Are These Guys Lying?

[1gewehr]

Conclusion? These people are snake oil salesmen, hoping to shut the sceptical up through peer pressure, funding pressure, and fear of the mob.

NASA has fudged it's data, The UN data is shown to be hopelessly wrong, and that's just the beginning. There never was a 'consensus'. Just a bunch of very vocal scientists trying to make sure that the hysteria continued so their grants would be renewed.

More on John Coleman’s Special tonight – KUSI press release says NASA improperly manipulated data Watts Up With That?

Michelle Malkin Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium

ClimateGate - NASA Satellites Loaded With False Global Warming Data - Criminal charges being pursued | NowPublic Video Archives

And that's just the NASA data! Do a search for 'climategate' for information about the UN falsifying data.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"The debate is over", Al Gore

Scientist (j/k)

Nobel Prize winner (an embarrassment to all previous winners)

Oscar winner (now that's something)

Honorary UT graduate(soon to be)

Supposed TN resident(sometimes, when climate allows)

Poor loser in presidential race(4 lawsuits over FL ballot counts)

I'd say he has impeccable credentials for AGW expertise:drama:;)

Someone do one on Dr. Hansen, please. And how about the Hadley kooks?

[Guest Ghostrider]

1. A scientist who refuses to share data is just another guy with an opinion and a story to "back it up".

2. The big old nuclear reactor in the sky is the greatest weather generator for this planet.

3. Al would steal the fillings out of a dead mans mouth. He's the lowest form of scum.

4. Pollution - we need to work on. But CO2 isn't a pollutant, fer cripes sake, it's a natural occurring gas without which life as we know it would pretty soon grind to an end.

5. I'm an old fart, and I grew up on how we were all going to freeze in the dark. Cap and trade seems like a perfect way to make that happen, IMO.

6. IF it were all gospel, IF, then 1/4th of the countries on the planet doing something about it would have about zero effect on the rest of the planet - yeah, tell me that africa, china, and russia will ruin their economies to maybe reduce a gas, that maybe might have something to do with heating up the planet... right.

7. And finally, how the heck would I ever believe anyone telling me what the weather is going to be in 100 years or more, when they can't even guess what it's going to be 15 minutes or 15 hours or 15 days from now. The old farmers almanac I grew up with is exactly as good as the high paid guys on the news and weather channels. It's about trends, and humans simply haven't been around long enough to figure out the long cycle trends. Yeah, we get some hints from history, but nothing as solid as just looking out the window.

[Smith]

Are some lying? Absolutely, but i think a lot are probably just regurgitating what they are fed. The thing I've noticed about science is that like just about any other life discipline, the majority of people tend to be lazy and trusting of others information. Just think how many times debates around here use facts that start with "well my brother's best friends girlfriends father was in Seal Team Six and he said ...........":D

[analog_kidd]

I keep thinking it would be easier and more cost effective to just deal with any effects of <makes quote marks with fingers> climate change, than to try and "fix" it.

[Guest Guitarsnguns]

Any time there is a profit $$$ to be had I have to wonder if folks are lying. Carbon credits anyone? They finally found a way to solve the "free air problem"

[Bigiron]

[Mark@Sea]

I read something interesting on this today... most global warming lobbyists are employed by big banking. Forecasting a ten trillion a year carbon commodities market, they don't care about the science, they just want everyone forced into buying - or selling. They get a cut from both.

Something like a hundred billion dollars has gone into promoting 'public awareness' and studies over the last decade. AFAIK, there are no funded studies that assume AGW is a false hypothesis. Exxon initially put some twenty mil into the effort, caught a lot of political heat, and quit. Guess they figured they'd pass the costs to the consumers anyway, no point in sticking their neck out.

Hey, if you get paid to prove something, your conclusion is either going to be proof, or "a need for further study". Who knew?

All that money to prove the theory, with the only work to disprove being done by, essentially, a handful of unfunded retired guys. The retired guys are winning the scientific debate easily. That should tell you something..

If I were them, I'd be real careful about crossing streets and such. The brokerage commissions on ten trillion is a lot of scratch, and some very large,very powerful corporations and people are probably pretty upset about their scam getting blown.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mark@Sea

[gregintenn]

We've been keeping accurate temperature records for about 100 years now. How old is the world? How the h3ll do we know global warming exists and presents a future problem? It was cooler when I got up this morning than when it was when I went to lunch......Global warming?

