people despise climate scientists because they have a political agenda

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > people despise climate scientists because they have a political agenda

people despise climate scientists because they have a political agenda10-02-2016 19:16
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Climate scientists take money from fat cat politicians and big corporations to spew CAGW agenda nonsense so they can tax people about CO2 and get even richer. That's why people don't believe in global warming. Keeling is paid big money to make up CO2 numbers at NOAA to scare the world about CO2 increasing year after year. All his numbers are fake. Liar liar pants on fire. Liar liar pants on fire. https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 Edited on 10-02-2016 19:21
10-02-2016 22:00
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: ......All his numbers are fake...... https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 How is it you know this?
10-02-2016 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (22646)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Climate scientists take money from fat cat politicians and big corporations to spew CAGW agenda nonsense so they can tax people about CO2 and get even richer. That's why people don't believe in global warming. Keeling is paid big money to make up CO2 numbers at NOAA to scare the world about CO2 increasing year after year. All his numbers are fake. Liar liar pants on fire. Liar liar pants on fire. https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 The Keeling process of measuring CO2 does have a certain validity to its reasoning. It also has certain flaws that could affect the accuracy of the measurements possible, that are being addressed with varying degrees of verification. Since CO2 doesn't really do much in the atmosphere except help plants grow, I frankly could care less what the readings are. The whole program smacks of simply being used to generate a scare. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-02-2016 22:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	Into the Night wrote:The whole program smacks of simply being used to generate a scare. ..."smacks of" or "is"? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2016 23:17
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	still learning wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: ......All his numbers are fake...... https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 How is it you know this? Because only a fool would believe CO2 goes up by 5 ppm after a year.

10-02-2016 23:20
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Obama proposes 10 dollars tax on each barrel of oil. That's billions of dollars going into the pockets of fat cat politicians. Only moral scientists reject CAGW because they are scientifically integral rather than paid off by fat cat politicians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPWV6-GhUk Edited on 10-02-2016 23:22
11-02-2016 00:07
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: still learning wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: ......All his numbers are fake...... https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 How is it you know this? Because only a fool would believe CO2 goes up by 5 ppm after a year. How about if you look at the page you linked to a little more? Scroll down a little to the graph. Click on the "two years" below the "Mauna Loa Local Time" just below the graph. Should get a sort of sine-wave displayed. Shows an almost 10 ppm variation within the year. Click backward to the original screen, now choose "Record Since 1958" instead of "Two Years." Should get the entire Keeling curve for Mauna Loa. Shows that the several ppm seasonal variation has gone on since 1958. No doubt occurred before Keeling started his work too. So why has the seasonal increase in CO2 occurred earlier this year? I don't know. Probably an El Nino effect, but I don't know. Other folks have made similar measurements in other parts of the world. Similar results, except that in the southern hemisphere the seasonal variation is less pronounced and offset by about six months, as expected.
11-02-2016 02:05
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	still learning wrote: How about if you look at the page you linked to a little more? Scroll down a little to the graph. Click on the "two years" below the "Mauna Loa Local Time" just below the graph. Should get a sort of sine-wave displayed. Shows an almost 10 ppm variation within the year. Click backward to the original screen, now choose "Record Since 1958" instead of "Two Years." Should get the entire Keeling curve for Mauna Loa. Shows that the several ppm seasonal variation has gone on since 1958. No doubt occurred before Keeling started his work too. So why has the seasonal increase in CO2 occurred earlier this year? I don't know. Probably an El Nino effect, but I don't know. Other folks have made similar measurements in other parts of the world. Similar results, except that in the southern hemisphere the seasonal variation is less pronounced and offset by about six months, as expected. 1998 was a big el nino year. CO2 increased only about 2.2 from 1998 to 1999. 2015 el nino was much smaller than the one in 1998. No way CO2 increases by more than 5 ppm from 2015 to 2016. Edited on 11-02-2016 02:05
11-02-2016 13:12
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: .....No way CO2 increases by more than 5 ppm from 2015 to 2016. It hasn't. Not really. Look at the graph again on the page you linked to. scroll down below the 404.41 and the 399.75 to the graph that has 404.43 above it. Now change the amount of time displayed in the graph by clicking on the "one year" area below the graph. You get the last year's measurements pictured. Just eyeballing the graph, would you now say that the CO2 level has increased by more than 5 ppm from 2015 to 2016? I don't think most people would say so. The usual seasonal natural variation of CO2 level has shifted it's timing some making comparison of the exact same day this year against last year not such a good idea.
11-02-2016 21:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (22646)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The whole program smacks of simply being used to generate a scare. ..."smacks of" or "is"? Smacks of. There is certainly the possibility that Keeling was just a trying to figure out a way to measure CO2 geek style when he started. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-02-2016 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (22646)	still learning wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: still learning wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: ......All his numbers are fake...... https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 How is it you know this? Because only a fool would believe CO2 goes up by 5 ppm after a year. How about if you look at the page you linked to a little more? Scroll down a little to the graph. Click on the "two years" below the "Mauna Loa Local Time" just below the graph. Should get a sort of sine-wave displayed. Shows an almost 10 ppm variation within the year. Click backward to the original screen, now choose "Record Since 1958" instead of "Two Years." Should get the entire Keeling curve for Mauna Loa. Shows that the several ppm seasonal variation has gone on since 1958. No doubt occurred before Keeling started his work too. So why has the seasonal increase in CO2 occurred earlier this year? I don't know. Probably an El Nino effect, but I don't know. Other folks have made similar measurements in other parts of the world. Similar results, except that in the southern hemisphere the seasonal variation is less pronounced and offset by about six months, as expected. Keeling invented the instrumentation. It is the same instrumentation used every else as well. It should see similar patterns. The question, I think, is whether the instrumentation invented by Keeling is accurately measuring CO2 or CO2 in combination with something else. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate people despise climate scientists because they have a political agenda:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Why are the FBI and CIA still protecting the people who murdered JFK?	1	23-10-2024 04:17
Previous Panics by Scientists	0	27-03-2024 20:35
People Do Not Care About Climate Change Environment If They Still Have Money Economy Issue	5	03-12-2023 18:39
Worsening warming is hurting people in all regions, US climate assessment shows	29	23-11-2023 02:17
People who prefer to write anonymously	0	16-11-2023 22:50