# The Global Warming Fraud Is Finally Unraveling



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The proponents of anthropogenic global warming are a cult.

It was organized into a cult on purpose, and well-funded over the last few decades, by governments and the corporatocracy that controls governments.

The computational science behind predictive climate modeling is a total con game, but it's hard to make a coherent political movement based on an explanation of the mathematics of complex systems (of which the weather is a classic example). Predictive modeling of the global climate is impossible, but AGW cultists pretend otherwise because their governmental sponsors want them to.

But, rather than be content with merely engaging in a fraudulent _analysis _of the data, the AGW cult took it a step further and just forged the data.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

...an oldie but a goodie!!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

No one is correct at this point. The Polar bears are still sweating however. If we ignore the numbers and arguments about the numbers we still have a real problem. They are arguing about how to define the problem. It could take a while before we have a good algorithm so don't take either side of the argument as gospel.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

There is no doubt that the Global Warming Alarmists have been going overboard to prove their points. 



However, to go to the other extreme and suggest that the earth does not have a dire problem looming in regards to a substantial hole in the ozone layer and polar ice caps melting at an alarming rate - is just as ridiculous.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, and Hell must have frozen over, because I find myself in agreement with mrkleen!  +1.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, and Hell must have frozen over, because I find myself in agreement with mrkleen!  +1.


We're in the same boat.

It should be those who are most concerned about global warming who take this wrongdoing most seriously. The ability to convince a skeptical public rests on the credibility of the messengers, because the scientific arguments aren't readily accessible.

The people who strike me as the most level headed about this are the Dutch. They don't deny it, but they don't get apoplectic about it. The use reason and science to t.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

yeah and the round earth idea is also a fraud - LOL


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> yeah and the round earth idea is also a fraud - LOL


Do you really think the earth is round? Do you even know what round means? LOL


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Do you really think the earth is round? Do you even know what round means? LOL


heres real science for you:

https://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> There is no doubt that the Global Warming Alarmists have been going overboard to prove their points.
> 
> 
> 
> However, to go to the other extreme and suggest that the earth does not have a dire problem looming in regards to a substantial hole in the ozone layer and polar ice caps melting at an alarming rate - is just as ridiculous.


I've never understood the tendencies of the automatic moderate. I suppose such a temperament could be the result of experiences as a young person growing up in a chaotic or argumentative household, producing the perceived need to make peace whenever two other people disagree. Or perhaps it is a vanity thing, arising from the desire to appear morally or intellectually superior to others. I don't know.

In the case of science, however, there is no such thing as moderation. There is either truth or non-truth (aka, error or lies), and nothing whatsoever you could describe as a middle ground. People (being eternally susceptible to error, unlike nature itself) often feel the need to pretend that the middle-of-the-road position is automatically better, safer, or more likely to be correct. This is simple bias.

Climate is a dynamic, chaotic and complex system. The output of a complex system follows a power law curve, which means that results are not linear or regular. For example, every every 100 million years, there will be a volcano that spews 1000 times more ash and lava than the next 50 combined. Or a flood hits one year that alters the shape of a continent, and nothing like it happens for a billion years. Or one movie will make $500 million, and end up subsidizing the other 90% of movies that break even or lose money.

These rare, high-impact events are considered to be statistical outliers. They produce scale-invariant distribution curves. What do scientists habitually do with outliers? They throw them out. They disregard them. In the case of climate scientists, they have been "adjusting" these outliers, because the raw data doesn't show what they want it to show -- i.e., that climate can be analyzed and predicted.

But even if we had perfect data, there's a much larger problem in what passes for today's climate science -- the computational limit presented by the magnitude of the complexity of the system. This limit simply cannot be overcome. To predict the climate, one would need to be able to account for the interactions among dozens of measurable factors (temperature, pressure, humidity, particulate concentration, various gasses, etc.), in millions of places on earth, all at once, and account for how they all interact with each other.

We would also need to account for the fact that the whole system is spinning. And that it's not a closed system, since we also have to include the energy supplied by the sun, which varies. And the earth's orbit around the sun varies, too.

