'd be happy to hear your opinion.)

He lied about a UW-Madison article by literally photoshopping the headline. The article makes the exact opposite point that he claims. And he repeats false denialist talking points ("the earth is cooling").

The very first link in that list is to Climate Depot, a well-known climate change denial website run by Marc Morano, that links to (big surprise) other climate change deniers. And, another big surprise, is run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think-tank funded by ExxonMobil and Chevron. Morano is also a well-known liar and BS artist, whose pretty big on harassment and smear campaigns against scientists he doesn't like.

The second link is to an article written by James Taylor, who, big surprise, works for the Heartland Institute, another climate change denial pusher, with funding from oil companies and explicit aims to promote climate change denial. And hey, what do you know, he likes to lie about the science and scientists.

The third link straight-up misrepresents the data, and cites random non-climate scientists who work for climate change denial organisations as somehow credible on the topic. The same people who also make a habit of misrepresenting the science. Bizarre.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths,

Climate MythvsWhat the Science Says
1"Climate's changed before"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are n

The scientific statement doesn't negate the mythical statement. It agrees with it that it has happened before but simply alters the reason for the change now being human instead of natural as it had been before.

Therefore the first statement isn't a myth (untruth) as the science agrees that it's true. It has happened before.

Or do you mean to say the ice age never happened?

No, you misunderstand. The myth is that because the climate has changed before, humans aren't responsible for the current change.

Read the full thing:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

 

[Swa]

He lied about a UW-Madison article by literally photoshopping the headline. The article makes the exact opposite point that he claims. And he repeats false denialist talking points ("the earth is cooling").

The very first link in that list is to Climate Depot, a well-known climate change denial website run by Marc Morano, that links to (big surprise) other climate change deniers. And, another big surprise, is run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think-tank funded by ExxonMobil and Chevron. Morano is also a well-known liar and BS artist, whose pretty big on harassment and smear campaigns against scientists he doesn't like.

The second link is to an article written by James Taylor, who, big surprise, works for the Heartland Institute, another climate change denial pusher, with funding from oil companies and explicit aims to promote climate change denial. And hey, what do you know, he likes to lie about the science and scientists.

The third link straight-up misrepresents the data, and cites random non-climate scientists who work for climate change denial organisations as somehow credible on the topic. The same people who also make a habit of misrepresenting the science. Bizarre.

So because they all deny climate change they can't be credible. Got it.