[strickj]

Regardless of the accuracy of 'global warming', I feel that the advancement of the science behind it and the technology is a great thing.

It's easy to see the affects man has on the planet. All you have to do is visit a large city after a visit to a rural area.

The difference in air quality can been seen, and even tasted, without a scientific study to tell you that.

Same goes for water.

What the earth will be in a hundred years is irreverent, really.

We're already in a state of dirtiness that effects not only us, but also our kids health.

It will only get worse as time goes by.

(Don't take me for some Prius lovin fruit now, as I do drive an SUV that gets 15mpg...I'm just saying )

[Mark@Sea]

Unfortunately, very well developed incorrect 'science' is worthless. See 'flat earth ', 'sun revolving around earth', 'powered flight impossible', various speed limits, etc etc ad nauseum. There was once a well developed and widely believed school of thought that claimed the earth traveled through the heavens on the back of a giant turtle.

The scientific method was developed in order to test ideas. Skepticism is key to the method.

AGW fails every test designed to measure the theory against the real world. Skepticism is anathema. As science, it is worse than useless. Time and money used to distort data and smear skepticism rather than finding a hypothesis that fits facts isn't advancing our knowledge.

The cherry on top is that despite the hype, no money has gone to finding real solutions. The 'green' solutions billed as saving the earth are all, in the long run, more destructive of the environment.

I want a cleaner environment as much as anyone, but I'm unwilling to triple the cost of energy for a feel good plan that is worse than useless.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mark@Sea

[bvarnell]

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember the early 70's before "clean" unleaded gasoline.

I remember coming north on I-75 south of Atlanta you could see the huge cloud of yellow smog about 30+ miles before you got to I-285.

Chattanooga was worse, just on a smaller scale. Crossing Missionary Ridge on I-24, you couldn't see downtown for the smog.

Pollution controls have definitely improved air quality.

[Guest rystine]

Let's play devil's advocate here.

I think it's safe to say that many of us believe that the "green" side is motivated ultimately by money. Couldn't we also assume that the "anti-green" side also has money to be made in some way?

[Guest Guitarsnguns]

Let's play devil's advocate here.

I think it's safe to say that many of us believe that the "green" side is motivated ultimately by money. Couldn't we also assume that the "anti-green" side also has money to be made in some way?

Yes, that can definitely be assumed in the form of carbon credits that will not have to be purchased. Unfortunatley, if one does the research and uses common sense, there really are not many so called facts becoming available today that are not tainted by some special interest. I am not saying that some of this information is not indeed accurate, but the profit factor makes it questionable to any skeptic.

[tnhawk]

Any time there is a profit $$$ to be had I have to wonder if folks are lying. Carbon credits anyone? They finally found a way to solve the "free air problem"

aGore has made a lot of "green" by selling global warming.

[gregintenn]

Couldn't we also assume that the "anti-green" side also has money to be made in some way?

Absolutely. That's how capitalism works. The "anti-green" folks are producing products for profit. The "green" people aren't producing anything with which to make a profit, so they try to take through legislation what is not rightfully theirs.

[strickj]

Unfortunately, very well developed incorrect 'science' is worthless. See 'flat earth ', 'sun revolving around earth', 'powered flight impossible', various speed limits, etc etc ad nauseum. There was once a well developed and widely believed school of thought that claimed the earth traveled through the heavens on the back of a giant turtle.

The scientific method was developed in order to test ideas. Skepticism is key to the method.

AGW fails every test designed to measure the theory against the real world. Skepticism is anathema. As science, it is worse than useless. Time and money used to distort data and smear skepticism rather than finding a hypothesis that fits facts isn't advancing our knowledge.

The cherry on top is that despite the hype, no money has gone to finding real solutions. The 'green' solutions billed as saving the earth are all, in the long run, more destructive of the environment.

I want a cleaner environment as much as anyone, but I'm unwilling to triple the cost of energy for a feel good plan that is worse than useless.

There is as much science behind it as everything else we have in our lives.

Comparing it to the earth being flat won't fly.

Modern day science is far more advanced then the folks wearing loin cloths had back then.

As far as higher cost, name one thing we use today that didn't start out costing more then it's predecessor.

As people start buying and using on a larger scale, the price goes down.

See the post below yours for prof that science can and has cleaned the earth:

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember the early 70's before "clean" unleaded gasoline.

I remember coming north on I-75 south of Atlanta you could see the huge cloud of yellow smog about 30+ miles before you got to I-285.

