-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The Death of a Hoax
- Thread starter palerider
- Start date
Werbung:
the sun, like now.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Warmers don't like to talk much about what the climate has been like over the course of the earth's history. One look at the climate history of the earth and the hand wringing hysterics of modern warmers is brought into sharp relief. Below is a graph that shows what the climate history of the earth looks like and where we are right now in relation to that past. As you can see the earth is, at present, quite cold when compared to its history which is to be expected since we are still in the fairly early stages of coming out of a deep ice age. Anyone with half a brain should be able to look at this graph and predict a long warming/cooling peiod with the overall trend being towards warming till such time as it is so warm that no ice exists on the earth......anywhere. The pattern has repeated over and over and over and there is no reason to suspect that it is not in the process of repeating again.
The high priests of AGW are perfectly aware of what the earth's climate history looks like and as such are perfectly aware of what the future climate is likely to be like. In the days of old, high priests, sorcers, magicians, prognosticators, shamans, conjurers, soothsayers, etc., posessed certain knowledge that the average person among the great unwashed didn't. Knowledge such as the ability to predict a lunar or solar eclipse, knowledge of the natural signs that were indicative of how productive the coming growing season may or may not be, knowledge of seasonal floods or droughts, etc.
Those old high priests used that knowledge to gain entrance into the places of power and to not only exert influence over the great unwashed, but to exert influence over the kings, queens, princes, maharajah, and various royalty, aristocracy, and nobility upon whom their living, and very lives depended. They used this knowledge to extract fear, respect, and sacrifice from everyone within their sphere of influence and to convince them that they must change the way they lived their lives to avoid catastrophy. Sound familiar? Sadly, that is precisely the template being used at present by the high priests of anthropogenic climate change. They are taking advantage of the poor state of education here, and around the world and using knowledge that most people aren't aware of to extract fear, respect, and above all, sacrifice from everyone within their sphere of influence.
Had you lived in the time of the pharohs and were you able to show the great masses of people a seasonal chart describing the floods of the nile with decadal and longer patterns, how much respect do you believe the high priests who supposedly appeased the gods of the floods would have been able to command. If you could have distributed a chart showing past lunar and solar eclipses and accurately predicting those in the future, how much power could the shamans of the day have grabbed if everyone could predict an eclipse?
So hear is a chart showing what the climate of the earth has looked like back through the murky mists of time. Take a good look at it and tell me if you see anything scary there or a pattern that might indicate that the rise of man has somehow caused the climate to deviate from its eternal cycle. Tell me how a thinking person could look at this, taking note of where we are, at present, on the graph and put any creedence at all in the absolutely bogus claims being made by climate science. Ask PLC if he sees anything there that might cause him to think that man is causing anything within the climate that might be reasonably called unprecedented.
Correct, just a small ring of sources such as the publications of:
Scientific Societies
- Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
- American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
- American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
- American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
- Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
- American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
- U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
- International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
- International academies: The Science of Climate Change
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
You, like most uneducated warmers who must take on faith that they are not the victims of a hoax don't seem to understand the difference between the political heads of scientific societies whose primary duty is to see that the money keeps rolling in, and the bodies of scientific societies who are made up of actual working scientists who, by the way, don't get to vote on the position statements put out by their political heads. The vast majority of the bodies of those societies do not subscribe to the AGW hoax. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find even a couple of handsfull of scientists who are onboard with the hoax who don't depend on grant money in order to purchase thier daily bread.
And still, nothing like an actual argument. No defense of the science, no hard observable evidence in support of the claims. No anything like actual proof to support your position. Just one logical fallacy after another. You have admitted yourself that you don't understand the science and hold your position based on faith rather than any actual knowledge.
And no, you do have few credible sources to go on. You have pal review, but the literature lately has put anything going through peer review in the field of climate science suspect.
The fact is PLC that you can't defend your position with anything like hard evidence to support it. The claim above that CO2 somehow absorbs IR and releases it "slowly" and that it is released at the same wavelength as it was absorbed was patently stupid and yet, you posted it as if either were possible. Do you know so little about the science that you can't even grasp that the two claims are mutually exclusive? Do you believe that if CO2 could absorb and hold on to energy then somehow release it slowly, that it would exit the molecule at the same wavelength? If you do, then I have one word for you.....PATHETIC.
Why argue if you have such an abjectly poor grasp of the science, or any science for that matter? Why not simply acknowledge that you are one of the congregation and you have not the slightest idea of whether you are being hoaxed or not and hold your position based on your political leanings rather than any actual scientific knowledge?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Climate science is the sad and genuinely unfortunate victim of what is known in science as an error cascade. Flawed basic data has been accepted as true and used as if it were fact in research that came after. That data was then used as fact and incorporated into the next research and on and on. Unfortunately, the average climate scientist isn't well educated enough to do the research to determine whether the basic science that has been in use for so long is accurate or not. Have you seen the requirements for a degree in climate science? Pitiful. The average meterologist is far better educated than the average climate scientist and oddly enough, meteoroligists tend to not be on board with the hoax as they can objectively look at the basic science.
PLC's example of CO2 absorbing IR and then releasing it "slowly" at the same wavelength is a prime example. It is patenly false and physicaly impossible but is presented as fact and I am sure that even though he has been shown proof that it is false, he will use the claim again since he is not well educated enough to determine whether he presented false data or whether I presented false data.
Now that actual scientists (phycists, chemists, etc.) have entered the fray in an attempt to salvage the reputation of the rest of science from the damaging fallout that climate science is causing, we are seeing all sorts of papers being published that dispute the claims of climate science and are pointing out fundamental errors that the average climate scientist isn't well educated enough to spot on his own.
The hoax is dying and those who are responsible for it are to dishonest and dishonorable to let people like PLC know. They are willing to let the uneducated continue on arguing and defending the hoax long after those who perpetrated it have moved on to greener pastures.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
You trust sources claiming the existence of AGW and believe they are the ones giving you scientifically accurate information...
Why is it that you believe the sources which support AGW are the only credible scientific authorities on the topic?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Because by his own admission, his position is based on his political leanings as opposed to any understanding of the science whatsoever. He "believes".
Because all of the credible scientific authorities on the topic are saying the same thing.
demonstrably untrue including a number of those credible scientists who have changed their tune.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
What makes the sources that support AGW the credible ones?
It would seem your answer is, "They are credible because they support AGW."
So, let me also ask Pale...
Pale, what makes sources that contradict AGW credible?
The differences between how the two of you answer that same basic question should be interesting.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
I suspect THC1 will just say ALL scientists agree that AGW is real....he buys whatever the left MSM tells him to buy.
Then Pale will get all technical on us and just blow away our dope loving moderator and the rest of us. Pale WINS!
Credible scientists have not changed their tune.
There are still some questioning details. Very few actual scientists are questioning the basic theory any more. It is up to a few people on the internet who think they have thought of something that real scientists have not. It is up to politicians who don't want to address the issue. It is up to a handful of pundits who think global warming is somehow "liberal" and foolish because it was brought to the public's attention by Al Gore.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. So is methane. Without the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, Earth would be too cold to support life. Those are facts, not affected by wishful thinking.
Global warming is not political. Science doesn't give a rip what the politicians and pundits want to believe.
So, go ahead. Believe what you want. It really doesn't matter anyway.
Werbung:
Pandora
Well-Known Member
And if a credible scientist speaks out against global warming they get fired J Happened in Oregon.
I am sorry my only link is GB, I know you dont like him but it basically just shows the KVAL news report so it’s as good as any.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-this-university-professor-fired-for-global-warming-skepticism/
