Global Warming

[Bo D]

Scientific computing is nothing more than humans putting data into a machine with no real life variables and coming up with possibilities, not fact, as to how things "might" work.  Try as they may they cannot plug in what Mother Nature may do to change things and screw up their "projected" figures. 

"Scientific Computing" is an e-mag. They publish science thingies.

It was their article that I cited on the figures from the last 135 years of recorded temperatures.

But you didn't bother to even open the link. But that's OK. I know how science (and facts and stuff) terrifies you.

[me]

I look at science for what it is, experimentation, sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong.  Science used to be about cleaning up our environment and conserving which involved a little work and sacrifice and could be done cheaply by recycling and such.   All of a sudden it started involving costly measures which had nothing to do with conserving or recycling and made some people uber rich, Al Gore and his carbon credit company, but allowed the rich to keep right on polluting by buying carbon credits and specially trained people, (government trained in all probability), the average person isn't smart enough, to remake your existing home into a "green" one, and special "green" products to build new homes and businesses.  Then there's all those regulations which are causing our energy rates to "necessarily" soar.  And the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer. 

[Bo D]

I look at science for what it is, experimentation, sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong.  Science used to be about cleaning up our environment and conserving which involved a little work and sacrifice and could be done cheaply by recycling and such.   All of a sudden it started involving costly measures which had nothing to do with conserving or recycling and made some people uber rich, Al Gore and his carbon credit company, but allowed the rich to keep right on polluting by buying carbon credits and specially trained people, (government trained in all probability), the average person isn't smart enough, to remake your existing home into a "green" one, and special "green" products to build new homes and businesses.  Then there's all those regulations which are causing our energy rates to "necessarily" soar.  And the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer.

And absolutely none of that dribbling diatribe has anything at all to do with science.

[me]

Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

[Bo D]

Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

Robert M. Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."

Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". [in other words, he's a liar.]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

[me]

Typical response but yet you ignore the fact that some of the very scientists you believe are in the pockets of Al Gore and the government. I do keep forgetting that lib's/dem's wouldn't do something like try to profit off of something like that though.

[Bo D]

Typical response but yet you ignore the fact that some of the very scientists you believe are in the pockets of Al Gore and the government. I do keep forgetting that lib's/dem's wouldn't do something like try to profit off of something like that though.

Where's the profit in keeping accurate records for the past 135 years? And then reporting it truthfully?

[me]

What they changed were the facts that it is a cycle, which it is, and the earth is making drastic changes, which it isn't.

[Bo D]

What they changed were the facts that it is a cycle, which it is, and the earth is making drastic changes, which it isn't.

They didn't change a damn thing!

[Bo D]

This is the last thing I have to post today ...

What part of "the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping" do you not understand?

[me]

What part of how they did the math can't you figure out?  Another group of scientists could figure it a different way and come up with something different.  Just depends on what they want us to believe.  I'm done too.

[libby]

What part of how they did the math can't you figure out?  Another group of scientists could figure it a different way and come up with something different.  Just depends on what they want us to believe.

And, for some, what they're paid.    Sorry, couldn't resist that.

The $20,000 paid annually by the Heartland Institute to Carter is also mentioned in his long wiki bio:

"In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist {anthropogenic global warming} message'. While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments. Carter has denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought."

[Bo D]

What part of how they did the math can't you figure out?  Another group of scientists could figure it a different way and come up with something different.  Just depends on what they want us to believe.  I'm done too.

Show me one - just one -legitimate scientist that says this wasn't the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping.

[me]

Show me one - just one -legitimate scientist that says this wasn't the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping.

I could show you Einstein and you'd say he wasn't legit if his opinion differed from what you believe.

[Henry Hawk]

Show me one - just one -legitimate scientist that says this wasn't the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping.

Okay, I HAD to do a little research, but here you go:

Joe Bastardi, a professional meteorologist, has said the following:

It's bad enough when the media indulge in sensationalism, but it is totally unprofessional when weather and climate institutes do the same.

In his latest Saturday Summary, he goes after and rips US weather and climate agencies for poor, and often hyped forecasts.


  "And that's one of the big problems we have today. People that are here today are classifying things that happened before and changing everything that was recorded before."


As an example Bastardi cites GISS in their dubious claim that September 2014 was the warmest on record, when clearly it was not. Bastardi shows that at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.2spxIBgw.dpuf