The Final Nail in The Coffin of Climate Change Part 2

The Washington Post asks: “Recently, a U.N. scientific report was found to have included a false conclusion about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. That followed the release of stolen e-mails last year, which showed climate scientists commiserating over problems with their data. Is there a broader meaning in these two incidents, and should they cause the public to be more skeptical about the underlying science of climate change?”

So first you had the climate gate emails, saying things like; "we have to cover up the mid-evil warming period" and "since the temperature increases throughout the last few centuries, more and more evidence is disproving the start of man-made global warming in the 90s."

But now you have, a 2007 IPPC report, saying that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Well that just shook up the whole argument. That stirred up all sorts of riot from the global warming alarmists. Now, we find out, that the claim, was taken from a, i believe, it was climbing magazine. A CLIMBING magazine, like for people who rock climb, a magazine for people who rock climb. This claim made it into the IPPC Report. Scientists have disputed this, yes REAL scientists, not Climbing magazine contributors. http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html

Throughout this, the IPPC not only lost credibility about the melting glaciers, but now also, about the increase in hurricanes and other natural disasters being caused by global warming. The paper that the claim was in had not been peer reviewed, and in 2008 was published but the claim about natural disaster increases was highly disputed. ""We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

So this claim just slipped in by a non reviewed source and has lead to the global warming mania that is crippling our economy. But it was a FRAUD!! Oh. I just, I just think this is all, i mean i have been screaming this stuff for years you know, none of this is science, it is all just fraud claims and altered facts, like what you say with the climategate emails.

But let's go back to the glaciers claim because this is where it gets scary. Um, so glaciologist Georg Kaser, described the melting glaciers in 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing."

So then they put it in the 2007 IPPC Climate Report...why? In an interview with the London Daily Mail on Sunday, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the chapter on Asia, told us all the answer. Ok so now this is the scary part, this is why you can trust NO ONE. His answer was; "It related to several countries in the region and their water sources, We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

They thought they could get concrete action from politicians. Ok so we know the facts, we still know that this global warming stuff is a hoax, but we still want environmental policies taken. So let's make up a claim, a claim that isn't factual and that is completely false, and use it to get those actions taken. Ends justify the means. Oh way but i thought that was just for greedy capitalists. This is the "science" that backs up global warming. 'Oh i just thought it would encourage green policies, so i lied to the entire world and caused millions of billions in spending and research and have essentially brainwashed millions of people all across the world to believe this crap, and it is all fake.

Now finally i would like to close this um, i could go on for hours on this topic, but i'll spare you the rants, um, read this email, from the research group, from the climategate emails. Everyone always talks about the hockey stick graph "Oh look, it shoots up! We've got global warming!"

Just read this:

From: Andy Revkin
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: mann's thoughts
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:44 -0400


that is a useful way to look at it.

again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability
same as variability during period used to calibrate your method.

so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that.
-----------------------

I just, i can't even, i've never been more frustrated. Al Gore told lies, complete lies, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for it. There never was a hockey stick graph. The data never existed it was made up. But it triggered all this green, environmentalist global warming BS. And now here is proof. "ah well it's not working like we hoped so let's just get rid of it and start over."

This, is science, this is the "science" that students, parents, teachers, government, this is the "science" that they are telling you. This is what they are using to get you to believe. This is what they are taking to push their point.

I think it's not the glaciers that are melting, it's the global warming alarmists, credibility that is melting.