CLIMATE FRAUD ????

just a quick question to ABC , CBS, AND NBC

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• hellorodney
• climate
• change
• climategate

[periurban]

It's a lot more than that. The data that was altered formed the foundations of the whole house of cards. Why is it that those who demand good science and actual evidence and a model of causality have an "agenda" *wink*, and those who mindlessly follow the consensus are in the right? Everyone has an agenda. It's just that some of us aren't easily hood*wink"ed.

[periurban]

They won't report on it because they are complicit in the fraud. To anyone who ever did their own research with an open mind the evidence of anthropic global warming was skimpy. The media and science are guilty by default of a conspiracy. The scientific method died a while back, as did investigative journalism. The media and science between them have driven public policy to the brink of disaster, demanding that we throw our econimies into reverse and deny emerging economies what we have.

[ClimateFraud]

The urgency demonstrated at Copenhagen to reach agreement looks very suspect. Make no mistake - Copenhagen is not about concern for the planet. It is an important progression to a unified power structure that sits above soverign nations.

I ask anybody that has an interested in contemplating the levels of power hidden behind the curtain, much like the Wizard of Oz, to do their own research. Looking into the Bilderberg Group and the Trilalteral Commission would be a good place to start.

[ClimateFraud]

I have also been shocked to witness an orchestrated campaign by the media to ignore the story or at least minimise its impact, leaving me in no doubt that the media are colluding through falsehoods and propoganda to support a hidden agenda. BBC, Guardian, NY TImes, CNN, etc, etc, have all been complicit, making me conscious that the very highest levels the media is run by oligarchs that share some covert and insidious agenda.

[PoPoNellie]

I just wish Michael Crichton could see this day. You warned us Michael, and we allowed ourselves to be caught up in ths bastard religion of "green science" and political ideology. Were no better then the fools in your novels that thought they knew how to control science.

[periurban]

They didn't show 25 glaciers. Only the ones that fit the theory. All the measurements you talk about relate to periods before the last 10 years. No-one is arguing that the planet has not warmed, just that it has not warmed *when it should have according to the theory*. As for the graphs google "ice core CO2 lag" and read both sides of the argument. The ice core data is empirical - the CO2 increase *follows* warming, but the resolution of the graph doesn't show it. That's obfuscation at best.

[lazlo5149]

They have 25 cameras recording glaciers all over the world. There is no "local phenomena" at work here.

Warming is unequivocal. Ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with records from surface weather stations.

[lazlo5149]

Photographic evidence of unprecedented and massive ice loss over the last ten years isn't proof of warming? Hell, it's better than statistical data.

"The graphs used in the video have been altered to fit the theory." Any evidence of that?

[periurban]

In fact, the data he is referring to actually shows the warming occuring *before* the CO2 rises. Not only has the noisy raw data been cleaned up so that it fits the theory, the "anomalies" have been erased to protect it. What Balog is saying is that his glaciers are retreating at a time when the planet is *not* warming. So, he is producing *evidence* that actually backs the idea that local phenomena and global temperature are not linked rendering his pictures less than irrelevant.

[periurban]

Lazlo. I watched the video. It contains no proof of current *global* warming. According to the CRU's own figures the temperature deviation from their "norm" is static, having shown only a 0.08 degree variance over the last 10 years. That is well within th expected statistical variation and is not what the theory predicted should be happening. If the theory cannot make accurate predictions it isn't worthy of the name. The graphs used in the video have been altered to fit the theory.

[helterskelter1]

Wow, 4 thumbs down on my comment LOL I guess lots of Bill O'Reilly fans in the house!

[lazlo5149]

Well, to be fair, it is warming. If you watch the video linked above you'll see irrefutable evidence of that.

It's genuinely depressing to see the global warming denier nonsense holding sway with otherwise intelligent people.