How Global-Warming 'Skeptics' Distort the Truth

The ice caps melt. The water is pulled to the Equator, this raises the tides. With the increased mass at a slightly increased distance from the rotational axis of the Earth the Earths rotation slows to maintain angular velocity. Since the force of gravity is inversely proportional to distance; the pull on the Moon in increased slightly by the bulge of water at the Equator. This combined with the slowing of the rotation of the Earth increases the pull on the Moon and slows the Moons orbit. The Moons orbit decays and it slowly begins to fall into the Earth. It eventually strikes the Earth and the combined mass of the Earth and the Moon in the existing Earth orbit, with the orbital velocity of the Earth, are not sufficient to maintain an orbit around the Sun, so the Earth is pulled into the Sun.

If we do not stop breathing the Earth will fall in to the Sun.

Let’s see the IPCC top that one!

Another apologist for a rapidly eroding religion. This is getting embarrassing.

I fully intended to read this article but could not get past the very first sentence. Tell us, Vieru, do you know who Dr. Murari Lal is? If not, you should. He was the coordinating lead author for the Asian section of the IPCC's report of 2007. Do you know what he said, on the record, about the inclusion of the statement that Himalayan glaciers may be gone by 2035? If not, you should. He told David Rose, of the UK Sunday Mail, that he knew there was no credible data to support the claim. He also said (and notice that this is a quotation), "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

This is unambiguous: The inclusion of the 2035 date was deliberate and not a mistake. They knew it was unsupported by any evidence. And there were more than one of them involved; note the first person plural pronoun.

It is not that skeptics have "uncovered some sort of conspiracy" as much as one of the lead conspirators admitting to the conspiracy to the world.

Oh please. Dedicating their lives to make our lives and those of our children better? Yea, that and justifying their existence to get grant money. How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously after spewing drivel like that? What happened to objectivity in journalism? For a decent interview that is even handed in its tone (unlike this one) check out the BBC interview with Phil Jones from last week.

Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, now.

" When you devise a plot on this scale, someone stands to gain considerably, and yet I haven't received a single straight answer."

Hang out with some straight people, sometime.
Carbon derivatives. You can't even count that high.

I know your pretense that you couldn't possible imagine a motive for fraud was blatantly fake, too. Making such a deal out of ignoring the obvious begs for explanation.

Climatology: The spice for data:

Note: Released by NASA under FOI.
-
Subject: Re: Your Reply to: GISS Temperature Correction Problem?
From: Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
Date: 19 Feb 2008 14:38:47 -0500
To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov

I had a look at the data, and this whole business seems to be related to the infilling of seasonal and annual means. There is no evidence for any step change in any of the individual months.

The only anomalous point (which matches nearby deltas) is for Set 2005. Given the large amount of missing data in lampasas this gets propagated to the annual (D-N) mean – I think – with a little more weight then in the nearby stations. The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias. But I’m not sure on how the filling-in happens.

Gavin
-
So remember if you find the temperature data is cooling off, just add a little “climatology” it will warm things up nicely.

so are you saying that after watching these two videos you still hold the same view?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuovqFwUtDc

My review?

The first sentence isn't even based on facts: No one has shown the emails were even stolen.

The emails however have shown that the supporters of AGW are working from their conclusion to decide which data to use (or lose, or invent), and that they are willing to lie or cheat to make the case.

"discovery of minor errors in a report produced by the UN"

Minor errors? What a joke!!! Meltwater from the Himalayan glaciers feeds into the eight big rivers in Asia. More than 1.3 billion people rely on this water for drinking and food production.

Sound like a major error to me. I'm sure the 1.3 billions people that rely on this water do too. It's time the UN stops trying to scare people and stick to the facts. That is why they have no credibility right now. They are a bunch or fear mongers, scammers, and snake oil salesman.

Shouldn't the title really be:

"How Global-Warming 'Doomers' Distort the Truth"

"One glacier in Switzerland may be growing"

Where do you get your facts?

Here is a list of some glaciers that are growing:

NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

# CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain

# France
Mt. Blanc
# ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

I could list more but instead I will direct you to this site:
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Here is info on the Antartic glacier, it is growing also:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_ice_grows_to_record_levels.htm

I mean really please change the article title to:
"How Global Warming 'Doomers' distort the truth"

Actually, the skeptics are not a problem. All true scientists are skeptics.

The real problem we have is that people were paid a huge sum of money to find AGW. If they didn't find it the money dried up. If one reads the emails, which it appear now to have been left on an open ftp site, the complete story unfolds before your eyes.

