• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Ok hold on now, Maybe we need to increase global warming! Winter Is Coming!

This tidbit regarding how climate scientists have "revised" the actual temperature readings:

2015-11-09-02-27-39.png
 
Steeltime said:
This tidbit regarding how climate scientists have "revised" the actual temperature readings:

2015-11-09-02-27-39.png
Click to expand...

What is the big deal. They are reporting an increase of 1.2 instead of the 1 it actually was. Surely, a 20% error is no big deal, amirite?!!
 
A new ‘Consensus’: 97 Percent Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming

A November poll of more than 1,000 registered voters found that only 3 percent listed "climate change" as the most important issue facing the country today, down from 5 percent in August.

Americans were much more worried about terrorism, the economy and immigration than global warming.

Even among Democrats concern for global warming was low. The poll found only 6 percent of Democrats listed global warming as their top concern, compared to 1 percent of Republicans. Men were slightly more likely than women to list global warming as their top concern, and whites were more likely than blacks to worry about warming.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/t...americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/

-------------------


China and India could be heard laughing in he background
 
The scam is falling apart


NOAA’s climate change science fiction - ignores satellite data

A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/
 
Spike said:
The scam is falling apart


NOAA’s climate change science fiction - ignores satellite data

A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/
Click to expand...


But this only proves that Don Quijote's, er I mean President Obama's efforts are working!
 
Snake Oil Cures are as old as dirt....so now Global Warming Legislation will cure terrorism, black on black crime, white privilege, the war on women,, athletes foot, hemorrhoids, and everything else....

---------------


India Is Opening A New Coal Mine Every Month While The US Frets Over Global Warming

The Obama administration may be pulling the U.S. away from coal power to fight global warming, but Indian leaders are ramping up the country’s coal production by opening a new mine every month.

India’s leaders have a goal of doubling coal production by 2020, overtaking the U.S. as the world’s second-largest coal producer. While the Obama administration wants the world to rally behind a global warming treaty that requires deep cuts to fossil fuel use, India has decided that raising standards of living is a much more important goal.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/i...e-us-frets-over-global-warming/#ixzz3shiG8Tmp
 
Spike said:
Snake Oil Cures are as old as dirt....so now Global Warming Legislation will cure terrorism, black on black crime, white privilege, the war on women,, athletes foot, hemorrhoids, and everything else....

---------------


India Is Opening A New Coal Mine Every Month While The US Frets Over Global Warming

The Obama administration may be pulling the U.S. away from coal power to fight global warming, but Indian leaders are ramping up the country’s coal production by opening a new mine every month.

India’s leaders have a goal of doubling coal production by 2020, overtaking the U.S. as the world’s second-largest coal producer. While the Obama administration wants the world to rally behind a global warming treaty that requires deep cuts to fossil fuel use, India has decided that raising standards of living is a much more important goal.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/i...e-us-frets-over-global-warming/#ixzz3shiG8Tmp
Click to expand...

Weird how standard of living can be more important than some made up numbers in a political/ideological crusade.

Sad that so many others can see it, but quasi-edujumacated Westerners are blinded by unmet social goals.
 
ISIS is a laughing its *** off at Barry and his band of clowns in Paris "Climate" Conference as they want to run off to fight the global warming dragon
 
To me this is just one big gigantic scam with people in positions of influence more than likely filling their pockets with gobs of cash long after they retire. I would love to have a crystal ball 50 looking into years from now to see how these climate disasters truly pan out.
 
D27FRGd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.”

The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan.

India, meanwhile, managed to lower the bar even further, submitting a report with no promise of emissions ever peaking or declining and only a 33-35 percent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP over the 2005-2030 period. Given India’s recent rate of improving energy efficiency, this actually implies a slower rate of improvement over the next 15 years. In its INDC, India nevertheless estimates it will need $2.5 trillion in support to implement its unserious plan.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. But opposing such a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?”

