Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally Posted by Spector567

That's the governments job. Capitalism only works for itself. It cares nothing for the country, the individual or the family.

You're right and that just why I doubled my donation to Senator Mitch McConnell. Capitalism at it's finest.

Originally Posted by baylee

I grew up in coal producing states, My father worked and retired in a coal fired power plant. His plant had the very latest scrubbers in place and still they had protesters. It is closed down now and it put hundreds of people out of work from my home town. I volunteered one of my computers to crunch numbers for the scientific research for climate control at USC, Berkey and they acknowledge problems with data collection data points. (google Bonic)

There are now over 300 coal fired power plants shut down by the EPA's renegade CAP-N-TRADE policies that were never approved by the Congress or the Senate, they were simply forced down our throats by president Obama and his lap dogs in the EPA. Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.

Originally Posted by Spector567

So you say that this year was the coldest spring in 17 years. Hmmm

Well that just disproves everything.

Ah we'll best just ignore the fact that ladst year was the hottest spring since America kept records
2012: Hottest Spring on Record

Because the hottest spring in over 200 years is meaningless compared to a cool spring this year.

John Coleman already knows how the CRU and NOAA work. Michael Mann and his followers have shut down 7,000 weather stations in the coldest climates, while leaving their numbers in the baseline; in order to create and artificial rise in temperatures. But if you remove those 7000 weather stations from the baseline too, temperatures have actually fallen since 1998, not risen. John Coleman and others have reported on this many many times. The fraud at the CUR, NOAA and other Government run institutions are complete institutions of mass propaganda and no real science going on there.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

There are now over 300 coal fired power plants shut down by the EPA's renegade CAP-N-TRADE policies that were never approved by the Congress or the Senate, they were simply forced down our throats by president Obama and his lap dogs in the EPA. Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.

ED I honestly have to ask. Do you read peoples response to you?

Because this has all already been explained. Including how you are using an unemployment number that includes school aged children and retirees.

While at the same time forgetting that there was a global recession.

As to the power plants closing your OWN ARTICLE clearly says how a drop in power demand, the increase cost of coal and the decrease cost of natural gas has contributed to these plants shutting down.

Natural Gas is just cheaper than coal. It's capitalism.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

John Coleman already knows how the CRU and NOAA work. Michael Mann and his followers have shut down 7,000 weather stations in the coldest climates, while leaving their numbers in the baseline; in order to create and artificial rise in temperatures. But if you remove those 7000 weather stations from the baseline too, temperatures have actually fallen since 1998, not risen. John Coleman and others have reported on this many many times. The fraud at the CUR, NOAA and other Government run institutions are complete institutions of mass propaganda and no real science going on there.

ED. John Coleman is a retired TV Weatherman. Did coleman fail to notice that many of those 7,000 were replaced or the fact that it is a global average by AREA. Not a flat average.

Plus of course the weater has been lower since 1998. We've been over this again and again. 1998 was the #1 hottest year in recorded temperature.

So it stand to reason that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th hottest years that occured in the last decade would be cooler than number one. Most people know that 2 comes after 1.


Also the BEST temperature study a privately funded and run study done funded by the Kosh brothers confirmed the results.

So any suggestion that Several dozen governments from across the globe are all in a conspiracy to cook the books is just STUPID.



I'd also like to point out that once again you have failed to respond to my rebuttal in post #55. Just because you disappear for a week doesn't mean that you cann restart the conversation without responding to people.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.

Like I mentioned before, most of those people choose not to work or don't need to work. It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Or global warming.

From the U.S. Department of Labor:

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

I just have to repeat this who post because it seems the AGW believers can't argure against it so they instead ignore it or try to argue other non-important points.

Originally Posted by Mongo

Due to family issues, the Stanley Cup and a very bad computer virus I've been away. No one scared me off and some interesting things have come up in the last 10 days or so.

First off there is this article: Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Hans von Storch, 63, is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center Geesthacht for Materials and Coastal Research, near Hamburg. A mathematician and meteorologist, he ranks among the world's leading climate experts. At the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, he had an important role in analyzing the computer models used to simulate future climate changes.

Here are some of the jucier tidbits:
In regarrd to flooding (and the crazy twisted logic you use regarding flood insurance) he said; "But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing."

Or this question and answer:
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another.

Regarding that "all climate scientists agree:
"Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators."

And here is a comment where we can put to rest the argument over if the warming has basically stopped int eh last 15 years:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

Now here is the real meat concerning the models:
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: In under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

I can go on and on but you need to read the article. He admits the models are wrong and that they need to be adjusted. He even says this VERY telling statement in regard the the foundational belief that humans caused the warming: "Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments."

And to make matters even worse there was a huge article in the New Republic of all places. See here: [url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go[/url]

First off more proof and admittance that warming has basically stopped over the last 15 years. Can we put that argument to bed now?

Here is an interesting line fromt he article: "The phenomena that most clearly causes the Earth’s temperature to rise and fall are El Nino and La Nina." Yet we are supposed to believe that man made greenhouse gas is the major cause.

I also loved this line for being so ironic: "Conveniently, the “hiatus” is said to begin in 1998, when a historic El Nino produced the warmest year of the twentieth century. That starting point amounts to cherry-picking."

Same thing many of us have said about 1850 since that was the end of the Little Ice Age. Cherry-picking for everyone!

After trying to create a few "theories" the article hits on what I've been saying for a very long time: "But other scientists think that the heat is missing because it never made into Earth's climate system. The idea that heat might not have made it relates to the concept of “forcing.”" The VALUE used in the models for the forcings were always just a guess and never proved by any experiment. But let's not stop there.

"According to Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, lower levels of solar radiation account for 10 to 15 percent of the hiatus." Yet the very active sun leading up to 1998 could NEVER account for more then a couple of percentage increase in warmings. This sentence proves that solar radiation accounts for 10-15% which means that 95% figure the IPCC used for eyars is WRONG!

There are other great tidbits like how parasol-reflecting particles account for the hiatus yet the IPCC completly dismissed the removal of these particles from the US and Europe in the 70' and 80's due to tough polution laws.

Now for the BIG BIG paragraph in the article:
"Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty mean that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s “sensitivity” to additional greenhouse gas emissions. For Held, the last 10 to 15 years “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.” Held is not alone."

And to put to rest the silly and absurd notion that the science is settled or that there is a "consensus" we have:
"In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity."

I was going to get into a very long and detailed discussion on why the models were wrong. I don't have to now that in the last week these articles basically drive holes int he models that are so big you can fit a semi-truck in them. There were other articles but these came from "skeptic" sites so I decided to focus on the left leaning sites.

Bottom line is as this hiatus continues over the next five years no one will be left to support the models and their predictions for the next 100 years. Let's continue with the science and hold off on the crazy doomsday talk.

Originally Posted by Mongo

I just have to repeat this who post because it seems the AGW believers can't argure against it so they instead ignore it or try to argue other non-important points.

Kinda like how you didn't argue the insurence comment but kept diverting around it and disappearing twice now in the middle of the conversation.

Truthfully. I didn't respond to your article because I wanted to hold you to one point and one discussion. Simply abandoning the discussion for a week is not a reason to restart the discussion from scratch and ignore everyone who took the time and energy to respond to you.


As to your article. The doctor only appears to be annoyed at the extreme alarmists and has taken the view that we are too late unable to stop global warming. He has not said that the negative effects are not true, he has not said it's a good thing, he has not said the science is wrong, he has not even said the models are not accurate enough to predict the trend, he has not even said that the change will be easy. Just that it's too late.

In short he hasn't disputed the known results. He just takes a more moderate view and disagrees with the alarmists and enviro nuts who jump at each rain storm and say it's AWG. (No one here listens to the enviro nuts anyway)

It also should be noted that this is a German scientists, talking to a german newspaper about germany. His answers are going to focused on how AWG affects germany. For instence Germany is not known for hurricanes or other more extreme weather events.

He was also no doubt specifically choosen for this interview because his opinions are at the further end of the spectrum from the main scientific body. However, even with that his opinions do not vary anywhere near the opinions of most of the Anti-AWG or denier crowd.



I'd also like to note that you did not quote the entire article just some "tidbits" The other tidbits. Articls should be read in there entirty. One question leads up to another and he often provided further detail in the next question.

Some other tidbits:


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.


SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.


SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.

Damn there is a short period to edit here. =) I double copied a section.

This is an explanation of the mass fraud and hoax behind "Man Made Global Warming" for scientific dummy's like Spector567.



Clearly proves the point of how fraudulent man made global warming really is.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

This is an explanation of the mass fraud and hoax behind "Man Made Global Warming" for scientific dummy's like Spector567.



Clearly proves the point of how fraudulent man made global warming really is.

Ed. If i'm a dummy what are you? I didn't think talc and asbestos were the same thing and I did answer your questions from before. Sadly you never responded to them and I can only assume that you don't have an answer.

If you really want to prove that you know what you are talking about. Please try responding to people. Any idoit can post a youtube video or cut and paste challanges. Any idiot can disappear for a week and than return with new challanges while ignoring the old ones.

Originally Posted by Spector567

Ed. If i'm a dummy what are you? I didn't think talc and asbestos were the same thing and I did answer your questions from before. Sadly you never responded to them and I can only assume that you don't have an answer.

If you really want to prove that you know what you are talking about. Please try responding to people. Any idoit can post a youtube video or cut and paste challanges. Any idiot can disappear for a week and than return with new challanges while ignoring the old ones.

I don't sit in my parent's basement like you do and complain about a world you never lived or worked in.

I actually work for a living and provide for my family. Asbestos is simply rocks that grind up into fiber instead of smaller rocks, that is the basic technical definition of what asbestos is. And because it is a fiber it can be woven into clothing, solid surfaces, etc., ... making anything fire proof if applied. Talc does the same thing, when it is ground up it to turns into fiber that is also fire proof. But no one is pulling talcinpowdeer off the shelves.

As one can see the Temperature levels have gone down over the past 10,000 years as this Temperature plot shows. So todays Temperature levels are not out of the ordinary. Matter of fact we are currently amongst the coolest years of the past 10,000 years. no where near record high temperatures.

This data comes from the Greenland ice core temperatures as previously discussed in earlier postings by the documentary "Doomsday called off".

the real co2 level history.jpg

Originally Posted by Edmund129

I don't sit in my parent's basement like you do and complain about a world you never lived or worked in.

I actually work for a living and provide for my family.

And your mother wears army boots.

I hope you know Ed that these over the top and ridiculous insults do not bolster your case. They actually detract from it. Afterall if I’m such a lowly form of human being than why are not able to respond to my and others peoples responses to your questions?

Are you being outsmarted by people you consider the lowest form of life? Making you even dumber than you consider them to be.

Or

Are you just so wrong that any idiot can see, But you.


If you really want to prove to me wrong than the best way is to respond to the rebuttals and myself and others have made and by not repeating long debunked arguments. Than we will be able to see that you are not an idiot but possibly just mislead as to the value of the information or perhaps we are the ones who are mistaken and haven’t considered something.

Because Ed I wouldn’t consider you an idiot or dishonest for trusting the wrong person for your information. I would consider you a dishonest idiot if you continue to repeat that incorrect information after being shown just how wrong it was.

Asbestos is simply rocks that grind up into fiber instead of smaller rocks, that is the basic technical definition of what asbestos is. And because it is a fiber it can be woven into clothing, solid surfaces, etc., ... making anything fire proof if applied. Talc does the same thing, when it is ground up it to turns into fiber that is also fire proof. But no one is pulling talcinpowdeer off the shelves.[/B]

Your right that Asbestos is just ground up form of a very special fibourous rock.
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4

However, Talc...... is not the same thing. It is also created from a fibourous rock. However, Talc instead of being ground up is converted into an entirly different substance through a chemicle reaction.

serpentine + carbon dioxide → talc + magnesite + water
2 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 → Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 + 3 MgCO3 + 3 H2O

This is why no-one is pulling talc off the shelves because Asbestos and talc are 2 different substances and have different reactions.

Also FYI. The insulating rings on the challanger mission did have Asbestos in them. In short the asbestose rings FAILED.
7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster - Technology & science - Space | NBC News

Originally Posted by Edmund129

As one can see the Temperature levels have gone down over the past 10,000 years as this Temperature plot shows. So todays Temperature levels are not out of the ordinary. Matter of fact we are currently amongst the coolest years of the past 10,000 years. no where near record high temperatures.

This data comes from the Greenland ice core temperatures as previously discussed in earlier postings by the documentary "Doomsday called off".

the real co2 level history.jpg

This one is more interesting and I certainly don't blame you for believing this one ED.

Long story short Christopher moncton is incapible of reading a scientific report. He plotted the graph incorrectly and correlated the wrong information together.

"present" in the meaning of the report he cited was 1950 not 2000 (the origenal graph didn't have dated years) and the data set didn't start till 1855 well before most of the current warming.
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

Here is the corrected graph using the actual information and a comprision to current temperatures.



It should also be noted that this is also the temperature record from a single cherry picked location on earth. NOT the global average. Other parts of the globe experienced much different temperatures.

Originally Posted by Spector567

[/B]

And your mother wears army boots.

I hope you know Ed that these over the top and ridiculous insults do not bolster your case. They actually detract from it. Afterall if I’m such a lowly form of human being than why are not able to respond to my and others peoples responses to your questions?

Are you being outsmarted by people you consider the lowest form of life? Making you even dumber than you consider them to be.

Or

Are you just so wrong that any idiot can see, But you.


If you really want to prove to me wrong than the best way is to respond to the rebuttals and myself and others have made and by not repeating long debunked arguments. Than we will be able to see that you are not an idiot but possibly just mislead as to the value of the information or perhaps we are the ones who are mistaken and haven’t considered something.

Because Ed I wouldn’t consider you an idiot or dishonest for trusting the wrong person for your information. I would consider you a dishonest idiot if you continue to repeat that incorrect information after being shown just how wrong it was.




Your right that Asbestos is just ground up form of a very special fibourous rock.
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4

However, Talc...... is not the same thing. It is also created from a fibourous rock. However, Talc instead of being ground up is converted into an entirly different substance through a chemicle reaction.

serpentine + carbon dioxide → talc + magnesite + water
2 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 → Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 + 3 MgCO3 + 3 H2O

This is why no-one is pulling talc off the shelves because Asbestos and talc are 2 different substances and have different reactions.

Also FYI. The insulating rings on the challanger mission did have Asbestos in them. In short the asbestose rings FAILED.
7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster - Technology & science - Space | NBC News



This one is more interesting and I certainly don't blame you for believing this one ED.

Long story short Christopher moncton is incapible of reading a scientific report. He plotted the graph incorrectly and correlated the wrong information together.

"present" in the meaning of the report he cited was 1950 not 2000 (the origenal graph didn't have dated years) and the data set didn't start till 1855 well before most of the current warming.
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

Here is the corrected graph using the actual information and a comprision to current temperatures.



It should also be noted that this is also the temperature record from a single cherry picked location on earth. NOT the global average. Other parts of the globe experienced much different temperatures.

Again more fraudulent cooked up numbers. The real facts based on the Actual Scientific research shows that the Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, not 6 to 8 degrees cooler. as this ICE core from Greenland shows. But the Antartic ice core data shows the exact same numbers as well. So this isn't just an even that occurred in the northern hemisphere:

the real co2 level history.jpg



It would take 2000 to 3000 years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

Again more fraudulent cooked up numbers. The real facts based on the Actual Scientific research shows that the Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, not 6 to 8 degrees cooler. as this ICE core from Greenland shows. But the Antartic ice core data shows the exact same numbers as well. So this isn't just an even that occurred in the northern hemisphere:

the real co2 level history.jpg



It would take 2000 to 3000 years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt.

Ed...... We are using the same raw source for the information. So if my numbers are cooked than so are yours. (did you notice how the graphs were the same? The only difference is that "lord" mockton and Eastbrook tried to re-use the data for something else and got some conversions and dates wrong. Something that is clearly explained in my text and the linked article.

Also as to everthing being 6-8 degrees warmer..... This is a single source from greenland. This is not a global average. Even your origenal errored graph only had it being 3 degrees and I very much doubt that you'll be able to find another source that would agree with you.

and please stop posting youtube videos. All it showes that you don't understand your own point well enough to explain it yourself.

One if the dishonest things in Spector's graph is he mixes and matched different data sets between Greenland and Maui, Hawaii. Clearly Maui is always warmer than Greenland on average do to the latitude.

In Spector's graph he shows Greenland ice core data then compares it to Maui, Hawaii data to create an artificial rise in Temperatures. The same exact dishonest trick that Global Warming propagandist use to create an artificial rise in CO2 levels in the Antarctic Ice Core Data.

Based on Ice Core data in Greenland and the Antarctic the average temperature during the 7000 year long Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today. Which brought about the greatest period of human advancements in agriculture, metallurgy, civilization and recording of history. Because humans had the pleasant environment of warm weather and prosperous crop yields that permitted them to better their lives and eventually ours as well.

the real co2 level history.jpg

As one can clearly see from the graph above, that our last 1000 years was the coldest in the previous 10,000 years. Our time is the right most temperature point. Notice how the Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today. But the previous Holocene Maximum was much warmer by many degrees (6 to 8 degrees on average based on both the Greenland, Antarctic and other proxy measured data).



More comparisons to the Greenland ice Sheet clearly shows the extremely long and high temperature rise of the Holocene maximum (10,000 to 3,000 years ago).

Meteorological observations started around 1875 which was about the coldest point in the past 10,000 years.

Professor Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey stick graph tries to erase and discredit the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm period based on thousands over other observations; with the junk science invented by Michael Mann.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

One if the dishonest things in Spector's graph is he mixes and matched different data sets between Greenland and Maui, Hawaii. Clearly Maui is always warmer than Greenland on average do to the latitude.

In Spector's graph he shows Greenland ice core data then compares it to Maui, Hawaii data to create an artificial rise in Temperatures. The same exact dishonest trick that Global Warming propagandist use to create an artificial rise in CO2 levels in the Antarctic Ice Core Data.

Based on Ice Core data in Greenland and the Antarctic the average temperature during the 7000 year long Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today. Which brought about the greatest period of human advancements in agriculture, metallurgy, civilization and recording of history. Because humans had the pleasant environment of warm weather and prosperous crop yields that permitted them to better their lives and eventually ours as well.

the real co2 level history.jpg

As one can clearly see from the graph above, that our last 1000 years was the coldest in the previous 10,000 years. Our time is the right most temperature point. Notice how the Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today. But the previous Holocene Maximum was much warmer by many degrees (6 to 8 degrees on average based on both the Greenland, Antarctic and other proxy measured data).



More comparisons to the Greenland ice Sheet clearly shows the extremely long and high temperature rise of the Holocene maximum (10,000 to 3,000 years ago).

Meteorological observations started around 1875 which was about the coldest point in the past 10,000 years.

Professor Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey stick graph tries to erase and discredit the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm period based on thousands over other observations; with the junk science invented by Michael Mann.

Source please. I provided you in my link the papers and other data. Can you not do the same?

I'd also like to ask when was the last time Maui, Hawaii had an average yearly temperature of -29degrees Celsius.

Silly I know. Who on earth would actually read what the axis on the graphs say. Why not just look at a blurry picture and read the cartoon caption.

The Climate of Corruption behind Man Made Global Warming Propaganda:

The founder of the Weather Channel speaks out on the Global Warming Global Fraud:



Since 2000 we have seen some of the coldest winters on record, with Alaska seeing the coldest temperatures in over 20 years.

China the worst winter ever.

South America coldest winters ever.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

The founder of the Weather Channel speaks out on the Global Warming Global Fraud:

Your not going to tell me when Hawaii had an average temperature of -29degrees C?
and your not going to tell me why you believe a single souce graph from a single location represents the globe.

You are also not going to provide any sources for your information to counter my information showing how your graph produced by a political think tank was in error. (yes your graph was produced by the heartland institute)


You are just going to provide more youtube videos.

Global Warming is a Doctrine of Deception.



The measured data has been grossly misrepresented for political reasons to justify the eradication of 7 billion people on the false assumption that the human population explosion is the source of Global Warming.

But when the Earth's temperature falls, they change the name to climate change to hide their previous lies.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

Global Warming is a Doctrine of Deception.



The measured data has been grossly misrepresented for political reasons to justify the eradication of 7 billion people on the false assumption that the human population explosion is the source of Global Warming.

But when the Earth's temperature falls, they change the name to climate change to hide their previous lies.

3 cheers another YouTube video.

Also FYI. In scientific circles and within scietific litature it was ALWAYS called climate change.

It's only as the public gained more knowledge on how it works that people started using more accurate terms.

I believe you'd already been told this.


and once again thankyou for proving that you are full of BS since you once again failed to respond to the responses made by the posters in this forum.