German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
"February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus."
...
"We aren't done yet. Greater concentrations will be achieved, thanks to all the existing coal-fired power plants, more than a billion cars powered by internal combustion on the roads today and yet more clearing of forests. That's despite an avowed goal to stop at 450 ppm, the number broadly (if infirmly) linked to an average temperature rise of no more than 2 degrees C. More likely, by century's end enough CO2 will have been spewed from burning long-buried stores of fossilized sunshine to raise concentrations to 550 ppm or more, enough to raise average annual temperatures by as much as 6 degrees C in the same span. That may be more climate change than human civilization can handle, along with many of the other animals and plants living on Earth, already stressed by other human encroachments. The planet will be fine though; scientists have surmised from long-term records in rock that Earth has seen levels beyond 1,000 ppm in the past."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ric-highs/

"Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heat wave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000, [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there's a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. "Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with [climate change] theory unfortunately."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ng-rising/

Yesterday:
"A microscopic marine alga is thriving in the North Atlantic to an extent that defies scientific predictions, suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, a study led a by Johns Hopkins University scientist has found."

...

""Something strange is happening here, and it's happening much more quickly than we thought it should," said Anand Gnanadesikan, associate professor in the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins and one of the study's five authors.

Gnanadesikan said the Science report certainly is good news for creatures that eat coccolithophores, but it's not clear what those are. "What is worrisome," he said, "is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function." The result highlights the possibility of rapid ecosystem change, suggesting that prevalent models of how these systems respond to climate change may be too conservative, he said.""
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plan ... .html#nRlv

2013:
"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now."
...
" For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.

“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet.""
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the- ... xist-15938
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
icecreamlover said:
post 111311
The point of the graph is to show how 'experts' having constantly ( and quietly ) been adjusting their predictions down to increases that are either non-existent or far from alarming and within regular variations.
Some changes have been slower, and some faster, than earlier predicted. It's probably easy to pick one that was slower.

Even if there are a few people who argue about other contributors to climate change, I don't think the anthropogenic release of GHGs is disputed. CO2 really is higher than it has been for a very long time (although different methods make different estimates of exactly how long ago), and still rising.

All science is about relative probabilities. The only absolute certainties come from unscientific faith-based modes of perception. The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring (and accelerating) is very strong, even if some of the details are not exact.

icecreamlover said:
post 111311 There's lot of examples of areas in the world that have been experiencing cooling as well
This is consistence with the climate change models. It predicts that as climate patterns change, some places will get hotter, some colder, some drier, some wetter. More energy in the system, more weather.
I think many scientists etc switched from talking about 'global warming' to 'global climate change' to help people not confused by unseasonal snow, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
milk_lover said:
What is wrong with Donald Trump? I enjoy listening to him more than any american politician :D

You better hope there's someone left to help you. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Gl;itch.e said:
Crime in general has been on a decline for awhile now. But of course the news media will play up every bad event to make it look like things are actually getting worse and worse. We are kept in line through fear. If not from a higher power like God, then through threat of death and violence that only our benevolent leaders can protect us from.

What's a better bogey man than mother nature? If the rapists, murderers, terrorists aren't enough to keep us in fear then surely an unstoppable deadly change in the environment will do the job. Not good enough? Well what about the economy? If a person is the type that only cares about money then tell them that their job is in jeopardy and they should keep working hard (like a good little automaton) so they don't lose it.

Who benefits from all these narratives? Only the few.

Who would those "few" be?
Give me a clue.
 

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
41
Location
New Zealand
narouz said:
post 111319
Gl;itch.e said:
Crime in general has been on a decline for awhile now. But of course the news media will play up every bad event to make it look like things are actually getting worse and worse. We are kept in line through fear. If not from a higher power like God, then through threat of death and violence that only our benevolent leaders can protect us from.

What's a better bogey man than mother nature? If the rapists, murderers, terrorists aren't enough to keep us in fear then surely an unstoppable deadly change in the environment will do the job. Not good enough? Well what about the economy? If a person is the type that only cares about money then tell them that their job is in jeopardy and they should keep working hard (like a good little automaton) so they don't lose it.

Who benefits from all these narratives? Only the few.

Who would those "few" be?
Give me a clue.
Well there's the Space Nazis, the Lizard People, the illuminati, the Templars, the Rothschilds, the Anunnaki, Shadow ninja's, Krang and Shredder etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111320
narouz said:
post 111319
Gl;itch.e said:
Crime in general has been on a decline for awhile now. But of course the news media will play up every bad event to make it look like things are actually getting worse and worse. We are kept in line through fear. If not from a higher power like God, then through threat of death and violence that only our benevolent leaders can protect us from.

What's a better bogey man than mother nature? If the rapists, murderers, terrorists aren't enough to keep us in fear then surely an unstoppable deadly change in the environment will do the job. Not good enough? Well what about the economy? If a person is the type that only cares about money then tell them that their job is in jeopardy and they should keep working hard (like a good little automaton) so they don't lose it.

Who benefits from all these narratives? Only the few.

Who would those "few" be?
Give me a clue.
Well there's the Space Nazis, the Lizard People, the illuminati, the Templars, the Rothschilds, the Anunnaki, Shadow ninja's, Krang and Shredder etc.

But seriously.
Who are these "few" who are operating behind the scenes,
pulling enormous numbers of strings (it would seem)
to put across this global fiction presented by scientists (who've all been bought off, I guess)
?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
41
Location
New Zealand
narouz said:
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111320
narouz said:
post 111319
Gl;itch.e said:
Crime in general has been on a decline for awhile now. But of course the news media will play up every bad event to make it look like things are actually getting worse and worse. We are kept in line through fear. If not from a higher power like God, then through threat of death and violence that only our benevolent leaders can protect us from.

What's a better bogey man than mother nature? If the rapists, murderers, terrorists aren't enough to keep us in fear then surely an unstoppable deadly change in the environment will do the job. Not good enough? Well what about the economy? If a person is the type that only cares about money then tell them that their job is in jeopardy and they should keep working hard (like a good little automaton) so they don't lose it.

Who benefits from all these narratives? Only the few.

Who would those "few" be?
Give me a clue.
Well there's the Space Nazis, the Lizard People, the illuminati, the Templars, the Rothschilds, the Anunnaki, Shadow ninja's, Krang and Shredder etc.

But seriously.
Who are these "few" who are operating behind the scenes,
pulling enormous numbers of strings (it would seem)
to put across this global fiction presented by scientists (who've all been bought off, I guess)
?
Considering at first the Petrochemical companies were against the idea of climate change and now are for it I imagine that they have found a way to make more money off "accepting" the issue instead of "denying" it.

The few would be the people with all the money and the underlings trying to climb up to their station by massaging/propping up their interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111328 Considering at first the Petrochemical companies were against the idea of climate change and now are for it I imagine that they have found a way to make more money off "accepting" the issue instead of "denying" it.
What?! Did they all suddenly decide to stop pumping oil? I must have missed it. Time to clean up my bike for the summer.
Or do you mean they are now giving lip service to it and doing some green washing with a fraction of their resources?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
41
Location
New Zealand
tara said:
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111328 Considering at first the Petrochemical companies were against the idea of climate change and now are for it I imagine that they have found a way to make more money off "accepting" the issue instead of "denying" it.
What?! Did they all suddenly decide to stop pumping oil? I must have missed it. Time to clean up my bike for the summer.
Or do you mean they are now giving lip service to it and doing some green washing with a fraction of their resources?
Exactly. Pretend to be concerned. Play the clean green card. Scoop up subsidies for alternative fuels and keep on keeping on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spokey

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
321
If I were an oil baron I'd welcome pro climate change arguments. I could put my prices up under the auspices of protecting the environment. There's finite oil anyway, might as well get as much for it as I can! I could even fund alternative energy to make me look convincing and further justify price hikes (hey, might get lucky and find something even more lucrative). I'd use that research to gain donations for it's continuation as part of my charitable arm, and I'd claim diminished sales to extract government subsidies.

If I were a government, I'd use similar justifications for raising fuel tax.

Would I care if the theory of anthropogenic climate change was right? No. I'd promote it as if it was though.

But I'm evil so.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Spokey said:
post 111351 Would I care if the theory of anthropogenic climate change was right? No. I'd promote it as if it was though.
How would you respond to the publicity when peaceful protestors chain themselves to your extraction equipment etc.

I have no doubt that the dominant polluting coorporations will pressure governments to allow them to profit from the problems they've caused as changes are made. Good solutions would limit this, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Thanks for the informative posts tara!

tara said:
All science is about relative probabilities. The only absolute certainties come from unscientific faith-based modes of perception. The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring (and accelerating) is very strong, even if some of the details are not exact.

I like the way you think.
 

Spokey

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
321
tara said:
post 111354 to the publicity when peaceful protestors chain themselves to your extraction equipment etc.

I would be impressed at the technical ingenuity of someone managing to chain themselves to a deep sea oil rig, but I would also attempt to recruit them as part of a powerless 'directors board' on environmental issues, making them part of my PR machine. Or if I couldn't do that I would discredit them as tofu eating hippy extremists who're anti progress and anti science, making sure to mention the research we're doing in alternative energy, I'd compare them to terrorists attacking infrastructure of right thinking progressive nations. I'd also get them arrested by law enforcement bodies sanctioned by the very governments who I lobbied endlessly using the money they subsidized us with. The usual.

