Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
temperature data
#1
S. Fred Singer discusses temperature data sources, the problems with them, and how the IPCC distorts the reality of temperature data,

at this link

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/f..._fake.html
Reply
#2
Since there is nothing out of the ordinary going on over the warming trend since the mid 1800's.The three warming trends since then are very similar in length and slope.It is simply a part of the "natural" climate change we have observed.

There is nothing credible to support the idea that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Will promote accelerated warming.Since there has been no such warming trend evident.It is a dead gambit to continue on.

The longer they try pushing this absurd belief.The less credibility they will have to continue their climate con game.But they will continue because there are still a few sycophants willing to waste their time and money.Pushing the long dead AGW conjecture/Environmentalism racket a while longer.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
I've always been curious about the drones in this game. The drones that don't benefit directly from this agenda. Yet, they push it beyond credibility. What do they get out of it? They will suffer the same political fate we will. The same loss of freedoms yet they still persist.
Reply
#4
Unfortunately, they are getting away with it because they get the air time and the media to promote their view and have succeeded in minimizing other points of view. Peter Salonius sent around a link to a Canadian Senate hearing on climate change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

This illustrates the problem as clearly as any discussion I have seen:

Ross McKitrick, Ian Clark, and Dr. Vietzer explained why the IPCC was wrong and presented the scientific evidence for their anti-AGW claims. They may well have spoken to the wall as the sentiment from the Senators , except for one or two, was essentially (paraphrasing): "We are not scientists and can't detemine who is right or wrong in the debate ([i]I doubt if they understood much of what was presented- or even cared)[/i] , so to make decisions we have to listen to the scientists making the most noise". The co-chair of the meeting, Grant Mitchell, had the last word and did not allow a rebuttal. He said, "I believe what we have heard here today will turn out to be insignificant". Thank you for coming. Meeting adjourned.
Reply
#5
Quote:"We are not scientists and can't detemine who is right or wrong in the debate..."

Yet they believe in the wrong stuff all the time.So they go with the ideology over substance paradigm.To decide where to go.

:lol:
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)