• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Ok, I understand that, however, in most cases I see, it is any dissent that garners the "whacky" terminology or worse. In any case, there are a significant number of scientists that disagree that man's contribution, what ever that may be, is minute, and further that the earth has ways of controlling these additions. For instance, the eco system in oil seepage into the oceans for example. Oil spills get the headlines, but mother nature seeps millions of tons of oil into the worlds oceans every year, and the ocean deals with it. Now does that mean that we shouldn't worry about our contribution? no, just that this isn't about man's influence, but rather about control of man by government.

Yes. Some scientists do think that. So perhaps the scientific process should work that out. Instead, we have this bull**** from the "skeptics" where they claim a report "admits" solar activity is a significant role. The implication is that this is some secret the evil conspiracy is hiding. Hundreds, if not thousands of papers have been published regarding solar influences. Billions have been spent tracking every damn wavelength that the sun spits out. A secret admission? Really? Published secrets? Say, remember that "trick" to "hide the decline?" If there was intention of deceit, why publish the information?

But the "skeptics" don't want a scientific debate, of course, so that's why they make up so many conspiracies and straw man arguments.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Yes. Some scientists do think that. So perhaps the scientific process should work that out. Instead, we have this bull**** from the "skeptics" where they claim a report "admits" solar activity is a significant role. The implication is that this is some secret the evil conspiracy is hiding. Hundreds, if not thousands of papers have been published regarding solar influences. Billions have been spent tracking every damn wavelength that the sun spits out. A secret admission? Really? Published secrets? Say, remember that "trick" to "hide the decline?" If there was intention of deceit, why publish the information?

But the "skeptics" don't want a scientific debate, of course, so that's why they make up so many conspiracies and straw man arguments.

Well, you can blame the AGW religion true believers for that...Hell, everything that movement did was destructive to real science. From tampering with the data, then trying to cover it up, to scheming up some half cocked BS about trading carbon credits for the right to pollute. It was proponents of AGW that fouled up the works, and now all they have is to name call, and denigrate those whom are asking valid questions....

Listen, any reasonable person wants to know the truth, but that was a casualty in this from the very beginning....Good job!
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Well, you can blame the AGW religion true believers for that...Hell, everything that movement did was destructive to real science. From tampering with the data, then trying to cover it up, to scheming up some half cocked BS about trading carbon credits for the right to pollute. It was proponents of AGW that fouled up the works, and now all they have is to name call, and denigrate those whom are asking valid questions....

Listen, any reasonable person wants to know the truth, but that was a casualty in this from the very beginning....Good job!

Which data was tampered with and covered up? Specifically, which data. I suspect I know what you're referring to but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. I know how irritating that is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Which data was tampered with and covered up? Specifically, which data. I suspect I know what you're referring to but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. I know how irritating that is.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes
http://www.climategate.com/

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? – Telegraph Blogs
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Anthropogenic Global Warming and natural variability are not mutually exclusive, and nobody has ever suggested that they are. (well, except perhaps some of the wackier "skeptics") Perhaps this will clear up the confusion for you. Humans can be causing a change in climate variables simultaneously with changes in natural variables.


The basis of the AGW argument is that by changing the practices and habits of Mankind, the elite can control and direct the climate back to the ideal that we have destroyed and are making worse.

Exactly what is the % contribution of the changes provided by man and how will the change in the behaviors and habits allow the control and the direction of climate if the activities of man is not the prime and overwhelming driver?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

The basis of the AGW argument is that by changing the practices and habits of Mankind, the elite can control and direct the climate back to the ideal that we have destroyed and are making worse.

Exactly what is the % contribution of the changes provided by man and how will the change in the behaviors and habits allow the control and the direction of climate if the activities of man is not the prime and overwhelming driver?

More strawman nonsense, a la creationism, debating the nonexistent controversy.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

More strawman nonsense, a la creationism, debating the nonexistent controversy.

How do you debate a controversy that doesn't exist?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm


Of course it was climategate. :lamo

Look, you were deceived. Little snippets were clipped out that look damning, but if you ever bothered to read the entire conversations it would be immediately apparent that this was bull****.

Example: That "trick" to "hide the decline?" What decline do you think was being hidden? Don't paste other websites. Tell me yourself.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Of course it was climategate. :lamo

Look, you were deceived. Little snippets were clipped out that look damning, but if you ever bothered to read the entire conversations it would be immediately apparent that this was bull****.

Example: That "trick" to "hide the decline?" What decline do you think was being hidden? Don't paste other websites. Tell me yourself.

When a person wants to see a problem, he will. Works the same the other way. But what can't honestly be denied by both sides is that the consensus is that GW is real and part of the reason for it and its current intensity is man made.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

More strawman nonsense, a la creationism, debating the nonexistent controversy.



And another empty response.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

The AGW crowd is a little sore after their pet project to steal more money out of the hands of producers was exposed.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Of course it was climategate. :lamo

Look, you were deceived. Little snippets were clipped out that look damning, but if you ever bothered to read the entire conversations it would be immediately apparent that this was bull****.

Example: That "trick" to "hide the decline?" What decline do you think was being hidden? Don't paste other websites. Tell me yourself.


You're kidding right? So something that AGW proponents want to use as a hammer to bash skeptics over the head with, in terms of "scientific consensus", you have people at the center of this hiding data to make their conclusion work, and you want to laugh that off?

That's not science friend, that is fraud.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

When a person wants to see a problem, he will. Works the same the other way. But what can't honestly be denied by both sides is that the consensus is that GW is real and part of the reason for it and its current intensity is man made.

Ok, I'll give you a chance to answer what Deuce failed to answer....Ready?