I'd also make sure that if I were causing real environmental problems that were eclipsed in the public's mind by climate change, that they stayed out of mind.

The dark side is fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111334
tara said:
Gl;itch.e said:
post 111328 Considering at first the Petrochemical companies were against the idea of climate change and now are for it I imagine that they have found a way to make more money off "accepting" the issue instead of "denying" it.
What?! Did they all suddenly decide to stop pumping oil? I must have missed it. Time to clean up my bike for the summer.
Or do you mean they are now giving lip service to it and doing some green washing with a fraction of their resources?
Exactly. Pretend to be concerned. Play the clean green card. Scoop up subsidies for alternative fuels and keep on keeping on.

An interesting conspiracy theory.
But the facts just don't comport.
Just for one obvious example,
the recent discoveries about Exxon's suppression of its own fossil fuel/climate studies.
Investigative journalists turned up evidence going back to the '70's
that Exxon's own scientists were finding that fossil fuel burning was warming the planet,
but they suppresssed that data.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...gnored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

More broadly, we simply do not see any of these fossil fuel companies behaving
as your conspiracy theory would imagine.
Just the opposite.
They are still plowing ahead at every turn,
science be damned,
going after every last drop/chunk in the earth.
It is still extremely profitable--look at their earnings reports.

We don't need another conspiracy theory to explain what's going on.
We already have a very transparent and time-tested explanation: profit.
(Here's where Donald Trump would fit in. "Greed is Good.")
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Spokey said:
post 111351 If I were an oil baron I'd welcome pro climate change arguments. I could put my prices up under the auspices of protecting the environment. There's finite oil anyway, might as well get as much for it as I can! I could even fund alternative energy to make me look convincing and further justify price hikes (hey, might get lucky and find something even more lucrative). I'd use that research to gain donations for it's continuation as part of my charitable arm, and I'd claim diminished sales to extract government subsidies.

If I were a government, I'd use similar justifications for raising fuel tax.

Would I care if the theory of anthropogenic climate change was right? No. I'd promote it as if it was though.

But I'm evil so.

Do you think the current scientific consensus
that the planet is warming
is a fiction and a conspiracy created by a few,
who will profit from it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Such_Saturation said:
post 111345 The nuclear barons...

Here's an angle that would make sense.
But their environmental record in other respects is so bad that it ties their hands in terms of marketing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Spokey said:
post 111367
tara said:
post 111354 to the publicity when peaceful protestors chain themselves to your extraction equipment etc.

I would be impressed at the technical ingenuity of someone managing to chain themselves to a deep sea oil rig, but I would also attempt to recruit them as part of a powerless 'directors board' on environmental issues, making them part of my PR machine. Or if I couldn't do that I would discredit them as tofu eating hippy extremists who're anti progress and anti science, making sure to mention the research we're doing in alternative energy, I'd compare them to terrorists attacking infrastructure of right thinking progressive nations. I'd also get them arrested by law enforcement bodies sanctioned by the very governments who I lobbied endlessly using the money they subsidized us with. The usual.

I'd also make sure that if I were causing real environmental problems that were eclipsed in the public's mind by climate change, that they stayed out of mind.

The dark side is fun.

Well, perhaps this is a clue.
Conspiracy theories are, for many people, fun.
It sometimes goes beyond "fun" though.
It becomes a kind of religion (often applied as a political "philosophy")
in the sense that it becomes a belief system which helps them to explain the world.
It also makes them feel special,
because they feel like a secret agent who understands the truth behind the scenes,
a truth that the majority is too dumb to perceive.
So they come to feel that they are like a poet/seer,
a rare and special person capable of seeing through prosaic life
into a Hidden Realm Behind the Scenes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spokey

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
321
I'm not making a theory of conspiracy as to how things are, but saying what I would do in the position of a corrupt oil company.

And I've not formed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, partly because I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me one way or another (most of it that I've seen looks like 'vaccine science', and the models generally presuppose we're knowledgeable of all significant variables already), but mostly because I'm totally unwilling to go through the same torment I've been through finding out just how broken and corrupt medical science has become over the last few decades and learning just how deaf people can be to the idea that an authority could be acting in ways opposing humanity's best interests.
 

milk_lover

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
1,909
narouz said:
post 111317
milk_lover said:
What is wrong with Donald Trump? I enjoy listening to him more than any american politician :D

You better hope there's someone left to help you. ;)

The video is using fear tactic, I don't take it seriously. Plus, people change and their views change...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Back
Top Bottom