• 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!

The Failure of Official Global Warming Predictions

I still have a copy of the GISS global data set from pre June 2015.
The altering by changing sources that occurred in June 2015 is fairly dramatic,
but only one of many alterations.
View attachment 67200122

Little bit here little bit there and pretty soon they can paint quite a different picture over one that wasn't what they were looking for.
 
Yes! It's a conspiracy!!


“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” - Geoff Jenkins to Phil Jones

“There are two things I’m going to say though: 1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. … 2) The errors don’t include all the possible factors. …” - Phil Jones to Mike Mann, copying Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, Malcolm Hughes, and Ray Bradley

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the temperature proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of temperature proxies that come right up to today and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) have some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.”
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” [/B]- Keith Briffa to Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, and Chris Folland

No wonder FOIA had to be so resisted.
 
Not the Clean Power Coalition ... the AG's United For Clean Power. That thing is scary.
16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ?Climate Change Disbelievers?

"Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”"
"When pressed on the effect such investigations and prosecutions will have on free speech, General Schneiderman claimed that climate change dissenters are committing “fraud” and are not protected by the First Amendment."

Does that stuff give you chills or what?

Yes it does, bubba! When billions of dollars are at stake, freedom of speech becomes a fatality - IF you're not on the politically correct side! I wonder how they're going to attempt to get around that particular Right the Constitution gives us, not to mention how boring life is going to be when everyone agrees on everything, like little mindless robots! :shock:
 
Yes it does, bubba! When billions of dollars are at stake, freedom of speech becomes a fatality - IF you're not on the politically correct side! I wonder how they're going to attempt to get around that particular Right the Constitution gives us, not to mention how boring life is going to be when everyone agrees on everything, like little mindless robots! :shock:

I bet you have the same outlook when you get diagnosed with cancer and some charlatan convinces your oncologist that injectable purified rat urine is the cure. And the physician gets a little money on the side for it, but he really, really believes in it.

And when you object to the treatment, your physician asks if you;re just a mindless little robot agreeing with Big Medicine, and when you find out half his patients have died from lack of treatment, you object strongly to his prosecution because it was his freedom of speech to convince them to inject purified rat urine, and its so boring when everyone agrees on what medicines to take for what.

Or would you support the doctor losing his license and getting prosecuted?
 
I bet you have the same outlook when you get diagnosed with cancer and some charlatan convinces your oncologist that injectable purified rat urine is the cure. And the physician gets a little money on the side for it, but he really, really believes in it.

And when you object to the treatment, your physician asks if you;re just a mindless little robot agreeing with Big Medicine, and when you find out half his patients have died from lack of treatment, you object strongly to his prosecution because it was his freedom of speech to convince them to inject purified rat urine, and its so boring when everyone agrees on what medicines to take for what.

Or would you support the doctor losing his license and getting prosecuted?
I think a better analogy to AGW would be the case of Dr. Farid Fata,
Farid Fata, Doctor Who Gave Chemo to Healthy Patients, Faces Sentencing - NBC News
He fraudulently diagnosed patients with cancer, and then provided the treatment for an illness that did not exists.
Scaring people into paying large amounts of money, to save their own lives.
AGW uses many of the same tactics, fear , authority, and the need to act quickly with lots of money
to save the world.
The reality is that there is quite a bit to be skeptical of, for the more catastrophic claims.
 
I bet you have the same outlook when you get diagnosed with cancer and some charlatan convinces your oncologist that injectable purified rat urine is the cure. And the physician gets a little money on the side for it, but he really, really believes in it.

And when you object to the treatment, your physician asks if you;re just a mindless little robot agreeing with Big Medicine, and when you find out half his patients have died from lack of treatment, you object strongly to his prosecution because it was his freedom of speech to convince them to inject purified rat urine, and its so boring when everyone agrees on what medicines to take for what.

Or would you support the doctor losing his license and getting prosecuted?

You exhibit the kind of shallow thinking they depend on.
 
I think a better analogy to AGW would be the case of Dr. Farid Fata,
Farid Fata, Doctor Who Gave Chemo to Healthy Patients, Faces Sentencing - NBC News
He fraudulently diagnosed patients with cancer, and then provided the treatment for an illness that did not exists.
Scaring people into paying large amounts of money, to save their own lives.
AGW uses many of the same tactics, fear , authority, and the need to act quickly with lots of money
to save the world.
The reality is that there is quite a bit to be skeptical of, for the more catastrophic claims.

