Global warming or global hoax?

[kaoticprofit]

Well in that case you should have no problem providing the evidence of any islands that have disappeared. I suspect you are running away because you have been caught out. That is why you do a disservice to science, you follow blindly the prophets of doom without checking the evidence, and when you are asked to provide the evidence, you do what you are doing So please, if you are an honest person, engage in a mature manner and learn..

I need to get away from the idiocy of some of these debates. I don't deal well with political idiocy from either side, and I should never have gotten into this debate because I know where they lead.....NOWHERE! It's kind of like the saying, "guns don't kill people" when that's what they were designed for.

The global warming going on now is being caused by the industrial revolution in the past 150 years. But people like you don't want to open your eyes. People like you bury your heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge what science has proved time and again. People like Christy are politically motivated and that alone should raise red flags for you but instead you fall for the lie.
The site has pictures. I know how that can be beneficial for people who are environmentally challenged.

Climate Change: 10 Islands that may disappear

Climate misinformer: John Christy

Kiribati is an island nation in the central tropical Pacific Ocean. The nation is composed of 32 atolls and one raised coral island, Banaba. It has a population of 102,697. Due to the rising sea level, most of it land disappeared beneath the ocean which caused most of its population to move to another island, Tarawam.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I need to get away from the idiocy of some of these debates. I don't deal well with political idiocy from either side, and I should never have gotten into this debate because I know where they lead.....NOWHERE! It's kind of like the saying, "guns don't kill people" when that's what they were designed for.

The global warming going on now is being caused by the industrial revolution in the past 150 years. But people like you don't want to open your eyes. People like you bury your heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge what science has proved time and again. People like Christy are politically motivated and that alone should raise red flags for you but instead you fall for the lie.
The site has pictures. I know how that can be beneficial for people who are environmentally challenged.

Climate Change: 10 Islands that may disappear

Climate misinformer: John Christy

Kiribati is an island nation in the central tropical Pacific Ocean. The nation is composed of 32 atolls and one raised coral island, Banaba. It has a population of 102,697. Due to the rising sea level, most of it land disappeared beneath the ocean which caused most of its population to move to another island, Tarawam.

Do you not understand that pictures of islands and atolls that are claimed MAY disappear proves that there are no islands that have disappeared as you claimed, otherwise you would be able to provide the evidence. The only politics being played here is your misinformation that islands have disappeared. No islands will disappear in the next 100 years because at present sea level rise rate, it will only be about 8 inches above present.

A accusation from a blog run by wamistas that Dr John Christy is a misinformer does not constitute evidence that he is in error, he is after all a real climate scientist dealing with real data, and giving his best scientific understanding on global climate change. That warmistas disagree is one thing, to claim he is therefore a disinformer is not the way science is meant to work, it is a scurrilous ad hom attack. Where is your proof that Dr. Christy is politically motivated?

It seems to me from the apoplectic behavior you are exhibiting, it could very well be you that is political motivated....a leftie perhaps...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The issue of "Climategate" was investigated by the British government,

The presentation, which you clearly didn't bother to watch at all, assumed that climategate was a non-issue for climate science and said nothing against AGW. Rather, the speaker (an AGW proponent speaking to other AGW proponents) was concerned with public perception and predictability issues after "climategate" as an issue of concern to climate scientists only insofar as it undermined or could serve to undermine faith in climate science. It was not concerned with the nature of the emails, CRU, etc., as problems of any sort of a scientific nature.
The other videos and the INI seminar more generally were not concerned with climategate at all, but I suppose (like the peer-reviewed literature you speak of but do not appear overly familiar with), you didn't bother with these either.

 

[metis]

The presentation, which you clearly didn't bother to watch at all, assumed that climategate was a non-issue for climate science and said nothing against AGW. Rather, the speaker (an AGW proponent speaking to other AGW proponents) was concerned with public perception and predictability issues after "climategate" as an issue of concern to climate scientists only insofar as it undermined or could serve to undermine faith in climate science. It was not concerned with the nature of the emails, CRU, etc., as problems of any sort of a scientific nature.
The other videos and the INI seminar more generally were not concerned with climategate at all, but I suppose (like the peer-reviewed literature you speak of but do not appear overly familiar with), you didn't bother with these either.