Can the results of the theory surrounding the claims of AGW be duplicated in a controlled environment?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Ok, I'll give you a chance to answer what Deuce failed to answer....Ready?

Can the results of the theory surrounding the claims of AGW be duplicated in a controlled environment?

When in defeat, ask an irrelevant question...
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

When in defeat, ask an irrelevant question...

How is it irrelevant? There are three things that are benchmarks of scientific theory to make them valid....

1. Be well tested....One has to be able to reproduce the theory in controlled settings in order to make the theory a "known fact"

2. Be widely accepted....Although proponents would like to have everyone believe that their political rhetoric means that AGW meets this test, there is enough dissent in the AGW debate to make it questionable.

3. Be able to explain observable facts...There are claims early on in the AGW debate that should be observable now that are not happening..

So no. AGW as scientific theory, or fact is failing, and all that is left is the political rhetorical debate. Fact has left this long ago, in trade for political consideration, and scam.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Ok, I'll give you a chance to answer what Deuce failed to answer....Ready?

Can the results of the theory surrounding the claims of AGW be duplicated in a controlled environment?

Two things:

1. The earth is a large area and we're not likely to build a earth model we can duplicate in that way.

2. Recreating is but one method of supporting a theory.

In this threads science has been explained many, many times. Deniers have very little evidence to support them rely on minority opinions and wild misreadings of data to manufacture a position. At some point one has to admit the prevailing evidence is that mam has contributed to the problem.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Two things:

1. The earth is a large area and we're not likely to build a earth model we can duplicate in that way.

2. Recreating is but one method of supporting a theory.

Nonsense, it is how scientific theory is solidified into scientific fact. No one says that we have to construct a model the same size as the earth in order to do that. This is you creating an impossible scenario to hide the fact that your theory can not be proven.

In this threads science has been explained many, many times. Deniers have very little evidence to support them rely on minority opinions and wild misreadings of data to manufacture a position. At some point one has to admit the prevailing evidence is that mam has contributed to the problem.

No, I see much in terms of name calling, and derision of those that don't blindly believe in AGW, but little in real provable fact when it comes to science. We have data that has been admittedly manipulated, and a sample size that is cherry picked to only highlight the conclusion that was formed before the data was collected. That is not scientific, that is political.

Those who are truly open to science should be asking critical questions of the theory, not expending all of their energy into attacking those that are asking critical questions.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Nonsense, it is how scientific theory is solidified into scientific fact. No one says that we have to construct a model the same size as the earth in order to do that. This is you creating an impossible scenario to hide the fact that your theory can not be proven.



No, I see much in terms of name calling, and derision of those that don't blindly believe in AGW, but little in real provable fact when it comes to science. We have data that has been admittedly manipulated, and a sample size that is cherry picked to only highlight the conclusion that was formed before the data was collected. That is not scientific, that is political.

Those who are truly open to science should be asking critical questions of the theory, not expending all of their energy into attacking those that are asking critical questions.

No, I'm doing nothing of the kind. The earth is large and difficult to duplicate. I also noted there is more than one way to do this.

And yes, questioning is fine. Refusing to listen to the answers is what I find problematic.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

You're kidding right? So something that AGW proponents want to use as a hammer to bash skeptics over the head with, in terms of "scientific consensus", you have people at the center of this hiding data to make their conclusion work, and you want to laugh that off?

That's not science friend, that is fraud.

You dodged the question. Don't hide behind a bunch of links you didn't read. Tell me which data set you think was manipulated and hidden.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Two things:

1. The earth is a large area and we're not likely to build a earth model we can duplicate in that way.

2. Recreating is but one method of supporting a theory.

In this threads science has been explained many, many times. Deniers have very little evidence to support them rely on minority opinions and wild misreadings of data to manufacture a position. At some point one has to admit the prevailing evidence is that mam has contributed to the problem.



What has been that contribution? The Earth has warmed by about 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years.

For what percent of that warming is man responsible?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Two things:

1. The earth is a large area and we're not likely to build a earth model we can duplicate in that way.

2. Recreating is but one method of supporting a theory.

In this threads science has been explained many, many times. Deniers have very little evidence to support them rely on minority opinions and wild misreadings of data to manufacture a position. At some point one has to admit the prevailing evidence is that mam has contributed to the problem.



There are many questions in this topic area and only one certainty: The best experts that we have don't understand the climate.

There are at least 20 separate drivers of climate and the interrelations and feedbacks probably number in the thousands or even millions.

There might be a better understanding of what is happening in the future, but right now today, that understanding is not in hand.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

There are many questions in this topic area and only one certainty: The best experts that we have don't understand the climate.

There are at least 20 separate drivers of climate and the interrelations and feedbacks probably number in the thousand
s or even millions.

There might be a better understanding of what is happening in the future, but right now today, that understanding is not in hand.

We will learn more, sure. But right now there is good evidence. It is prudent to base decisions on the bet evidence and not just because you don't want it to be true.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

You dodged the question. Don't hide behind a bunch of links you didn't read. Tell me which data set you think was manipulated and hidden.

Well, the possibility exists for much of the data to have been manipulated to fit the conclusion, we know that to be the case because of what was found at East Anglia. If there are questions about the people whom compile the data, and reach the conclusions, why would you continue to place your trust in them as being truthful about this.

They and the IPCC harmed their own credibility on the issue, and people like you instead of choosing the prudent course and slowing down until we know for a certainty what is going on, you would rather just switch to the boorish progressive method of castigating, mocking, and ridiculing the skeptics surrounding the issue, and continually use fear, and deception to hide the fact that AGW is really nothing more than a foothold for one world government, and global redistribution of wealth through taxation on the mere fact of existence.
 
Back
Top Bottom