You may have noticed he never comments on what was found in the stunning ClimateGate emails.
Weird, since most people would think the private nature of the emails would suggest an air of sincerity and candor.
Makes you wonder just how deeply some people are willing to attach themselves to something they know nothing about but can't be convinced otherwise.

So ... along the lines of your comment you might say he's one of the scared people lining up for unnecessary Fata treatment even though every once in a while Fata might have actually treated a cancer patient.
 
I bet you have the same outlook when you get diagnosed with cancer and some charlatan convinces your oncologist that injectable purified rat urine is the cure. And the physician gets a little money on the side for it, but he really, really believes in it.

And when you object to the treatment, your physician asks if you;re just a mindless little robot agreeing with Big Medicine, and when you find out half his patients have died from lack of treatment, you object strongly to his prosecution because it was his freedom of speech to convince them to inject purified rat urine, and its so boring when everyone agrees on what medicines to take for what.

Or would you support the doctor losing his license and getting prosecuted?

Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

That's not an easy question to answer, but since the Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech as our first Right, the Founders must have felt it was very important. Using an analogy, are we going to see questioning of climate change claims treated the same as falsely shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, and be criminally charged for it?

As a general rule, I tend to stay as far away from the medical profession as I can in order to maintain good health since doctors are human and do make mistakes. Climate has been changing for millions of years, many times due to volcanic activity, earthquakes, or El Nino type events that we have no control over, but a surgeon trained in setting a broken bone - which has happened to me - is not the same thing. One is still a theory while the other promotes healing if done correctly. I honestly do not believe we will ever be able to control climate - the best we can hope for, IMO, is that mankind will be smart enough to figure out how to mitigate the damage done to earth as we speed through the solar system encountering God knows what on our journey. Maybe one day we will all be living under huge domes for our protection, like we saw in the Star Wars movies, but until then that's how I feel, 3G, rightly or not. :shrug:
 
Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

That's not an easy question to answer, but since the Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech as our first Right, the Founders must have felt it was very important. Using an analogy, are we going to see questioning of climate change claims treated the same as falsely shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, and be criminally charged for it?

As a general rule, I tend to stay as far away from the medical profession as I can in order to maintain good health since doctors are human and do make mistakes. Climate has been changing for millions of years, many times due to volcanic activity, earthquakes, or El Nino type events that we have no control over, but a surgeon trained in setting a broken bone - which has happened to me - is not the same thing. One is still a theory while the other promotes healing if done correctly. I honestly do not believe we will ever be able to control climate - the best we can hope for, IMO, is that mankind will be smart enough to figure out how to mitigate the damage done to earth as we speed through the solar system encountering God knows what on our journey. Maybe one day we will all be living under huge domes for our protection, like we saw in the Star Wars movies, but until then that's how I feel, 3G, rightly or not. :shrug:

That's not an analogy to their position, Pol.
That IS their position.
 
Yes it does, bubba! When billions of dollars are at stake, freedom of speech becomes a fatality - IF you're not on the politically correct side! I wonder how they're going to attempt to get around that particular Right the Constitution gives us, not to mention how boring life is going to be when everyone agrees on everything, like little mindless robots! :shock:

I completely agree. Since there is no definite proof that humans are causing CC then I'm on the fence until we do find that proof. People should not be penalized for being skeptical about an unproven theory.
 
Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

That's not an easy question to answer, but since the Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech as our first Right, the Founders must have felt it was very important. Using an analogy, are we going to see questioning of climate change claims treated the same as falsely shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, and be criminally charged for it?

As a general rule, I tend to stay as far away from the medical profession as I can in order to maintain good health since doctors are human and do make mistakes. Climate has been changing for millions of years, many times due to volcanic activity, earthquakes, or El Nino type events that we have no control over, but a surgeon trained in setting a broken bone - which has happened to me - is not the same thing. One is still a theory while the other promotes healing if done correctly. I honestly do not believe we will ever be able to control climate - the best we can hope for, IMO, is that mankind will be smart enough to figure out how to mitigate the damage done to earth as we speed through the solar system encountering God knows what on our journey. Maybe one day we will all be living under huge domes for our protection, like we saw in the Star Wars movies, but until then that's how I feel, 3G, rightly or not. :shrug:
Hello, polgara.
I think the alarmist would like to charge any skeptics right now,
unfortunately the crime of heresy is not still on the books!
 
