The Global Warming Fraud

[ChemEngrMBA]

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

This may come as a shock to you, but scientists lie.
They lie for dollars, billions of dollars.
They lie for prestige.
They lie to gain tenure.
They lie to be part of their majority when majority opinion has nothing to do with science.
They lie by selectively using some of their data and ignoring other data.
And they lie with the simplest of graphs.

[Gazoo]

When all of the emails leaked exposed global warming as a fraud the democrats changed the name to climate change.

Global warming is like ACORN the same crap with a different name.

Thanks for posting the article as it seems everyone forgot about global warming being very exposed and very fraudulent.

[Oceander]

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

This may come as a shock to you, but scientists lie.
They lie for dollars, billions of dollars.
They lie for prestige.
They lie to gain tenure.
They lie to be part of their majority when majority opinion has nothing to do with science.
They lie by selectively using some of their data and ignoring other data.
And they lie with the simplest of graphs.

No shock whatsoever.  This sort of problem has been around - admittedly in lesser form because the financial stakes were never so high - for years.  It's similar to the incentive scientists have to lie in order to get or maintain tenure.

The question, of course, is how can that incentive be mitigated/minimized?

[Gazoo]

No shock whatsoever.  This sort of problem has been around - admittedly in lesser form because the financial stakes were never so high - for years.  It's similar to the incentive scientists have to lie in order to get or maintain tenure.

The question, of course, is how can that incentive be mitigated/minimized?

The only way any incentive leaves is if the liberals are told to stop pushing the lie of global warming/climate change. Obama,The Clintons global initiative,Al Gore,most of socialistic Europe.

[Oceander]

The only way any incentive leaves is if the liberals are told to stop pushing the lie of global warming/climate change. Obama,The Clintons global initiative,Al Gore,most of socialistic Europe.

Not necessarily.  The question is broader and has to do with figuring out how to minimize the incentives scientists come under to manipulate or distort their work for political - or financial - gain.  The peer review process is supposed to be one of the protections but as the Global Warming cult has demonstrated, if enough similarly motivated individuals gain control over the peer review process, then dissenting voices are shut out before they can ever be heard.  In other words, the very process intended, in part, to ensure the objectivity of scientific results ends up being perverted and turned into a tool to further the manipulation and distortion of science.

[jmyrlefuller]

Not necessarily.  The question is broader and has to do with figuring out how to minimize the incentives scientists come under to manipulate or distort their work for political - or financial - gain.  The peer review process is supposed to be one of the protections but as the Global Warming cult has demonstrated, if enough similarly motivated individuals gain control over the peer review process, then dissenting voices are shut out before they can ever be heard.  In other words, the very process intended, in part, to ensure the objectivity of scientific results ends up being perverted and turned into a tool to further the manipulation and distortion of science.

What results is a phenomenon known as "mass hysteria." When everyone around you starts doing something, even if it's strange and irrational, you feel compelled to follow along. I feel that my peers in the climatology field (I'm a meteorologist by trade, but I'm basically shut out of the industry) have fallen victim to it.

They have made crucial assumptions in regard to the Earth's climate that have, quite frankly, only superficially been examined: 1) the earth is warming over the long term (certainly an arguable point). 2) the earth is warming directly because of the increased amount of CO² in the atmosphere. 3) said CO² comes from combustion (this is almost always directly assumed, while the increased amount of life-- especially human life-- is seemingly ignored. Also note that the effect of aerosol emissions, i.e. particulate matter, has by and large counteracted the effects of CO²-related greenhouse warming). 4) the changes to the climate are inherently bad, and can have no good consequences (false). 5) what has supposedly taken centuries to get to this point can supposedly be solved within our lifetime, with no bad consequences of note (again, false).

[jmyrlefuller]

By the way, I have seen the peer review process as a result of college education. The system is shady to say the least. Even though meteorological (and especially climatological) research is extremely inexpensive to perform thanks to the extensive government infrastructure, the American Meteorological Society-- the organization that controls the vast majority of meteorology journals, including all of the climatological ones, in the United States-- charges tens of thousands of dollars to have work reviewed, effectively redlining a lot of research from ever being scrutinized. It effectively requires NSF grant money to get the studies published, and if you find alternate sources of funding, you're immediately treated as if you've been bought by some big oil company. It's part of the reason I don't ever plan on joining the AMS.

There is a legitimate alternative, the National Weather Association (NWA), but it focuses primarily on operational forecasting. I've considered joining that one.

[Oceander]

By the way, I have seen the peer review process as a result of college education. The system is shady to say the least. Even though meteorological (and especially climatological) research is extremely inexpensive to perform thanks to the extensive government infrastructure, the American Meteorological Society-- the organization that controls the vast majority of meteorology journals, including all of the climatological ones, in the United States-- charges tens of thousands of dollars to have work reviewed, effectively redlining a lot of research from ever being scrutinized. It effectively requires NSF grant money to get the studies published, and if you find alternate sources of funding, you're immediately treated as if you've been bought by some big oil company. It's part of the reason I don't ever plan on joining the AMS.

There is a legitimate alternative, the National Weather Association (NWA), but it focuses primarily on operational forecasting. I've considered joining that one.

The peer review system is, unfortunately, only as good as the good-faith of those who serve as the reviewing peers.  Corrupt them, and you corrupt the entire system.  That, in a nutshell, appears to have been what happened with climate science, thereby giving rise to the Cult of Climatology.

[ChemEngrMBA]

Be wary of non-zero graphs.  For example, you can draw a graph of a population of 1,000,000 as the base.
Then show 1,000,001 and draw a 45 degree angle up from 1,000,000 to 1,000,001 and show a HUGE
"increase."  This is just the beginning of the Keeling Curve.

Then they use fantasmagoric small numbers, parts per million, NOT percent of the atmosphere, the normal measure.
For example,  oxygen is 19% of the atmosphere.  Nitrogen is 80%.

Carbon dioxide, at 370 parts per million is about .000001%. 

Worse by far, carbon dioxide is not even the primary greenhouse gas.  They NEVER include water vapor, which is.

Finally, the annual increase is about 1 part per million.  Let's all sequester ourselves inside our homes until we die for the sake
of 1 ppm, shall we?  Hypocrites Al Gore and "scientists" first.