Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The new skeptical life
#1
Hello readers and may I wish all of you a merry Christmas.

This was a good year for the skeptics,since many new science papers and good layman presentations I have read in the internet,have put the alarmists into the defensive.They know it too since their arrogant behavior has changed in recent months as their hold on the masses has been eroding.

It is increasingly apparent that there has been some shady behavior going on behind closed doors and the obstruction publicized over at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That,among those skeptical websites who have been trying to open up the databases of certain published science papers that were published by the more prominent AGW believing scientists.To see if the underlying data really supports the questionable claims they had made.

Now we know why they resisted the requests so strongly.

Big Grin

It seems that they wanted us to...... trust them and accept their questionable claims on faith.A very suspicious way to push a major science hypothesis that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 would promote warming and especially through the POSITIVE feedback loop,where a run away warming trend could happen.Something that never happened in the last 500 million years and with estimated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as high as 7,000 ppmv.


The U.N.,world leaders,Environmentalist organizations,and the media along with the usual individual scammers,tried hard to scare the masses of the world with lurid around the corner apocalypse,to compel them to support all kinds of economy killing schemes,while the proponents of those schemes would gain power and of course many $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Of course some of the data was simply lost or missing for some reason,as Dr. Pielke learned not long ago,when he tried to get Dr. Jones to send him the requested data.

Rolleyes

When a small group of scientists behave in such a manner,it is a red flag because they are not behaving like a good researching scientist should.Since they should be transparent with their data for their science papers they published,for the purpose of allowing other scientists to then make the needed evaluation of the paper to see if it is viable and reproducible.Otherwise how can we know that their claims are supportable if they do not allow other scientists to freely examine the paper AND the data that is in support of the paper's conclusions.

What would be the point of publishing science research and then disallow other scientists to examine them fully?

I have been noting a big reduction of alarmist trolling in skeptical websites in the last few weeks,after the many revelations that scums from Al $$$ Gore,Rajendra Pachauri on down to other long known weaseling AGW believing scientists,were brought up.It is refreshing to see that happening since it is plain they know that something is wrong with their absurd AGW religion.

Now what will we see for next year?

A slow recovery back to good science research and that all those government organizations will back off on pressuring people to produce desired conclusions.

or,

will they continue to perpetuate their inappropriate behavior in a different way,to try continuing their AGW scam.

In all cases we skeptics need to continue to apply pressure on them to produce a much more transparent future in their science research and the publishing of the papers in FULL.

It is sad that many laymen like me have to take a part in this process,since by logic we should not be qualified enough to argue with them and their conclusion on websites.It is absurd that we have come to this level,because climate science is badly corrupted by a small group of alarmists scientists and other people,who drags down the reputation of the many good scientists who have all along been doing their research in good faith.

I would rather run a political forum than a skeptical climate forum,because I dislike having to second guess a lot of scientists,since that was supposed to be done by OTHER scientists,if it was being done the way it was supposed to be.

I think the IPCC should be disbanded and evict all science publication editors,who have been deliberate in blocking the "skeptical" view or simply papers that just does not support a certain AGW viewpoint.Otherwise how can we have confidence that what they do will be done in good faith,when they have not been doing that for many years.

As for the ignorant alarmists who has been polluting forums with their evasive alarmist bullshit,why don't YOU grow up and get a life!
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
#2
i'm always a firm believer of listening to both sides of the story before coming to any conclusion.

As for this greenie hippie global warming nonsense (I've renamed it global bullsh*tting), after hearing both sides of the story the hippie's side makes absolutely no sense.

The first tip off is in the 70s the claimed global cooling, then global warming, and now it is climate change (even with this new name, the hippies are still leaning towards 'warming'). If a group cannot even come up with a consistent term, how can the rest of their claims be true ??

It is like saying 'too much sun causes skin cancer' then 5 years later say that too much sun will cause gout. Too much flip flopping is the first sign that they truly do not know what they are claiming.
Reply
#3
Hi All,
Nicely worded piece above SST.

mcclane raises a good point regarding all the "flipping" and name changing,
they really do not know what they are doing.
Some are obviously carried along in such scams on ideological grounds / fears,
that is their issue, if they can not check and work things out for themselves.
A bullsh##ter, is still the same, however "clever" he / she is, or is not.

Intelligence is not only capable of being used for good,
combined with personnal greed, intelligence is capable of great harm.

The Ozone story is an object lesson in what can happen when greedy intelligence, and biased funding can produce,
in the name of profit rather than environmental good as it was supposedly portrayed.

Given the present state of affairs I think it is a good time to "revisit" the acid rain story, and the Ozone story,
there are many relevant lessons to the immediate present in them.
Another point RSC raised recently was that the acid rain emissions laws are still being enforced by the EU.
Making coal fired / generated power artificially higher priced than it should be.
If we do not learn and act off what we learnt about these scams,
they will not go away quietly.

2010 I think will be a very topsy turvy year, I have said that it will be a different world by Xmas,
in the respect COP15 agree nothing of moment one of the 2 possible outcomes is happening.
BUT, what will the fall out be, I suspect for starters that the forums will be bombarded by "Warmers",
this is the quiet before the propaganda storm I think, that will hit us in the New Year.

Some of the comments I have seen, and not seen, give me the impression that "they" are waiting...
Or maybe waiting to return to work from the Xmas holidays.
That's the big difference to my mind, "they" are paid for it, we are not.
Which is a great big clue to their "motivation"...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
Since it is plain that the AGW hypothesis is not validated,and that it appears to be dead due to lack of any new information,suggesting that there is still NO merit in pursuing it,it is time to go on.That alarmists have not shown up here because I think they know that the AGW hypothesis is in fact baloney and therefore want to keep their new religion intact.