Chattanooga was worse, just on a smaller scale. Crossing Missionary Ridge on I-24, you couldn't see downtown for the smog.

Pollution controls have definitely improved air quality.

Absolutely. That's how capitalism works. The "anti-green" folks are producing products for profit. The "green" people aren't producing anything with which to make a profit, so they try to take through legislation what is not rightfully theirs.

Incorrect.

Squirrely bulbs,as I call them, do not have anything but profit behind there sales.

There is plenty of 'green' things that sell like hot cakes...

[Guest Ghostrider]

Guys.

I know I'm pretty simple, but lets not confuse "pollution" - which is a problem that we must somehow deal with without killing our economy, and AGW - which is bull crap.

just saying. ..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Science has done a lot of things to benefit us, but junk science has just

cost money. AGW is in the latter category. Look at who is pushing AGW and wonder why it is so appealing to them. Politicians are, and some of them don't have this country's best interest in mind.

If this science was so definitive, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I remember that yellow haze in Chattanooga, too. I bet it had more to do with the places like Siskin Steel, Combustion and other plants in the area

that don't seem to be operating anymore, plus the topography of the entire region. I lived in Chattanooga a few years in the 80's and certain

times of the year there were extremely high pollution and pollen counts.

I bet it's similar, today. Technology advances in industrial processes

have changed, too. I don't know about unleaded gas and the haze, though. Maybe, but I doubt it.

It's very easy to point a finger at us humans and blame AGW on us, but it's a leap to prove global warming is the cause of all the woes of this planet we live on. The trouble with the global warming crowd is 'they know better than we do', and they are trying to force this junk science down our throats for all the wrong reasons. Utopian idealogy rolled into science has been around for years and it always is wrong. Utopia doesn't exist. This is all about power and politics, which is one and the same.

Our energy would be better utilized by figuring out how to put our country back in the hands of the people, rather than letting these politicians keep

lying to us about things they have no business discussing. Good science

has a way of bubbling up to the top without the government's involvement,

also. AGW is all political and junk science and a waste of the taxpayers'

money. We have been cleaning up messes for years and improving our way

of life without the global warming crowd interfering. I'd just as soon they got a real job and not rob me anymore.

[gregintenn]

All right, let me go at it from this angle. If everyone in the United States began living like Amish people tomorrow, how much difference do you really think we'd make as far as global warming is concerned? And furthermore, how are we going to convince the real polluters like China, India, etc. to follow suit? This is just about as silly a scam as the Y2K scam, and will soon be more costly. Remember when everyone was crying the sky's falling at the stroke of midnight, December 31, 1999? How has the general public become so gullible?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The public has become so gullible because they are lazy,

intellectually, and have heard this crap for so long, that

they began to believe it. It's really sad our schools

preach this junk, too. It's also none of our concern what

other countries do concerning global warming.

[Mark@Sea]

Sorry to tell you this, Strick, but you're misunderstanding how cap and trade works. If all this money were going to new, cleaner methods of energy production it might be worthwhile. It isn't. AGW isn't science, it is a sales spiel.

[strickj]

You guys have misunderstood me.

I never said global warming is true or false.

I said we can benefit from the science and technology behind it.

[gregintenn]

It's also none of our concern what

other countries do concerning global warming.

It is if you accept the premise that we are all gonna burn up in x number of years if we don't let Al Gore save us.

[Mark@Sea]

Wish that were true, Strick. Mostly, the scientific field used (misused) to promote AGW is paleoclimatology - which is basically a methodology of guessing temperature hundreds or thousands of years ago. Mostly by digging up the remains of very old trees and measuring the growth rings. (Just one of the many controversies came up when it was discovered that the data in this field was cherrypicked. Out of hundreds of samples, only a handful agreed with the hypothesis, so they tossed out something like 98% of the data, and kept only the samples which supported their position). Other subfields such as ice core studies tend to disprove AGW, so they've been marginalized.

We might have gotten some useful satellite data, but when it disagreed with other sources,someone checked and found it had been 'adjusted'. The guy at NASA handling the data? James Hanson.

You may have heard that name before. In the seventies he was leading the call to panic over the impending ice age. In the early nineties he flipflopped and became one of the earliest authorities promoting global warming

There is no new tech coming from this boondoggle, and apparently the only thing science is learning is how to lie in order to keep multimillion dollar grants coming in.