Hello, polgara.
I think the alarmist would like to charge any skeptics right now,
unfortunately the crime of heresy is not still on the books!

Greetings, longview. :2wave:

:thumbs: :thumbs: :mrgreen:
 
I completely agree. Since there is no definite proof that humans are causing CC then I'm on the fence until we do find that proof. People should not be penalized for being skeptical about an unproven theory.

Greetings, PoS. :2wave:

Any new noise you hear will doubtless be the sound of gnashing of teeth in frustration that so many stupid "grubers" are still alive and causing problems for the elite! :mrgreen:
 
Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

That's not an easy question to answer, but since the Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech as our first Right, the Founders must have felt it was very important. Using an analogy, are we going to see questioning of climate change claims treated the same as falsely shouting Fire in a crowded theatre, and be criminally charged for it?

As a general rule, I tend to stay as far away from the medical profession as I can in order to maintain good health since doctors are human and do make mistakes. Climate has been changing for millions of years, many times due to volcanic activity, earthquakes, or El Nino type events that we have no control over, but a surgeon trained in setting a broken bone - which has happened to me - is not the same thing. One is still a theory while the other promotes healing if done correctly. I honestly do not believe we will ever be able to control climate - the best we can hope for, IMO, is that mankind will be smart enough to figure out how to mitigate the damage done to earth as we speed through the solar system encountering God knows what on our journey. Maybe one day we will all be living under huge domes for our protection, like we saw in the Star Wars movies, but until then that's how I feel, 3G, rightly or not. :shrug:

You've avoided the analogy.
 
I completely agree. Since there is no definite proof that humans are causing CC then I'm on the fence until we do find that proof. People should not be penalized for being skeptical about an unproven theory.

I think the issue is with organizations that actually have the facts, but intentionally lie and misrepresent their positions for financial gain.

Not sure how anyone can prove this, though, so it does seem like a dumb idea.
 
I think the issue is with organizations that actually have the facts, but intentionally lie and misrepresent their positions for financial gain.

Not sure how anyone can prove this, though, so it does seem like a dumb idea.
It seems it would all center on future circumstances and there are no facts about that.
 
It seems it would all center on future circumstances and there are no facts about that.

"... intentionally lie and misrepresent their positions for financial gain."
Irony is that he wasn't talking about the IPCC $7M annual budget, half coming from the USA suckers.

Ah, but there are predictions that will be seen as obvious B.S. long after we're gone when the damage from the imposed solutions is irreversible.
 
You've avoided the analogy.

It was a crappy analogy. Medical science operates on far more solid ground than climate change alarmists. Admittedly, climate change operates on bubbles blown into the air by some pretty shaky characters, so that doesn't say a great deal about the stability of medical science except that it's better than climate change nutters. Medical science has actually proven the effects of some of the things they've noticed and can make credible predictions. Climate change nutters can't match that track record.
 
Greetings, PoS. :2wave:

Any new noise you hear will doubtless be the sound of gnashing of teeth in frustration that so many stupid "grubers" are still alive and causing problems for the elite! :mrgreen:

I like to think of myself as an "elite gruber". Most here will at least agree with the gruber part of that, so even at that I have a better batting average than climate change nutters. They've struck out so many times I'm shocked they're even allowed to have a bat and a ball. I think they're actually referring to the financial climate in their immediate area - and given the sums spent to date on their nuttery, I'd say the financial climate is heating up for them.
 
As expected. No evidence of bias.
Generally when correction are made to data, they fall both above and below the numbers.
In the case of the June 2015 correction, 37 out of 37 (100%) showed an increase.
When a random thing all falls on one side of something it is one of the definitions of bias.
Bias | Definition of Bias by Merriam-Webster
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
 
Medical science has actually proven the effects of some of the things they've noticed and can make credible predictions. Climate change nutters can't match that track record.

Yet so has climate science.

The journals are so full of examples they had to make a new one to contain them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom