- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Al Gore ... an inconvenient truth to his lies.
- Thread starter Steeltime
- Start date
And the dumbassery continues.....That's a fake cover .....a hoax.
Trumptards: matched in their denial only by their gullibility.
This is the real cover:
http://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/
The Real TIME Cover Behind That Fake 'Ice Age' Report
Lily Rothman
May 15, 2017
Apparently, an effective hoax is like an old soldier. It never dies; it merely fades away to resurface later.
The latest example of that phenomenon is a Politico report from Monday morning, about how fake news can make its way to President Donald Trump. The story related an anecdote in which deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland reportedly presented the President with a print-out that included an image of a 1970s TIME cover predicting a coming ice age. The problem? That cover never existed.
It's far from the first time that particular hoax cover has made news. A few years ago, at another moment when it was making the rounds, Bryan Walsh explained the science behind the fake news. The meme in question shows the supposed 1977 ice age cover on one side and a real 2006 cover story about global warming on the other; the takeaway is that even the most confident reporting on global warming might be negated soon.
Watts Up With That...................................................................................and we're done.
Are you gay? Honeybunches?
It wasn't in 1970 though. That's why we had the first Earth Day in 1970. Stave off the coming ice age.
Regardless, because I'm old and remember things, it IS true that we had several bad winters in a row in the mid and late 70's and all the talk at the time was about global cooling and the coming ice age. Truth is we are, but that's because the sun is entering a low cycle of sunspots and we're going to be cooler for the next 200-300 years. That's why I want to get to Florida before too many people figure that out.
Last edited:
so you're identifying as male now? or in that particular moment?
nice way to avoid the rest of the post, dipshit.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
So are you disputing that those articles exist? It's funny how you all run from previous "climate change science".
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,976
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Yeah it's that evil Mike Mann. And luckily for deniers science depends on repeatability of claims.....right deniers?
And no other scientists can come to the same conclusion .......right deniers?
IT'S A PLOT! FAKE GRAPHS! FAKE SCIENTISTS! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!
You stupid, fat ****. The IPCC no longer published Mann's fraudulent graph. The entire ******* graph was a goat-****, and only an ignorant ***** believes it credible.
Which explains why you believe it credible.
You want a punch-list, you stupid *****, as to Mann's serious lack of credibility? How about these (all linked in the article):
■ The notorious “hide the decline” email which generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science. “Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
■ In this next very long email, nearly halfway through several messages and replies, Keith Briffa raises one of the issues that is central to the infamous “hide the decline” email. “Keith Briffa responding to Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, and Chris Folland: 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.” The issue is so complex that those interested in a more thorough account of all the methods used to “hide the decline” should refer to Steve McIntyre’s extensive discussion.
■ Dodging Freedom of Information demands for emails. Ben Santer: “There is a real danger that such FOIA requests could (and are already) being used as a tool for harassing scientists rather than for valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests to the DOE and the NOAA are but the latest in a series of such requests. In the past, Mr. McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the United Kingdom’s Climatic Research Unit, and the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville. Now he is focusing his attention on me. The common denominator is that Mr. McIntyre’s attention is directed towards studies claiming to show evidence of large-scale surface warming, and/or a prominent human “fingerprint” in that warming. These serial FOIA requests interfere with our ability to do our job.”
■ Deleting embarrassing secret emails. Phil Jones: “Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!Mike,This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.”
■ Six UK agencies commissioned a handbook of sophisticated public behavior change tactics for public relations tone-deaf scientists. Its title: “The Rules of the Game: Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy.” It is horrifying Orwell-like non-fiction backed by Big Money from The Carbon Trust. It has to be read to be believed. It is posted here.
■ Acknowledgement among scientists of the uncertainty of their research methods and results. Paleoclimatologist Tommy Wils (2013 email number CG1682) giving advice to his colleagues on how to respond to Steve McIntyre and ClimateAudit: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”
■ Unethical efforts to discredit and expel colleagues with contrary views or findings. “Phil Jones: The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the ‘peer-review literature’ is!”
■ Plotting to destroy peer reviewed journals that publish skeptic papers. “Michael Mann: With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of Energy and Environment and your review, following up on Kevin’s suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did not. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages—that might make Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down Energy and Environment and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way it’s actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out…”
■ Discrediting and sabotaging peer reviewed journals for publishing skeptic papers. “Michael Mann: The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”).
■ Expecting peer reviewed science journal editors to allow their team to block skeptic papers. Costallo: Phil Jones is upset that Julia Uppenbrink, the Editor at Science, did not send a piece to them to review, which would have allowed them to block it: “Phil Jones: Obviously this isn’t great as none of us got to review it. Odd that she didn’t send it to one of us here as she knew we were writing the article she asked us to!” [It is noteworthy that these scientists have assumed that every single article published in Science relating to climate science in any way, would automatically be sent to them for approval.
http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/michael-e-mann/
Want to see what genuine data showed as to the purported "hockey stick"? This:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Mechanized Death. Couple kids puked.
Many of those are the articles that have been scrubbed. Won't find them...can't find them referenced in places like Wikipedia, as an example.
Yer so full of **** RB. Elftard's screamed at you, they weren't predicting a coming Ice Age in the 70s. That's all just CONservative LIES!
Except...wait...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1kGB5MMIAVA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Global Warming, say this ain't so! The Ice Caps are supposed to be all gone now and Manhattan flooded...but Lake Tahoe is going to keep its snow year round? WTF!?
Snow in Squaw Valley Could Stick Around Until Winter
It’s August, and there is still snow at Lake Tahoe. Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows on Monday posted a picture to Twitter indicating that "snow from last winter could stick around until the first snow of the 2017-18 [season] strikes."
<script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=439276843&videoID=KBTrQ74Bqv8Q&origin=nbcbayarea.com&sec=on-air&subsec=as-seen-on&fullWidth=y&t=2"></script>
Snow in Squaw Valley Could Stick Around Until Winter
It’s August, and there is still snow at Lake Tahoe. Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows on Monday posted a picture to Twitter indicating that "snow from last winter could stick around until the first snow of the 2017-18 [season] strikes."
<script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=439276843&videoID=KBTrQ74Bqv8Q&origin=nbcbayarea.com&sec=on-air&subsec=as-seen-on&fullWidth=y&t=2"></script>
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
That goddamn Global Cooling.
They would be better off just calling it "Global Anything" from now on, just to cover all the bases. That way they don't have to scrub or change any data in the future to protect its viability. They can just say, "See something happened!!! I told you it would!!! Send me a lot of money and I'll fix it!!!"
They would be better off just calling it "Global Anything" from now on, just to cover all the bases. That way they don't have to scrub or change any data in the future to protect its viability. They can just say, "See something happened!!! I told you it would!!! Send me a lot of money and I'll fix it!!!"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
For some reason I am imagining Brian Regan saying that.
Ron Burgundy said:
I do have the distinction of getting pulled over for speeding in the driver's ed car. The football coach was the instructor.
Me: "I won't tell anyone if you don't."
Coach: "Deal."
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
This is pretty funny - Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08...r-now-than-when-gore-won-nobel-prize-in-2007/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08...r-now-than-when-gore-won-nobel-prize-in-2007/
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
I am gonna show my ignorance here. Who?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
I am jealous. All his stuff will be new to you. This is a good routine to start with -
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Climate Alarmists Go Hysterical as Their Theory Melts Down
The year 2016 turned out to be disastrous for the global-warming Doomsday Lobby. This year is shaping up as one that will deliver an even bigger setback — politically, scientifically, economically, and socially — to the forces of climate alarmism. The big political blow last year came, of course, with the election of Donald Trump. His announcement earlier this year of his decision to pull the United States out of the UN’s Paris climate accord sent climate activists across the globe into an apoplectic fury that continues unabated. President Trump’s move on the Paris deal represents not only a tectonic shift from the position of the Obama administration, but the first major political reversal on this issue by an American administration — Republican or Democrat — in the past two-and-a-half decades.
However, while the political implications of the “Trump Effect” continue to dominate public discourse on global warming, there are many additional challenges that have sent the climate alarmists into full-blown panic mode. Because the “mainstream media” have been (and continue to be) so totally “in the tank” on this issue and have done their best to prevent the public from learning about these crucial developments, we will be examining a number of the most important of them in this article. They include the very inconvenient truths:
• “Pause” shock: Contrary to media hype, global temperatures have been stable — “on pause” — for the past 20 years;
• Sticker shock: The UN Paris deal would cost $100 trillion, to supposedly achieve a minuscule reduction of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius;
• Data fraud: Scientists and researchers have repeatedly caught NOAA, NASA, and other government agencies “adjusting” the temperature data;
• Data shock: When fraudulent data adjustments are discounted, the climate-warming crisis disappears;
• Gore fail: Despite massive media promotion, Al Gore’s 2017 movie sequel has been a colossal flop;
• Fear flop: Despite non-stop government and media fearmongering, fear of global warming rates at the bottom of public concerns;
• Debate fright: Trump administration calls for scientists to engage in an open, public debate have alarmists in terror of exposure;
• Computer crash: Alarmists now admit that all of their climate computer models have epically failed and have greatly exaggerated planetary warming;
• Consensus fraud: The endlessly repeated “97 percent of climate scientists” claim has been exposed as being only a tiny 0.5-1 percent;
• Carbon profiteering: Al Gore and his corporate cronies intend to make billions by forcing the rest of us to pay for “carbon credits,” “carbon taxes,” and “carbon pricing”;
• Elite hypocrisy: Celebrities, politicians, and billionaires call for sacrifice and imposing CO2 manacles on humanity while exempting their own lavish lifestyles;
• Cooling sun: Increasing numbers of scientists and scientific studies are predicting we are entering a Grand Solar Minimum, with years (or decades) of reduced solar activity and cooler Earth temperatures.
These and other developments would sound the death knell not only for the global-warming campaign, but for the UN itself, if they were widely known, which is why the politicians and the media shills promoting the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW, theme are so furiously flogging new fright stories to keep the American public distracted from learning the truth.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/prin...ists-go-hysterical-as-their-theory-melts-down
The year 2016 turned out to be disastrous for the global-warming Doomsday Lobby. This year is shaping up as one that will deliver an even bigger setback — politically, scientifically, economically, and socially — to the forces of climate alarmism. The big political blow last year came, of course, with the election of Donald Trump. His announcement earlier this year of his decision to pull the United States out of the UN’s Paris climate accord sent climate activists across the globe into an apoplectic fury that continues unabated. President Trump’s move on the Paris deal represents not only a tectonic shift from the position of the Obama administration, but the first major political reversal on this issue by an American administration — Republican or Democrat — in the past two-and-a-half decades.
However, while the political implications of the “Trump Effect” continue to dominate public discourse on global warming, there are many additional challenges that have sent the climate alarmists into full-blown panic mode. Because the “mainstream media” have been (and continue to be) so totally “in the tank” on this issue and have done their best to prevent the public from learning about these crucial developments, we will be examining a number of the most important of them in this article. They include the very inconvenient truths:
• “Pause” shock: Contrary to media hype, global temperatures have been stable — “on pause” — for the past 20 years;
• Sticker shock: The UN Paris deal would cost $100 trillion, to supposedly achieve a minuscule reduction of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius;
• Data fraud: Scientists and researchers have repeatedly caught NOAA, NASA, and other government agencies “adjusting” the temperature data;
• Data shock: When fraudulent data adjustments are discounted, the climate-warming crisis disappears;
• Gore fail: Despite massive media promotion, Al Gore’s 2017 movie sequel has been a colossal flop;
• Fear flop: Despite non-stop government and media fearmongering, fear of global warming rates at the bottom of public concerns;
• Debate fright: Trump administration calls for scientists to engage in an open, public debate have alarmists in terror of exposure;
• Computer crash: Alarmists now admit that all of their climate computer models have epically failed and have greatly exaggerated planetary warming;
• Consensus fraud: The endlessly repeated “97 percent of climate scientists” claim has been exposed as being only a tiny 0.5-1 percent;
• Carbon profiteering: Al Gore and his corporate cronies intend to make billions by forcing the rest of us to pay for “carbon credits,” “carbon taxes,” and “carbon pricing”;
• Elite hypocrisy: Celebrities, politicians, and billionaires call for sacrifice and imposing CO2 manacles on humanity while exempting their own lavish lifestyles;
• Cooling sun: Increasing numbers of scientists and scientific studies are predicting we are entering a Grand Solar Minimum, with years (or decades) of reduced solar activity and cooler Earth temperatures.
These and other developments would sound the death knell not only for the global-warming campaign, but for the UN itself, if they were widely known, which is why the politicians and the media shills promoting the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW, theme are so furiously flogging new fright stories to keep the American public distracted from learning the truth.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/prin...ists-go-hysterical-as-their-theory-melts-down
Thenewamerican.com is the best place to go for unbiased scientific research...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,976
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
• Sticker shock: The UN Paris deal would cost $100 trillion, to supposedly achieve a minuscule reduction of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius;
And yet I hear nothing from the AGW proponents criticizing that fact.
And it is a fact. India and China are going to continue pumping out massive levels of CO2 to remain economically competitive and spur economic growth, and have already made it plain that they are not going to let already-rich Western nations tell them not to use the most-accessible, abundant and efficient energy sources on earth because of CO2.
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the United States had the greatest share of wind and solar electricity (5.4 percent) among the 3 countries in 2015—the year of the most recent data available. China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation. Both China and India are building coal-fired power plants (the United States is not) and both countries are increasing their demand for petroleum. According to the Energy Information Administration, they are even importing oil and petroleum products from the United States.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
And yet I hear nothing from the AGW proponents criticizing that fact.
And it is a fact. India and China are going to continue pumping out massive levels of CO2 to remain economically competitive and spur economic growth, and have already made it plain that they are not going to let already-rich Western nations tell them not to use the most-accessible, abundant and efficient energy sources on earth because of CO2.
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the United States had the greatest share of wind and solar electricity (5.4 percent) among the 3 countries in 2015—the year of the most recent data available. China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation. Both China and India are building coal-fired power plants (the United States is not) and both countries are increasing their demand for petroleum. According to the Energy Information Administration, they are even importing oil and petroleum products from the United States.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,976
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Oh, and also:
China has established a goal that 40 percent of the vehicles bought within the country will be electric cars or plug-in hybrids by 2030, but its appetite for gas-guzzling SUVs makes achieving that goal unlikely. China’s preference for gasoline-fueled SUVs over electric vehicles is due to their safety and the lack of charging stations for electric vehicles. It is estimated that China will have 150 million SUVs by 2025 (45 percent of its passenger vehicle fleet), up from just four million SUVs in 2010. The surging SUV demand will increase oil consumption in China for at least the next decade, according to estimates from state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., and will more than offset the impact of increasing electric vehicles and hybrids.[vi] China’s transportation sector required 2.5 million barrels of gasoline per day last year, and it is expected to increase until it hits 3.6 million barrels per day in 2024.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
So do AGW'ers support invading China and India to reduce their petroleum appetites?
China has established a goal that 40 percent of the vehicles bought within the country will be electric cars or plug-in hybrids by 2030, but its appetite for gas-guzzling SUVs makes achieving that goal unlikely. China’s preference for gasoline-fueled SUVs over electric vehicles is due to their safety and the lack of charging stations for electric vehicles. It is estimated that China will have 150 million SUVs by 2025 (45 percent of its passenger vehicle fleet), up from just four million SUVs in 2010. The surging SUV demand will increase oil consumption in China for at least the next decade, according to estimates from state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., and will more than offset the impact of increasing electric vehicles and hybrids.[vi] China’s transportation sector required 2.5 million barrels of gasoline per day last year, and it is expected to increase until it hits 3.6 million barrels per day in 2024.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
So do AGW'ers support invading China and India to reduce their petroleum appetites?
Similar threads