The climate negotiators have no clothes. If making that observation and refusing to go along causes some embarrassment, those parading around naked have only themselves to blame.
http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/

The hilarious legacy of 'last chances' for climate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/02/the-hilarious-legacy-of-last-chances-for-climate-exposed/
 
Hit em where it hurts

US House Leader Won't Pay for Climate Deal

U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the House will not go along if President Barack Obama tries to commit taxpayer money to support a climate accord reached in Paris.

He says Congress has the authority to decide how to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars, "and I don't think that's the best use of our money."

McCarthy suggested that a must-pass year-end spending bill currently in the works could become the vehicle for language blocking any such expenditure.

The California Republican on Monday also criticized Obama's overall approach at the Paris talks, saying he should be focusing on America's progress in switching to natural gas and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/30/world/europe/ap-climate-countdown-the-latest.html?_r=1
 
SteelChip said:
Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.”

The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan.

India, meanwhile, managed to lower the bar even further, submitting a report with no promise of emissions ever peaking or declining and only a 33-35 percent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP over the 2005-2030 period. Given India’s recent rate of improving energy efficiency, this actually implies a slower rate of improvement over the next 15 years. In its INDC, India nevertheless estimates it will need $2.5 trillion in support to implement its unserious plan.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. But opposing such a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?”

The climate negotiators have no clothes. If making that observation and refusing to go along causes some embarrassment, those parading around naked have only themselves to blame.
http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/

The hilarious legacy of 'last chances' for climate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/02/the-hilarious-legacy-of-last-chances-for-climate-exposed/
Click to expand...

Well, yeah........but what a stunning rebuke of terrorism, huh?
 
97% Agree...

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/
 
The hoax unravels...


German Scientist Accuses NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations

A German scientist has accused the National Aeronautics and Space Agency’s (NASA) Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of altering temperature records between 2010 and 2012 to produce the illusion that the Earth has been warming since 1950.

GISS datasets are used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to document global warming.

In a presentation at the 2012 EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data expert from the University of Paderborn, said that he examined publicly available archived temperature records from 1,153 weather stations around the globe going back to 1881 and found evidence of "massive" tampering by GISS between 2010 and 2012.

http://space.trendolizer.com/2015/1...-nasa-of-massive-temperature-alterations.html
 
My man, sic em Ted

Ted Cruz Turns Up the Heat on Climate Change

The Republican presidential hopeful attacks the scientific consensus as talks unfold in Paris.

Ted Cruz doesn’t believe in man-made climate change or the science behind it. So while diplomats in Paris attempt to negotiate an international deal to fight global warming, Cruz is in Washington railing against mainstream climate science and “partisan dogma and ideology.”

“Many in the media reflexively take the side of the global warming alarmists,” Cruz declared, adding: “Public policy should follow science and evidence and data.”

Ted Cruz: “In the year 1615, if you asked 97% of scientists at the time, would’ve said categorically that the sun rotates around the earth. And yet an individual named Galileo dared to be a scientist and take measurements. And stand up to that enforced consensus. And I would note it was the Roman Inquisition that brought heretics before it who dared to say the earth rotates around the sun. And today, the global warming alarmists have taken the language of the Roman inquisition in going so far as to label anyone who dares point to the actual science as a denier, which is of course the language of religion which is calling someone a heretic. And anytime you hear people saying ‘Scientists should not question the conventional wisdom,’ you’re hearing someone essentially advocating for the abolition of science.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/ted-cruz-takes-a-stand-against-science/419691/

---------------------

He slays them all
 
It just got real.

Hollywood heavyweight Harrison Ford has told the ABC he hopes world leaders can "finally do something" about climate change as he launched a broadside at squabbling world powers.
Click to expand...
"Nature will take care of itself — nature doesn't need people, people need nature to survive," Ford told presenter Leigh Sales.

"The planet will be OK, there just won't be any damn people on it."
Click to expand...

From - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...-at-global-inaction-on-climate-change/7015380

"damn people". A peek inside this mindset.
 
I'm get sick and tired of these Muzzie loving climate change deniers. You know they are just denying the overwhelming scientific evidence
because they want the Muslims to keep getting top dollar for their oil so they can keep funding world terrorism and promoting Islam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top