posted on 09/30/2013 12:18:23 PM PDT
The fact that the ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven to be a HOAX should have gotten all the key scientists involved FIRED!
Instead they pretend it never happened and go on with their global warming agenda, which is less to do with science than political power to control things.
That’s not science, that’s political activism HIDDEN inside a scientific hoax.
posted on 09/30/2013 12:26:23 PM PDT
by Mr. K
(Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
posted on 09/30/2013 12:29:05 PM PDT
thoroughly research the issue, accumulating mountains of evidence that there is no man-made global warming.
They publish doctored 'research' where 'evidence' is manufactured to fit their world-view (ie. Lysenkoism), and adorn it with hear-wrenching pictures of polar bears stranded on melting ice floes.
We continue to lose elections.
They win over the low-information voters.
Civil War II is coming.
posted on 09/30/2013 12:34:01 PM PDT
(Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
Who will decide American public policy on the issue of potentially catastrophic CIVILIZATION DESTROYING REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE man caused global warming HOAX?
There, fixed it.
There is nothing scientific about the IPCC report. Science cannot be modified by politicians. It is 100 % political science.
Excuse me if I make a few clarifications. In reality, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report was initially written by climate scientists for politicians. The language of the IPCCs Summary for Policymakers was then amended by politicians during days of negotiations in Stockholm prior to publication.
Additionally, the vast majority of the scientific research reflected in that document was funded by governments. As a result, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers presents only research efforts that adhere to the agendas of the political entities that financed it.
Excerpted from Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State
posted on 09/30/2013 1:18:41 PM PDT
(The username is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
AS USUAL WE'VE ONLY TO LOOK TO THE BRAINY BEAUTY ANN COULTER'S REPORTAGE ON THE SUBJECT TO GET THE TRUTH SHE FULLY EXPLAINS THE GLOBAL BALONEY FRAUD TO US HERE IN HER 12/3/09 COLUMN TO WIT:
As we now know (and by "we" I mean "everyone with access to the Internet"), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth's temperature. Recently leaked e-mails from the "scientists" at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in the Earth's temperature since 1960 -- as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"
These e-mails aren't a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming. CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate analysis" -- including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU's summary of that data was used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer societies and taxing ourselves into oblivion. But then last weekend -- in the middle of the "Let's Cook the Books!" e-mail scandal -- the CRU said that all its data on the Earth's temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably "lost." Overcooked" might be a more apt term.
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated "scientists" were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and publications discredited.
AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN GLOBAL BALONEY WARMING AFTER WHAT ANN'S WRITTEN ABOVE ...WELL...YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL WACKY BIRD....................... THANKS ANN!
THE BEAUTIFUL ANNIE:
posted on 09/30/2013 1:50:23 PM PDT
go jump in the lake you stupid scientists. I know global warming is a hoax. and I won't buy lies from scientists, media, government. to hell with them all
the media , scientists , government put themselves above us as if they were better than us smarter so we have to do what they tell us to do . the free market works. government, gov “experts” like scientists etc cannot not make government nor socialism work. I know this so I am far smarter than all these idiots who can't see government/socialism is the problem
posted on 09/30/2013 5:33:57 PM PDT
(give laws an expiration date:so the congress has to review every 4 years to see if needed)
To: neverdem; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
posted on 09/30/2013 8:01:48 PM PDT
by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Major brain damage at UMES, but no property damage!)
...Climate Change Reconsidered explains, the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis [catastrophic, man-caused global warming is real] is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesiss favor. This is political science, not actual science.
posted on 09/30/2013 8:44:20 PM PDT
( Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. - - Bill St. Clair)
The article is too long to read, so I only got about halfway through it.
What I will say, however, is that the notable peer-reviewed articles often are mentioned in the journal Science, whether Science published the original article or not. At this point, the only global warming articles I have seen (original or mention in Science) do not document any evidence that the earth is undergoing any kind of major climate shift, much less an anthropogenic climate shift. Most of the articles are predictive essays, e.g., “If the sea level increases by 5 cm in this location, we can expect to see these effects [catastrophic scenario follows].” Other articles document observations and attribute them to global warming without ever establishing a causative relationship or mechanism. Reading this latter type of article is as bad as reading the majority of epidemiological studies, in which the researchers (usually MDs untrained in research methodology) find a correlation and immediately jump to conclusions about how this correlation proves that drinking soda is the major cause of obesity (or something equally ludicrous).
In real science, the researcher must make predictions based on a hypothesis, design an experiment to test those predictions, and then do the experiment. It is not science to come up with a hypothesis and then run around looking for evidence that supports it while ignoring non-supporting evidence.
posted on 10/01/2013 4:18:33 AM PDT
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson