Remember me
▼ Content

The Global Warming Fraud


The Global Warming Fraud24-05-2020 02:47
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

More sources of information, facts, and science than you can handle, showing how fraudulent and frightened these people are as they grub for billions more research dollars to keep studying to death what they claim is already "fact, fact, fact."
24-05-2020 03:41
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
This AGW/CC Hoax is nearing an end
24-05-2020 05:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

More sources of information, facts, and science than you can handle, showing how fraudulent and frightened these people are as they grub for billions more research dollars to keep studying to death what they claim is already "fact, fact, fact."


Thanks for posting RenaissanceMan.

A number of things are alleged (or claimed as Facts) in the article you've linked to. Please let me know if I left anything important out:

"...shills tell everybody else that global warming is manmade"

1- "Fudging figures," Now the term fudging is a bit vague but I think it's fair to say the allegation is that data has been changed to draw a conclusion falsely.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

2- "biased papers and extremely misleading graphs," Self explanatory.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

3- "focus almost exclusively on CO2, and ignore the far larger concentration of water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, which is some forty times the concentration of CO2. " This clearly states that water vapor is not included in the study of global warming. Hard to believe.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

4- "Promoters of The Global Warming Fraud are raking in billions of tax dollars for research grants" Independently verified that:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

However this would be ture if it were not a "Fraud" so it only provides a motive and not proof of a crime.

These are points worth discussing.

The link is very long and appears to be a list of links and quotes that are not organized.

Maybe we can pick one thing and drill down on it?
24-05-2020 05:52
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
We are in the middle of a storm here in Perth West Australia so I have some spare time.I went to this link https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money and found it interesting.I am not sure what you wish to debate Tmiddles you seem to be pro AGW/CC yet you post links to complete opposite sites.Do you agree Micheal mann has been exposed.By point blank refusing to supply the data requested
24-05-2020 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

More sources of information, facts, and science than you can handle, showing how fraudulent and frightened these people are as they grub for billions more research dollars to keep studying to death what they claim is already "fact, fact, fact."


Thanks for posting RenaissanceMan.

A number of things are alleged (or claimed as Facts) in the article you've linked to. Please let me know if I left anything important out:

"...shills tell everybody else that global warming is manmade"

1- "Fudging figures," Now the term fudging is a bit vague but I think it's fair to say the allegation is that data has been changed to draw a conclusion falsely.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

2- "biased papers and extremely misleading graphs," Self explanatory.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

3- "focus almost exclusively on CO2, and ignore the far larger concentration of water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, which is some forty times the concentration of CO2. " This clearly states that water vapor is not included in the study of global warming. Hard to believe.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

4- "Promoters of The Global Warming Fraud are raking in billions of tax dollars for research grants" Independently verified that:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

However this would be ture if it were not a "Fraud" so it only provides a motive and not proof of a crime.

These are points worth discussing.

The link is very long and appears to be a list of links and quotes that are not organized.

Maybe we can pick one thing and drill down on it?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacies. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 38b...17...36c...6...39d.

No argument presented.


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
Edited on 24-05-2020 21:22
30-05-2020 23:32
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
tmiddles wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

More sources of information, facts, and science than you can handle, showing how fraudulent and frightened these people are as they grub for billions more research dollars to keep studying to death what they claim is already "fact, fact, fact."


Thanks for posting RenaissanceMan.

A number of things are alleged (or claimed as Facts) in the article you've linked to. Please let me know if I left anything important out:

"...shills tell everybody else that global warming is manmade"

1- "Fudging figures," Now the term fudging is a bit vague but I think it's fair to say the allegation is that data has been changed to draw a conclusion falsely.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

2- "biased papers and extremely misleading graphs," Self explanatory.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

3- "focus almost exclusively on CO2, and ignore the far larger concentration of water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, which is some forty times the concentration of CO2. " This clearly states that water vapor is not included in the study of global warming. Hard to believe.

The supplied support of this allegation in the paper is: ?

4- "Promoters of The Global Warming Fraud are raking in billions of tax dollars for research grants" Independently verified that:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

However this would be ture if it were not a "Fraud" so it only provides a motive and not proof of a crime.

These are points worth discussing.

The link is very long and appears to be a list of links and quotes that are not organized.

Maybe we can pick one thing and drill down on it?


The supplied support of all these points you question is amply provided in the extensive documentation at the website.
The "one thing" for you to study is the Keeling Curve, which I call the Scary Graph.

OMG! Look, it goes UP a LOT! So does TEMPERATURE. The same way.
oOOoO scary.

So does a population explosion graph if you have a base at 1,000,000 and a top at 1,000,001.

The Keeling Curve's fraudulent nature is thoroughly explained. You obviously did not bother to read it. Shameful for someone who pretends to want to "drill down on it." You don't want to "drill" at all. You simply want to keep pushing the Global Warming Fraud. Listen to Willie Soon's lectures. He's one of many scholars who has exposed the Climate Change Cult.
03-06-2020 13:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
The Keeling Curve's fraudulent nature is thoroughly explained. You obviously did not bother to read it. Shameful for someone who pretends to want to "drill down on it."
Hey man if you don't want to talk about it we don't have to. I was inviting you to discuss it with me. It's a very long text no I didn't read it all.

So this curve is fraudulent? Isn't it just Moana Loa's curve too?
03-06-2020 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
The Keeling Curve's fraudulent nature is thoroughly explained. You obviously did not bother to read it. Shameful for someone who pretends to want to "drill down on it."
Hey man if you don't want to talk about it we don't have to. I was inviting you to discuss it with me. It's a very long text no I didn't read it all.

So this curve is fraudulent? Isn't it just Moana Loa's curve too?


This curve is from Mauna Loa.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Mauna Loa has been cooking their data.


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
04-06-2020 10:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
This curve is from Mauna Loa.
Mauna Loa has been cooking their data.


Yet you presented as a model example in the DATA MINE. Why wouldn't you present data that wasn't cooked ITN? And no, you never answered that question."The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 04-06-2020 10:07
04-06-2020 15:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote: Why wouldn't you present data that wasn't cooked ITN? And no, you never answered that question.


Into the Night has answered your question many times, but as far as I am concerned, *I* have answered your question.

On 28 April 2020 IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So Mauna Loa CO2 records? You accept that as reliable?


More dishonesty on your part. Why did you not include the answer to your question that Into the Night posted (on several occasions) in response as well?

Why are pretending that Into the Night has not answered your question exhaustively?

The Mauna Loa equipment is accurate and capable of providing valid datasets.

The Mauna Loa humans intentionally fudge the numbers in order to report predetermined "results" and "conclusions," rendering both, i.e. everything reported, invalid and summarily rejected.



.


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
04-06-2020 16:48
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

More sources of information, facts, and science than you can handle, showing how fraudulent and frightened these people are as they grub for billions more research dollars to keep studying to death what they claim is already "fact, fact, fact."


That parade is not a list of facts but a list of unsubstantiated talking points. I have dealt with most of them already on my YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/drkstrong

"Billions for research" an old refrain but nobody can tell me where these $Bs come from (where specifically are they budgeted?) and what they are spent on. $1B would fund all the active climate researchers many times over.

Government research grants amount to a few $M and chiefly go to post grad and post doc students.
04-06-2020 16:53
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Listen to Willie Soon's lectures. He's one of many scholars who has exposed the Climate Change Cult.


Willie soon is the ultimate exposed fraudster, taking $Ms under the table from the fossil fuel interests and not declaring his true sources of income as is required by all scientist publishing papers.
04-06-2020 18:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote:Willie soon is the ultimate exposed fraudster, taking $Ms under the table from the fossil fuel interests and not declaring his true sources of income as is required by all scientist publishing papers.

Let's see ... you have no complaints about the accuracy of what Willie Soon writes, but you call him a "fraudster" because you speculate that he was possibly less than forthright about his personal finances.

It's good to know that your priorities are straight.

.


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
04-06-2020 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This curve is from Mauna Loa.
Mauna Loa has been cooking their data.


Yet you presented as a model example in the DATA MINE. Why wouldn't you present data that wasn't cooked ITN? And no, you never answered that question."The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:

Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.



RQAA.


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
04-06-2020 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
DRKTS wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Listen to Willie Soon's lectures. He's one of many scholars who has exposed the Climate Change Cult.


Willie soon is the ultimate exposed fraudster, taking $Ms under the table from the fossil fuel interests and not declaring his true sources of income as is required by all scientist publishing papers.


No scientist is required to do anything to publish a paper other than to simply write it and publish it. They aren't even required to publish a paper. They do not have to declare their funding or any other information at all.

Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. It is just the theories themselves.


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
Edited on 04-06-2020 21:18
04-06-2020 23:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
The Mauna Loa equipment is accurate and capable of providing valid datasets.

The Mauna Loa humans intentionally fudge the numbers in order to report predetermined "results" and "conclusions," rendering both, i.e. everything reported, invalid and summarily rejected.

ITN, nor you, have EVER answered why ITN would use a "bad" graph as an example? You're saying the numbers were fudged BEFORE plotted on the graph right? So why post it? That was ITN's choice, as well as his choice to go on to use the data in his arguments. Example:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
He has NEVER clarified that and neither have you. You sure didn't just now.

DRKTS wrote: my YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/drkstrong
Wow I didn't want to skip over this DRKTS you have quite a library with some impressive view counts.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-06-2020 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Mauna Loa equipment is accurate and capable of providing valid datasets.

The Mauna Loa humans intentionally fudge the numbers in order to report predetermined "results" and "conclusions," rendering both, i.e. everything reported, invalid and summarily rejected.

ITN, nor you, have EVER answered why ITN would use a "bad" graph as an example?

We don't. YOU do. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You're saying the numbers were fudged BEFORE plotted on the graph right?

No. They are random numbers of type randU. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
So why post it?
Good question.
tmiddles wrote:
That was ITN's choice, as well as his choice to go on to use the data in his arguments.

I do not use the 'data' in my arguments. They are random numbers.


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
Edited on 05-06-2020 02:57
05-06-2020 14:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
I do not use the 'data' in my arguments. They are random numbers.

You presented the Mauna Loa chart as an example and later said:
Into the Night wrote:...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
How is that no using the Mauna Loa data in your argument?
Edited on 05-06-2020 14:29
05-06-2020 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I do not use the 'data' in my arguments. They are random numbers.

You presented the Mauna Loa chart as an example and later said:
Into the Night wrote:...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
How is that no using the Mauna Loa data in your argument?

RQAA.


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




Join the debate The Global Warming Fraud:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Global Warming Fraud16421-08-2019 10:31
Research Grant Fraud931-03-2019 17:28
In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud904-01-2018 01:14
climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud. So much for SCIENCE, eh? More like POLITICAL scie527-04-2017 22:31
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact