IPCC 2001 report, lieing and Polar Bears are omnivors.

Post Reply New Topic

Many climatologists claim global warming exists. The problem is that the mathematical people and statisticians don't agree with them. Weather is not possible to model like they are claiming. Among other things it is really easy to fake mathematical models.

How about this for a bunch of UN facts:

Not a single graph from the IPCC 2001 report made it to the IPCC 2007 report. They were all wrong.

The Hockey stick graph calculations were later proven to be trend happy. Using the calculations they used - random data produced a hockey stick graph.

The Hockey Stick graph never passed level 1 verification statistically. ie if you rolled it back five years it didn't predict the current temperature. The original author claimed it passed level 1 by rolling it back 9 years or something stupid. You are suppose to do a variety of tests and if any fail it is garbage. Not look for the one verification that works.

The team that made the hockey stick graph wouldn't share their numerical models or any information.

At one point the hockey stick team had a directory on their web server labeled confidential. It contained tests proving the hockey stick graph was junk. The files were dated before the 2001 IPCC report.

The Hockey Stick team removed the medieval warming period. (It is back in all IPCC 2007 report graphs).

You have probably heard that if you remove the partial pine cone data the hockey stick disappears. (That was in the confidential directory.) Yes the pine cone data is viewed as a guesstimate at best.

Al Gore's version of the Hockey Stick graph is different from the one on the IPCC report. No one knows how he made it because the guys who made the hockey stick graph wouldn't share any information.

Here is the scary part. Since Global Warming became a UN / media darling over a trillion dollars has been spent world wide. Thousands of acres of rain forest in Brasil have been plowed under and it has been completely ignored. Thousands of species have died from known preventable pollutants.

We could easily have bought up all that rain forest and saved tons of species from extinction. But because of the lieing about Global Warming we have essentially flushed the money down the toilet. In some cases we have even polluted things to decrease our carbon emissions by upping real pollutants. It is starting to become really obvious Global Warming is a complete farce and the focus on it has SERIOUSLY harmed the environment. We need real science and people telling the truth. Then we can focus on what is really harming the environment. It isn't about emotion and loving cute little Polar Bears. It isn't about Hollywood getting behind whatever floats their emotional bandwagon. It is about real facts and real solutions.

ttyl

PS Two more quick facts:
If you use the carbon forcing model popular in climatologists circles to the dinosaur age the surface of the earth shows up at more than 1000 degrees.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is still less than 1/5 what it was during the dinosaur age...
Carbon Dioxide is almost considered a trace element in the atmosphere. Yes it is really that low.

so your trying to say gloval warming isnt happening?

Random data makes a hockey stick? That's weird. 5x current carbon dioxide would have raised the temperature 5 C, not 500 C which would put us at about 1000 F. Not sure what they're really trying to say here. Has someone been watching too much hockey, or perhaps playing too much hockey without a helmet?

I'm with you programmer.. it's a farce campaign, pushed hard by agenda 21..

The equations used for numerical analysis are generally used hundreds of times. ie you take values and feed them back through themselves. You take all the temperatures throughout NA and calculate the temperature tomorrow. Then you calculate the next day.

Anyways someone took a random number generator and made up temperatures for the last five hundred years. They then fed it through the equations used to make the hockey stick graph. Voila hockey stick graph. They basically proved the input data didn't affect the results.

Further analysis showed that the methods they were using tended to attach themselves to the most variant series and then trend the data up loosely based on that rate.

ttyl

I only wear gloves when it's cold outside, and they are warmed when I put them on. So, gloval warming is real.

More seriously -
The problem I have with the global warming theory is not that temperatures cannot be shown to be rising. Anyone who looks at the melting of the icecaps can see that it is definitely happening. What is not known definitively is the cause. Too little data has been collected, for too short a period of time. It is quite possible that the warming we are experiencing is part of a natural process of warming and cooling that has been happening on this planet for billions of years. Looking at 100 or so years of temperature data, and making a prediction based on that small slice of data, is simply bad science. An analogy that would apply to this would be to look at the price of oil over the last ten years or so, extrapolating that data into perpetuity, and predicting that in 50 years the price of oil will be $10,000 per barrel. This is exactly what is being done with temperature data by proponents of the man-made global warming theory.

The global warming proponents want you to think that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made. There is no such consensus. The global warming proponents readily admit that there are scientists who disagree with them, but they add that those that disagree have an ulterior motive to present incorrect data. The truth is the opposite. Global warming proponents have been found to have intentially distorted the data to agree with their theory on several occasions, as in the above post.

To assume that the phenomena is man made, simply because of the coincidence that industrialisation occurred concurrently with the small slice of data that is available, is likewise bad science. The worldwide use of chocolate also occurred concurrently with this data, yet if i were to publicly proclaim that global warming is caused by chocolate, I would become a laughingstock. Coincidence does not equal correlation.

The real danger will come if these scientists devise a way to 'fix' a problem that does not exist, and cause irrevocable damage to the planet in the process. Any action to correct global warming before the cause is known definitively would be irresponsible and potentially disastrous. If the process is found to be part of a naturally occurring cyle and not man made, then interfering with that process would be a huge mistake. The people who say we need to act now to avoid destruction of the planet are merely trying to use emotion to dictate the behaviors of others.

Read the IPCC 2007 report and then compare it to the 2001 report. The difference is pretty incredible. The reality is there has been no temperature raise since 2000. We actually look to be headed for another cold period but temperature is pretty difficult to predict. That is why it was so easy to fudge global warming in the first place. You can make the data produce whatever you want by fiddling with constants and equations.

ttyl

Actually they revised previous estimates because they previously underestimated how fast the polar ice caps were melting. The previous estimate had the arctic ice cap fully melting in the summer in 2100 or later. The date has been revised to a more plausible 2030, because of last year's extreme melting. That's only 22 years away.

But I'm sure you already knew that because you read the Lancet and Nature and other science journals, don't you?