And account for how, every now and then, a volcano will throw a few million tons of particles and gas into the atmosphere. And, we'd have to factor in the 1.4 x 10^18 metric tons of water swirling around the planet, and the local variations in its temperature, salinity, pressure, biotic activity, etc.

Accounting for and predicting the outcome of those interactions among thousands or millions of points on the earth, in the atmosphere and the water, all at the same time, presents a combinatorial problem that exceeds the computational capacity of the universe. It simply can't be predicted. For the same reason, it is impossible to identify the cause(s) of various fluctuations within the system.

Climate scientists (or more accurately, governments using climate pseudo-science to promote their agenda of ever-increasing economic control), like to pretend they can do these things. They might as well be telling us that they can predict crop yields by reading entrails.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Sorry Phinn

After your first few lines, all I heard was blah, blah, blah, blah. 

ic12337:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Climate scientists (or more accurately, governments using climate pseudo-science to promote their agenda of ever-increasing economic control), like to pretend they can do these things. They might as well be telling us that they can predict crop yields by reading entrails.


so are you advising us to do nothing but go about our business as usual?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"There is either truth or non-truth (aka, error or lies)"

Interesting, this sums up Christian Science in a nutshell. Now we have to decide what is error and what is a lie.

Also:
Regarding George Carlin, he is has the right idea about the earth shaking us off like fleas. We are the only animal that does not fit into the system. Everything we do does some damage to the environment. On the other hand, the goal of those who are screaming for change are actually screaming for us not to change the earth. If we did not cause harm we would finally fit in. The message is not getting through so they are shouting louder.
Until we find another planet to move to, I suggest we do as little damage as possible regardless of whether or not we can explain the changes.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

young guy said:


> so are you advising us to do nothing but go about our business as usual?


Not really.

I am saying that the global climatic effects of cars, air-conditioners, hair spray, product packaging, and light bulbs simply cannot be analyzed or predicted.

I am also saying that there are a couple of factors that do have a tremendous influence on earth's climate, and they dwarf the significance of the anthropogenic factors, to put it mildly. I am referring to this:

and these:

Even if it were remotely possible to predict the climate and accurately analyze the chain of causation back to, say cars, for example, then it would make sense to examine the _real_ reasons Americans drive so many miles in cars -- governmental control of road-building. Governments design and build all the roads, lay out all the cities, control all of the development and locations of everything from houses to office buildings, build freeways and artery highways that make big-box retail strips the viable form of economic activity, manipulate the financing of all of this development, and generally create an entire nation built on daily care usage, then tell us that WE are the ones who are going to have to change our economic behavior to save the planet.

I've got an idea -- get the government out of the business of controlling land use, and the economics of car usage will change, too.

Take garbage as another example. I have lots of reasons that have nothing to do with climate to oppose the way garbage is handled in America. It's all a governmental operation these days, run like governmental utilities. Governments acquire huge tracts of land (often through eminent domain, i.e., muscle), then contract with service companies to collect trash and deposit it there. The result is (a) grossly overpriced garbage collection contracts granted to cronies, insiders and mafiosi, and (b) a collection "fee" for the consumer that isn't really a price at all, but rather is a tax that has _no economic relationship whatsoever to the actual cost of disposing of trash_.

If garbage were disposed of privately, then private land owners would charge collection companies by weight. Private collection companies would then charge customers by weight. That would mean people would individually decide what it is worth for them to generate or not generate garbage, compared to every other expense in their lives. I submit that many people would reduce their garbage generation to save on collection costs, and that would in turn cause retailers and manufacturers to reduce their packaging in order to appeal to such customers. Prices are signals to consumption and production. _*State-run garbage systems have no way of establishing a real connection between the amount of money charged to consumers and the true cost of generating tons of garbage. *_So,the result is ever-escalating amounts of garbage produced, because of governmental interference in the economics of garbage disposal.

The true cause of both of these problems (cars and garbage), to the extent they are genuine problems, is the same government that claims it is going to "fix" the climate by imposing global carbon taxes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> so are you advising us to do nothing but go about our business as usual?