I was already familiar with the "Climategate" issue and also what the research on the issue of a supposed change in cosmic radiation, so I simply wasn't going to waste my time. I'm much more concerned what the evidence is showing and not someone's perception or denial of such evidence, especially since yesterday was a very busy day for me. I think I should have more time later today, so I'll try and get to it then.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was already familiar with the "Climategate" issue

So you are intimately familiar with PCA, the splicing issues and time series analysis, why the IPCC asked a retired Canadian prospector to serve as an expert in paleoclimatology (especially dendroclimatology) and then ignored his contributions, etc.? Or is this familiarity like that you have thus far demonstrated to possess: extremely limited, shallow, and lacking any real analysis of the scientific research and literature?

and also what the research on the issue of a supposed change in cosmic radiation, so I simply wasn't going to waste my time. I'm much more concerned what the evidence is showing

The evidence appears to show that you don't know what you are talking about with respect to GCRs and the cosmic radiative flux. See attached for a fraction of the peer-reviewed research you refer to but don't seem familiar with. I have many more such papers (and rejoinders and refutations by other scientists who disagree with the results of the research published in the attached studies and similar published, peer-reviewed research) I can provide for your perusal.

 

[metis]

So you are intimately familiar with PCA, the splicing issues and time series analysis, why the IPCC asked a retired Canadian prospector to serve as an expert in paleoclimatology (especially dendroclimatology) and then ignored his contributions, etc.? Or is this familiarity like that you have thus far demonstrated to possess: extremely limited, shallow, and lacking any real analysis of the scientific research and literature?

The evidence appears to show that you don't know what you are talking about with respect to GCRs and the cosmic radiative flux. See attached for a fraction of the peer-reviewed research you refer to but don't seem familiar with. I have many more such papers (and rejoinders and refutations by other scientists who disagree with the results of the research published in the attached studies and similar published, peer-reviewed research) I can provide for your perusal.

As I mentioned previously, especially since this is not my area of specialization in science, I lean in the direction of what those who specialize in the field of climatology, and that includes NASA, NOAA, the NSA, the NMI, etc.

And then you resort to a condescending insult instead of actually refuting what these agencies and what the vast majority of climatologists have actually concluded. I'm sure you figure that you know so much more than they, but my impression is that you came into this "discussion" with an "agenda" that is less about science and much more about something entirely different. Therefore, ...

fini. Capice?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As I mentioned previously, especially since this is not my area of specialization in science, I lean in the direction of what those who specialize in the field of climatology, and that includes NASA, NOAA, the NSA, the NMI, etc.

These are organizations. They are not researchers, and leading members and researchers belonging to these organizations have been awarded by them for their work in climate science and yet are fundamentally opposed to AGW (Spencer & Christy, for example, were awarded by NASA for their development of the satellite temperature record via MSU readings; Christy was an IPCC lead author and has been a contributor to subsequent publications of the reviews of scientific research in climate science in the IPCC reports since being a lead author). Scientists have resigned from these and other societies/associations/etc. because the PR releases and decisions made primarily by non-scientists or politically-motivated upper-echelon members that resulted in sweeping statements about the nature of climate science and AGW theory without even attempting to determine whether or not members of said associations agree with said PR statements.
At the end of the day, there is only the evidence from the research and the success of the models. The successes have been dismal, the theory is at heart based upon an assumption that our ignorance can serve as a parameter for a positive feedback, and that we can be assured that any other interpretations of our ignorance and failures cannot yield anything but mainstream AGW.
You lean in the direction of PR statements, not "those who specialize in the field of climatology", because to actually lean in such a direction requires being familiar with actual research, not NASA press releases or summaries for policy makers and other such non-scientific literature.

And then you resort to a condescending insult instead of actually refuting what these agencies and what the vast majority of climatologists have actually concluded.

I've provided what you merely refer to: the evidence and the research. This "vast majority" exists in your imagination, propaganda, and some decent survey studies. It is also totally irrelevant. The vast majority of scientists have, historically, been wrong and supported wrong theories, from classical mechanics to eugenics. Many leading climate scientists do not support AGW, but more importantly the research doesn't provide much in the way of support either. I think AGW is likely to be accurate, or at least something like AGW is probably correct. But the research is a quagmire of poor methods, failed models, failed predictions, poor practice, etc. Either do your research, or stop claiming to represent climate science because you parrot PR statements that may or may not correspond to some small part of published, peer-reviewed literature you seem so impressed by but are not familiar with.

 

[David M]

Nobody went to jail for any of it.

Just had to pick up on this claim, Its false priests have been sent to jail for exactly this crime.

Just a recent example: Catholic priest jailed for 12 years for sexually abusing 13 children

Dozens of priests have been sent to jail and the numbers keep rising.

 

[Kemosloby]

Just had to pick up on this claim, Its false priests have been sent to jail for exactly this crime.

Just a recent example: Catholic priest jailed for 12 years for sexually abusing 13 children

Dozens of priests have been sent to jail and the numbers keep rising.

He pleaded guilty, I guess even the Catholic church can't protect them when they plead guilty. That was after he was able to escape justice for many years, the guilt became to much for him to bear.