In the emails the CRU group discuss, tax evasion, subverting the peer review process, fraudulently gathering signatures on the Kyoto petition of 1600 "scientists", FOIA violations, data destruction, manipulating data, destroying data, blackballing other scientists, colluding to get each other awards, ignoring data that didn't agree with their theory, manipulating the press, and the list goes on and on. Not one skeptic involved in the emails. How to shut them up is all over the place. CRU could not stand investigation. If AGW was true they would have been looking for someone to demonstrate an error because the consequences would have been so disastrous.

The errors of the IPCC were not few and were deliberate. Your computer does not have enough hard drive to store the all the problems with the false claims of the AGW group.

Phil Jones, caught in the act, did what was right. Once cornered, he started to tell the truth. There has been no warming for 15 years, Mediaeval Warming period did exist, FOIA Violations, and so forth.

Bottom line to all of this, there are still those who have been brainwashed, and believe with a religious fervor, that AGW is real.
Mostly they are uninformed adults and children in the late teens and early 20s.

Thank goodness they are few and their cause of world socialism is crumbling.

The wierd thing about the entire issue is that every website and scientific paper I have read has given me a different rate of climate change and all that can be extracted is that the climate is changeing. I have also read that the computers used to model climate change do not have enough power to take into account all of the factors involved and cannot bring accurate conclusions.

There was a show on recently showing the people who are making tons of money from the global warming fallacies. As always follow the money.

Who stands to gain?

The charlatans who are pushing "green business", that's who. Need to save the world? Boy have we got a swirly light bulb for you! It's gonna cost you a lot extra though and that mercury level is a bit concerning, but hey, you don't want to kill penguins, do you??

Want to build a mansion and fly around the world telling people they need to change their habits? Invest in some "carbon credits"!

Just give us money and we'll take care of it all for you?

Oh, who stands to gain from publishing reports that fall in line with the party call? The scientists who's grants and research funding come from the people who need the green movement to push their carbon credit stocks up.

Consider Penn State and their review of Micheal Mann's academic work....now why in the world would their review conclude that he's a fraud and needs to be dismissed? That's MILLIONS in research grants Penn State would be throwing out the door. Instead, it's a whitewash review that "finds no academic misconduct" when anyone with the internet and access to his emails can tell you that he was up to all sorts of tomfoolery.

"It is a trusty rule of human conduct that the less a man knows about a controversial subject, the more emotional, dogmatic and violent he becomes when it is brought up" L. Sprague de Camp, author of "The Ape-Man Within"

Thank you Tudor Vieru for the excellent posting. As you can see, rationality and civility are not a strong points for many of the postings.

Let us rethink what does increase in carbon dioxide does to the atmosphere?
It increases the global temperature by 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT' that is equivalent to longer hotter summers and shorter colder winters.We see in day to day news the changing climate and the only accurate calculations that the present technology can make is the amount of CO2 which has increased drastically. If we look at our sister planet VENUS we see that the CO2 atmosphere has caused it to have a high surface temperature.Use your logical reasoning and decide for your self is it good to use the FOSSIL FUELS to increase the CO2 or should you be more concerned about reducing the carbon footprint.

It is not actually who gains from it but actually who looses from it.The OIL COMPANIES which has a firm standing in global market.What happens when there is a move to Greener Technologies?What will happen to the OIL COMPANIES?

THINK OVER IT...

@RYAN

Is there any future for Oil Companies any ways?

I mean for the last forty five years, we have been listening to how scarce the fossil fuels are and that they wouldn't last beyond 2020!!! It is impossible to know the truth. Corporate Cartel makes news, propagandas, beliefs, and even truth.

Well, finish off all the fuel and there you are: you have a Green Planet for ever.

To add to this, Global Warming is the only way the developed nations can pressurise(read arm twist) the developing/under-developed ones to put a cap on their industrial progress.

Any fall in dominance of the now-already-developed economies will bring immediate doom to them. The financial melt-down is an example.

I've taken a long look at alot of new and old climate research and find the warming effects of co2 to be lacking at best. I no longer believe that co2 either man made or natural have any effect at all on earths climate system. Nasa geophysicist Phil Chapman, Nasa Chief administrator John Theon among many others at Nasa are now saying this has been a hoax perpetrated by a small gruop of scientists and many of the climatologists and geophysicists at Nasa now say it's total fraud. In addition, the International geological Congress in Nov.2008 showed that 68% of the top international geophysicists on earth are also claiming it's a fraud. In any event, there is no consensus at all among geophysicists that global warming is real. Quite to the contrary, the consensus of todays top scientists in atmospheric research, climatology, astrophysics, geophysics is that this is a hoax . 68% of Geophysicists? This is what they do, there the best in the world and they say fraud!

simple: many people stand to become very wealthy with their lies of global warming. the planet doesn't need saved, it will always be here. the question is where are they going after their life is over, it sounds like a place that's very warm.