Cars are 2X more efficient than 25years ago.

There is no lead in Gas.

There is far less sulfer in the air.

The environment will continue to improve drastically as it has over the last 3 decades.

We will begin to run out of petroleum fossil fuels in about 50+ years.

By then, replacements will be proved and economical.

So in a way, yes, businees as usual is a good plan.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

^drill baby drill, the sooner we run out the better


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Sorry Phinn
> 
> After your first few lines, all I heard was blah, blah, blah, blah.


Your lack of curiosity may more of a problem for you than you realize.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Your lack of curiosity may more of a problem for you than you realize.


My lack of desire to deal with annoying prats supersedes my curiosity.

Thankfully.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> My lack of desire to deal with annoying prats supersedes my curiosity.
> 
> Thankfully.


You've posted three times in this thread just to express how disinterested you are?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

When my father sent me an email just after this recent story broke stating that "we've got them now" I realized what the cult was really about.

The funny thing about this whole flap is that nothing has really changed. 

We still have deniers.

We still have alarmists.

We still have a good number of unknowns.

And we still have a scientific community generally in agreement.

-spence


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Spence said:


> When my father sent me an email just after this recent story broke stating that "we've got them now" I realized what the cult was really about.
> 
> The funny thing about this whole flap is that nothing has really changed.
> 
> ...


As a hydrogeologist and trained modeler I understand that we will never really have enough data to construct a completely accurate computer model of any real world complex systems, in my opinion it is better to look global warming from a weight of evidence view.

What drives weather is basically a simple concept: it's hot at the equator and cold at the poles. The hot and cold "try" to mix to equalize. This causes air bodies to move. When combined with effects of the earth's rotation, the presence/absence of oceans, continents, mountains, etc, the variations in the distance from the energy source (sun) throughout the year, the tilt of the earth's axis, volcanoes, forest fires, etc, etc., etc., the system never reaches a true equilibrium stasis. Instead, it is what geo-morphologists term a dynamic equilibrium. There is a LOT of "noise" (variation due to so many changing variables). However, within the dynamic equilibrium there are general trends. That is why we have temperate areas, deserts, rain forests, sub-tropical, tropical areas. This is our climate. Again, there is a lot of noise and things vary naturally over the millennia.

We can demonstrate the "greenhouse" effect of carbon dioxide in a closed laboratory setting therefore we know such a thing can exist. We can see a significant increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere compared to what is measurable in geologic time (from ice cores etc). (The increases we are seeing now appear much higher than the general trends in CO2 levels demonstrated in the geologic record).

As has been demonstrated time and again, cataclysmic events such as super volcanoes or comets hitting the earth change atmospheric conditions. This change causes the climate/weather to readjust/equilibrate to the new variable, and a new dynamic equilibrium condition is formed, changing climate. It is hard to believe that he addition of heretofore unseen levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on the dynamic equilibrium and therefore potentially on the climate.

While there is of course a LOT of noise (such as the apparent lower temps in some areas the last few years and the lack of a loss of the snow cover in the Sierra mountains, etc.) there are clearly demonstrated increases in our temps such as the incredibly fast (to a geologist) retreat of almost all glaciers in the northern and southern hemispheres, the changes in the ocean currents we are seeing, some glaciers possibly growing in Antarctica (warmer temps allow the air to hold more moisture so there is consequently more precipitation in the Antarctic in the form of snow which causes the glaciers to grow), the Greenland Ice pack melting rapidly (maybe it will become "green" land), generally warmer ocean temps in the tropics, the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap, etc., etc., etc. The weight of evidence points very strongly to significantly changing conditions with CO2 as potentially a significant input into the equation.

It is too bad this issue has become so divisive on both sides. I see the "deniers" as much more divisive but I am also biased. It would be nice to have real scientific discourse on this.

Sorry for the length.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

*One moe thing:*

As the computers get bigger and the resolution of the climate models gets better, the predictability gets better. There are however too many variables for the models to ever be perfect and we can't make the model nodes small enough to account for the variability.

