global warming models proven "huge"-ly wrong

Post Reply New Topic

"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin

I normally see that quote attributed to Goebbels. Do you have a source attributing it to Lenin?

There are multiple sources that attribute it to both but more to Lenin than Goebbels.

Pave North America over from coast to coast and North to South with fast breeder reactors and we will never have to burn coal or oil again to make hot water.

ruveyn

Sorry Avengilante, you ARE the one who who know nothing. Man-made global warming is what is closer to what say the actual data. And don't tire me with "it's in the interest of the govnerment that peoples believe global warming" because that's certainly not true of the govnerments we got. This is more a expose of the incompetency of the powers-that-be to react in fornt of incoming catastrophes.

Anyway, this study has been completly debunked.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

One could argue that the belief in man-made climate change has affected the interpretations and furthermore the corruption of data and science to fit the socio-political-religious world of climate change.

What are you even talking about?

I wonder if dinosaurs would have been better off with SUV's.

I really dislike this debate because it all seems so senseless to me. Whatever the cause is, we're currently observing a significant rise in temperature and climate-related disasters. This might be directly caused by man. This might not be. Since we lack a good control group, you cannot be sure.

Personally, I can't imagine that the amount of pollution man is throwing into the environment has a positive effects, and I can easily imagine it having very real negative effects for all of us. Even if climate change is not man-made, it would be better if we would all try to be less wasteful.

oh, i never said pollution wasn't bad. we do need to do something about it. I'm just arguing that our co2 output is causing it.




this argument never does go anywhere though, does it? one side always says it's debunked the other and that goes back and forth with no stop it seems.

the real problem i see with the whole thing is that some people want to tax other people for it (which is a swindle by the way. i mean really, they're giving people carbon credits for killing camels in Australia now. WTF?) which then leads to this horribly defensive attitude we all have. It would be better if we merely concentrated our energies on creating better tech and ways to clean up the chemical mess this planet has become. but no, we sit about fighting over whether or not we should get carbon credits for killing animals.


the real disturbing thing about this whole mess is that the people who are most inclined to push this alarmist mentality are the same ones in control of our banking system (david de rothschilde would be a good example). could that be why our economy is really crashing? is this the result of a sort of new age Malthusian-ism?

he means that people find the data that they want regardless of whether or not it's correct.

Or even worse, with the appropriate adjustable parameters one can fit the model to any data.

Real theories cannot be arbitrarily adjusted. If the don't fit the facts, one has to toss them and think of a better theory that will fit the facts.

ruveyn

Which is exactly what scientists do. This whole notion that somehow scientists want global warming to be proven is total crap. Scientists - the real ones, not the ones hired by private corporations with a clear agenda - are only trying to find the truth here. Their motivations are pure. There is no win either way. Wins only occur with discovery, regardless of what that discovery is. If the data shows that CO2 is less of a concern than previously thought, then fantastic.

The only people searching for a specific outcome here are the big oil companies. They have a clear motivation because their profits are a direct result of our dependency on oil. They have a heck of a lot to lose here. Green technology has the potential to ruin their empire. Of course they're going to fight the science, just like the tobacco companies did.

As far as the banking industry goes, one has nothing to do with the other. That's truly tinfoil hat territory.

you do realize that there is huge potential for investors to make money off carbon credits, right? there is money to be made on either side. the fact that there have been warmer periods with less man made co2 and periods of the same temp with MANY times the amount of co2 proves to me that it's a hoax. that and the fact that their models are never right.

Funny because 30 years ago, climate change was considered a utter joke when scientists were originally warning about it. If this was all an elaborate scam, why now than 30 years ago? Think of all the money that could have been obtained over the course of several decades if they started promoting it sooner.

Carbon traders would have made bank if this racket was started sooner, but businesses and the rest of the economy would have suffered even more than they are now from the global warming scam.