Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Just think in two days these paid trolls will not be paid any longer and will leave.

Soi John, where are you going to be in case I want some useless drivel?

 

[toppop52]

This references the Nature Journal piece;

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification,”

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes. The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.

But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009 when a hacker broke into the computers at t he Universit y o f East An gli a’s Cl im ate Resear ch Un it (CRU) and released 1079 emails and 72 documents exposing willful fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the most world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures and the e-mails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence, and conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made Global Warming theory. One e- mail describes tricks used supporting Anthropogenics in major Nature article:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper-ventilated over the hacker leaks they referred to as the “Climategate Scandal” ; Nature quickly retaliated in defense of Anthropogenic Global Warming with a scathing editorial titled: “Climatologists Under Pressure” stating: “Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.” The editorial skewered academic doubters of man-made Global Warming as the “climate-change-denialist fringe” and in a shocking Freudian-slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

“This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”

For Nature to now publish research that eviscerates the Anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8% of 1990 levels to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The U.S. Senate legislation that Nature sought to stridently lobbying for is named “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007”; commonly known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that the costs of complying with Cap-and-Trade would include; a 29% increase in the price of gasoline, losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and lead to reductions of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion of the U.S. GDP by 2030. Furthermore, Cap-and-Trade would set up a gargantuan intergovernmental bureaucracy that would likely ban natural gas fracking, steam injection of tar sands, and surface coal mining for exploration and development of America’s immense energy reserves.

After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

 

[toppop52]

Then there's this study that shows the narcissists of global warming aren't quite omnipotent;

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?

"How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?"

鏑asers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.

'As respondents science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.'

- Study

"As respondents science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes."

 

[IslandTractor]

This references the Nature Journal piece;

Top, you really need to stop using conservative denier blogs for your scientific edumacation. That story is a complete lie, just like the Daily Mail piece you and Cat got so excited about a month ago. Not only is it a lie but had you done even the slightest further research, you would have found out it had been exposed as such quite clearly.

Here is a link to one exposé :
http://rationallythinkingoutloud.co...-other-than-andrew-breitbarts-big-government/

The denier blogs are increasingly posting utter fabrications as earlier efforts to instill doubt are brushed aside with solid evidence. The mainstream press manages to avoid publishing some of this crap. I betcha even Fox passed on it. I don't believe how gullible you are. As soon as Cat sobers up this morning he'll probably repost your mistake. BWAAAAH

Now, you still owe us a scientific paper supporting your views. Hint: read it yourself before posting.

 

[toppop52]

The Nature Journal is the single most respected science journal open to the public, they posted the article about the falsehoods of AGW without comment. That says volumes in it's silence. They post only the most important scientific research and developments. For you to call them a "denier blog", shows only your blatant ignorance.

 

[IslandTractor]

The Nature Journal is the single most respected science journal open to the public, they posted the article about the falsehoods of AGW without comment. That says volumes in it's silence. They post only the most important scientific research and developments. For you to call them a "denier blog", shows only your blatant ignorance.

I thought you were going to READ articles before referring to them. Please post the exact citation from Nature. Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, the supposed author of that paper you refer to, HAS NEVER PUBLISHED A PAPER IN NATURE according to the people who investigated this lie (I tried to check myself but the Nature website is down for maintenance apparently). Can you read? Did you read the link I included above? It clearly establishes that your vaunted Nature article is nothing of the sort you claim it is. Get a clue. READ IT YOURSELF! You have been bamboozled yet again by a purposely deceitful denier blog. Would you please grow up and acknowledge when you are wrong or do you want to further impugn your own integrity?

(Edit: Nature website now back up: the name Jyrki Kauppinen returns zero hits when searching Nature for articles)

Maybe you need to change your signature to : Southern Boy and working to confirm the image of ignorant, gullible and ill educated denier.

 

[toppop52]

They do appear down currently, but I found at least three anti AGW articles they posted with equal credence to the pro AGW articles. Now thy don't say they agree, but they don't post what they consider bad science. Try again when the site is up, I don't have a magic wand to make it appear for you.

 

[IslandTractor]

They do appear down currently, but I found at least three anti AGW articles they posted with equal credence to the pro AGW articles. Now thy don't say they agree, but they don't post what they consider bad science. Try again when the site is up, I don't have a magic wand to make it appear for you.

The Nature site is up. The paper you referred to DOES NOT EXIST. There is no paper by the scientist who your source quoted. It is BOGUS. You posted a phony reference because you did not bother to read what you were telling us was a Nature paper that refutes AGW.

All you have really accomplished today is to demonstrate another perfect example of low IQ dittohead regurgitation of falsehoods from a denier echo chamber that anyone with an ounce of common sense and access to Google could have spotted. Your ability to determine the "credence" of climate science papers is zilch. READ THE CRAP BEFORE YOU POST IT!!!

 

[houstonscott]

Maybe you need to change your signature to : Southern Boy and working to confirm the image of ignorant, gullible and ill educated denier.


Wow, I wouldn't let any one call me that, in fact I wouldn't tolerate it at all, you need to apologize to Toppop52 directly. Lucky you are not in Texas.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

Maybe you need to change your signature to : Southern Boy and working to confirm the image of ignorant, gullible and ill educated denier.

Wow, I wouldn't let any one call me that, in fact I wouldn't tolerate it at all, you need to apologize to Toppop52 directly. Lucky you are not in Texas.

HS

Maybe he should man up and acknowledge his error. That would improve the image of southern boys more than waffling and BS'ing about six more papers he refers to but clearly hasn't read.

This is a discussion forum. We are all entitled to our interpretations of data and theories. We cannot post blatant lies without consequences. A real southern gentleman would own up to a mistake, when he does I'll most certainly back off.