Just think of the amount of data needed. It boggles the mind.

Therefore the models will never be perfect. This however does not mean they can not be good tools. If we were able to have real scientific discourse on both sides, this would allow our understanding to be stronger and better (and more clearly show the effect of CO2 on global warming ;-)


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Global Warming has always been about the redistribution of wealth. It's quite simple really. Follow the money.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Phinn said:


> In the case of science, however, there is no such thing as moderation. There is either truth or non-truth (aka, error or lies), and nothing whatsoever you could describe as a middle ground. .


There is nothing that could be farther from the truth. Read the works by Thomas Kuhn, and others on the subectivity of science, the way paradigms change. Pretty much any PhD scientist I have ever talked to about this agrees (except for some chemists who are very constrained by their field such that they are more like engineers).

If we could have all of the data, we might be able to say truth or no-truth but in reality, our peceptions of the data will vary and our views of the truth will vary.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Honestly it doesn't matter. Even if we are causing climate change (which is doubtful), spending tons of money and imposing restrictions will only change things for the worse.

Let the market work it out. Do you remember all of the alternative energy projects that became worthwhile and profitable as oil rose in price? Petroleum will rise in price, alternative energy will become profitable, we will have more alternative energy sources. 

I haven't researched it deeply for a couple of years now but I'm not sure they've even managed to prove that the rise in Co2 isn't caused by the earth warming then Co2 being released from the oceans, instead of increased Co2 causing warming.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Regardless of the data we collect we are limited by our own ability to understand the interactions well enough to describe them to the computer. Thus we can only hope the computer can plot trends which we can then use to revise our theories and then refine our algorithms to then refine our programs.
In short we are in over our heads... for now.


----------



## //Michael (Jul 29, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Cars are 2X more efficient than 25years ago.
> 
> There is no lead in Gas.
> 
> ...


Delightful Exposition, Sir! :icon_smile:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...an oldie but a goodie!!


Thank you. Others on this thread may have ignored it in a scramble to compose but I remember the era. The same types of 'scientists' and their acolytes who have been espousing global warmi, er, climate change the past decade or so had been fear-mongering via 'global cooling' in the '70s. I was required to take a graduate level 'Business Policy' course in which the Prof. ignored the texts and propagandized The Limits To Growth* by the Club Of Rome and the catastrophically imminent 'global cooling' for most of the course. Ho hum, same as it ever was.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_To_Growth


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What this guy said. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels. We've probably gone through half of them already, and the effect on the Earth's temperature has been minuscule at best. Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere probably isn't good, but fortunately there's a system in place to deal with that. It's called plants.

On the other hand we know that in modern times when the amount of CO2 in the air is measured in parts per million (as opposed to parts per hundred billions of years ago) the Earth has had a nasty habit of freezing over for hundreds of thousands of years at a time, i.e., ice ages.

You don't have to be a genius to figure this one out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Someone gave me the DVD of "Not Evil Just Wrong" it's pretty interesting.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> There is no doubt that the Global Warming Alarmists have been going overboard to prove their points.
> 
> However, to go to the other extreme and suggest that the earth does not have a dire problem looming in regards to a substantial hole in the ozone layer and polar ice caps melting at an alarming rate - is just as ridiculous.


You have logic that would make Spock envious.



Phinn said:


> I've never understood the tendencies of the automatic moderate. I suppose such a temperament could be the result of experiences as a young person growing up in a chaotic or argumentative household, producing the perceived need to make peace whenever two other people disagree. Or perhaps it is a vanity thing, arising from the desire to appear morally or intellectually superior to others. I don't know...


Right, so you try to provoke him using passive-aggressive "innocent speculations" about his childhood and then wonder why he doesn't want to listen to you? Come on.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Right, so you try to provoke him using passive-aggressive "innocent speculations" about his childhood and then wonder why he doesn't want to listen to you? Come on.


I am very serious when I say that I do not understand where the impulse to automatically choose the moderate position comes from. It shows up everywhere, although it's common in politics, of course. It seems to be reflexive and non-rational, and which is what I mean by "automatic." It doesn't stand up to rigorous inquiry when you ask what reason and evidence a person's moderate position is actually based on, other than a fuzzy, emotional desire to avoid making a clear decision.

I have no idea about Mr Kleen's childhood. But in my experience, most of these automatic, non-rational mental habits are the result of childhood experiences. We engage in them sort of on auto-pilot.

I don't think the "both sides are wrong" position is based on sound reason, and apparently neither do you. Which is why I also find it curious that you would confront me on my supposedly unfair and disingenuous conversation tactics a mere two seconds after you made a sarcastic crack about how Mr. Kleen's statement doesn't measure up to the logic standards of Spock.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> I have no idea about Mr Kleen's childhood. But in my experience, most of these automatic, non-rational mental habits are the result of childhood experiences. We engage in them sort of on auto-pilot.
> 
> I don't think the "both sides are wrong" position is based on sound reason, and apparently neither do you. Which is why I also find it curious that you would confront me on my supposedly unfair and disingenuous conversation tactics a mere two seconds after you made a sarcastic crack about how Mr. Kleen's statement doesn't measure up to the logic standards of Spock.


 Phinn

First of all....your pop psychology rants are both nonsensical and off base to the level of parody. You don't know WTF you are talking about, yet you continue to wax poetic about it&#8230;guess ignorance truly is bliss. 

Second of all, if you took your head out of your posterior orifice long enough to actually see what goes on out here, you would know that I am the LAST person that plays the moderate, appease all sides card on a regular basis. But in this case, it is clear that either extreme position is wrong and misguided. 



Then again, considering your posting record out here, it is no surprise to see YOU way out on the lunatic ledge.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

In many cases parties just "play" the moderate as a rhetorical tactic. Read carefully, they are expressing a position by creating straw men on one side (or sometimes both) and claiming the "sensible middle" territory. Clinton was masterful at such triangulation. Executed well it is a very effective tactic. Executed poorly it can be exposed as transparent.

That said, in many cases there really is a sensible middle, and some folks actually find it. This post is an example. ;-)


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Speaking as someone who has lived first hand with the effects of ten years of prolonged drought with no end in sight, all I can do is quote Dylan 'somethings happening Mr Jones' 

There is a problem the question is how to deal with it rather than just ignoring it and putting it down to scare mongering from the Left.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

ajo said:


> Speaking as someone who has lived first hand with the effects of ten years of prolonged drought with no end in sight, all I can do is quote Dylan 'somethings happening Mr Jones'
> 
> There is a problem the question is how to deal with it rather than just ignoring it and putting it down to scare mongering from the Left.


What you are experiencing has been going on for a very long time, in lots of places around the world.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I am very serious when I say that I do not understand where the impulse to automatically choose the moderate position comes from. It shows up everywhere, although it's common in politics, of course. It seems to be reflexive and non-rational, and which is what I mean by "automatic." It doesn't stand up to rigorous inquiry when you ask what reason and evidence a person's moderate position is actually based on, other than a fuzzy, emotional desire to avoid making a clear decision.
> 
> I have no idea about Mr Kleen's childhood. But in my experience, most of these automatic, non-rational mental habits are the result of childhood experiences. We engage in them sort of on auto-pilot.
> 
> I don't think the "both sides are wrong" position is based on sound reason, and apparently neither do you. Which is why I also find it curious that you would confront me on my supposedly unfair and disingenuous conversation tactics a mere two seconds after you made a sarcastic crack about how Mr. Kleen's statement doesn't measure up to the logic standards of Spock.


I agree with mrkleen actually. It was not sarcasm... more like a pop culture reference in the form of a compliment? I don't know. Maybe it came off as sarcasm, in which case I apologise to him if he was offended.

In any case, it's not a good idea to try to psychoanalyze people and reference what their childhood may or may not have been like. No one likes it when you do that. Someone once tried that on me and I nearly walked away.


----------