I am proposing that we should increase the discussion over what causes large episodic climate trends and help anyone who is in dire need of rescue from being fed alarmist baloney,by bringing them here.To help set them free of the alarmist religion and become excited by real science again.

I,for one have tired of fighting the same old alarmist baloney elsewhere,that I am considering going back to my old interest in ice ages,right here in this forum.That is what I had been doing for years before this stupid AGW baloney came up.I recall the excitement in learning what a different world it was not so long ago.

Soon there will be a new forum section set up to pursue the topic of Ice ages,which I think holds the key to understanding why we have them and why for a short time warms up drastically.Why do we have them now when it was absent for 200+ million years before hand,but changed just so recently to this 95,000 years of cooling and 5,000 years of warming cycles,that has been ongoing for the last several million years.It was a big change too suggesting an outside influence,that had changed.

I want to reduce my time trying to fight the AGW baloney and spend more time on the ICE age topic,here in the forum.
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
#5
Look forward to that SST. It would seem ice age is the norm for this planet. We just happen to be lucky living in this interglacial. Having read that an ice age can kick off in six months I keep a beady eye on polar developments where I assume the first indications will appear.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
I look forward to it as well.
Funnily enough I am just about to go over the greenland ice core stuff again, only the last 11,000 years worth.
For Rory's benefit.. Rolleyes

re - 95,000 and 5,000 year cycles.
I thought it was nearer 100,000 to 125,000 years for ices ages and 12,000 to 18,000 years interglacials.
We at present being about 10,500 years into the present interglacial (Holocene).

I was not aware of no ices for the preceeding 200 million years and then the above cycles for the last 2 million years.
(I for some reason thought that the present cycles were over the last 500,000 years.)
Where do these two massive statements come from please.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
This talk about cycles reminded me of a post over at WUWT:
by one John Blake (19:55:11) :

Very interesting post combining tectonics and ice ages. There is mention of another cycle I have never heard of;

Quote:A comparable revelation of near-equal import occurred about 2002, when geologists discovered that since the mid-19th Century vast, worldwide subsurface volcanism –”magmatic episodes”– has consistently affected global ocean basins. Even one fifty-thousandth of Earth’s 4,000-mile radius equals some 400 feet… “as if the Earth in fast, thick pants were breathing” ["fast" meaning centuries, if not millennia]. Earth alternately expands – contracts, pulsing in rhythms determining long-term climatic effects.

all I can say is "Well I never!".
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#8
(01-01-2010, 05:12 AM)Derek Wrote: I look forward to it as well.
Funnily enough I am just about to go over the greenland ice core stuff again, only the last 11,000 years worth.
For Rory's benefit.. Rolleyes

re - 95,000 and 5,000 year cycles.
I thought it was nearer 100,000 to 125,000 years for ices ages and 12,000 to 18,000 years interglacials.
We at present being about 10,500 years into the present interglacial (Holocene).

I was not aware of no ices for the preceeding 200 million years and then the above cycles for the last 2 million years.
(I for some reason thought that the present cycles were over the last 500,000 years.)
Where do these two massive statements come from please.

I have been away from this area for too long so I am a little "rusty" on the information.But what a way to relearn it by doing it here in the forum!

The figures vary because it is hard to pin it down decisively.But the common numbers have been 90,000 glacial and 10,000 interglacial,a 100,000 year cycle.It used to be a 40,000 year cycle before it changed to the present cycle.I wonder if that change was finally figured out?

I made it 95,000 to 5,000 because since the Holocene Optimism,it has been in a distinct cooling trend ever since.So while it is true it is still "warm" it is really a slow slide back into the soon to be full blown glacial phase.Past records have shown that a coming temperature plunge will effectively end the interglacial period.The warmest part of an interglacial is actually short and slowly cools down to a point of finally recognizing the true conditions of a new glacial phase.In a sense for the last 5-6000 years we have been slowly leaving the interglacial phase.

The Little Ice Age time might have been an aborted slide into the full glacial phase.A first big step that it failed to maintain.

Antarctica started having the still continuing regional ice age around 14 million years ago,before that little ice for a long time.The current North Pole conditions are much newer,as we can see that even in the summer time it is not that far away from being able to melting to nothing.

Soon the presently disabled new forum I have titled The White Earth will function and we can start putting up information about the past ice age cycles.Then we will have a clearer picture set before us.

Big Grin
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
#9
(12-31-2009, 01:56 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Look forward to that SST. It would seem ice age is the norm for this planet. We just happen to be lucky living in this interglacial. Having read that an ice age can kick off in six months I keep a beady eye on polar developments where I assume the first indications will appear.

yes it has been the norm for the last 2.5 million years or so,before that a very warm climate for maybe a 125 million years?

There are 4 distinct ice age phases known with probable mini cool downs as well.

I think it is the major shift in air currents that would trigger the needed cool down in the summer,that will be the difference.It is already cold enough in the winter time since at that time it is in a glacial phase already,the reason why there is a very large expansion of ice formation.

The big loss of ice cover in north polar region in year 2007,was mainly caused by influx of warmer than usual northern Atlantic water,and "unusual" wind directions.It is always cold enough in the wintertime by air temperature,to rebuild and maintain ice there.

It is the summer time period that is the key.Remember just 2 years ago we saw the slow recovery from a chilly la-nina phase,where the snows in the higher elevations were slow to melt back in the spring time? Recall what happened in Alaska,where a number of glaciers stopped receding and started advancing again after many years of receding.

It took just one year of a small but sharp cooling trend to cause it.A sobering warning of what a prolonged similar phase could have done.
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)