Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[LivingWordUnity]

As I said, scientists are humans who make mistakes. They aren't gods.

 

[Needing_Grace]

As I said, scientists are humans who make mistakes. They aren't gods.

That's why there's peer review. You have people LOOKING for errors with a fine tooth comb. If they find errors, they make it known to the scientific community so other scientists can check and confirm their conclusions. That's how science self-corrects. Scientists are always asking questions and when they get an answer, there's always another question.

I don't have a problem with it because it's a process of ongoing discovery.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

That's why there's peer review.

Peer review doesn't make them infallible either. A group of people can all agree on the wrong answer. They have erred before with peer reviewing. With peer reviewing, they predicted "global cooling." Then with peer reviewing they predicted "global warming." Then they changed it to "climate change" to cover all the bases so that it doesn't matter what happens they can still have something to scare people with to get funding.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that today's estimated calculation of the mean temperature of the planet a thousand years from now is accurate. There is a near infinite number of variables, most of which have nothing to do with what humans do, that would have to remain unchanged from now to then for their calculation of today to still be true a thousand years from now.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

We're not talking thousands of years in the future, we're seeing the effects and damage from climate change now in many parts of the world including the US thought we've been insulated from the worst so far.
It's as if we're still wondering about making the effort to stem a global crisis after Pearl harbor.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

We're not talking thousands of years in the future, we're seeing the effects and damage from climate change now in many parts of the world

Aren't you talking about weather and not climate change then? And when you say "climate change" are you saying that things are getting hotter or that things are getting colder? I can't take you seriously as long as you are using vague terms that can have totally opposite meanings. It's like the "change" political slogan. Why did they change it from "global warming" to "climate change"? Can you at least explain that one to me?

 

[Lollerskates]

Climate change is about politics. There are so many scientists - independent and mainstream that know this. The unfortunate part is the ones that dare speak out are blacklisted and academically bullied. Suspicion about climate change as a scientist is tantamount to suspicion that there may be more to the word of God than the biblical canon. Excommunication...blacklisting.

Earth changes, and climate change on a global scale is real, but it is certainly much more than human consequences. Electromagnetic/cosmic radiation is one of the largest contributors. The biggest source of this comes from the sun.

The score of largest ship carriers on this planet put out more pollutants than all 760,000,000 automobiles combined. This is a political push that will become part of uniting the world under a single authoratative entity: erasing borders in exchange for promoting the common "well being of the planet." Politics. If this doesnt work, then it will be one of many NEOs that NASA has classified posing an imminent threat all of a sudden.

We are either on the very beginning, or end of a long-period geological change - I am talking tens of thousands of years in the making. Earth changes does not happen over 250 years unless something much greater than CO2, CH4, etc. influences the planet. The earth, just like human bodies, can take a lot of trauma without necessarily suffering grave consequences in a relatively short time. Humans do not develop lung cancer by smoking one pack of cigarettes. That is what alarmist rhetoric is comparably saying. You have to already be acutely ill for one to get cancer from a pack of smokes (i.e., the earth has already been going through a periodic shift/change, and our subtle involvement in producing pollutants just adds perturbations.)

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Aren't you talking about weather and not climate change then? And when you say "climate change" are you saying that things are getting hotter or that things are getting colder? I can't take you seriously as long as you are using vague terms that can have totally opposite meanings. It's like the "change" political slogan. Why did they change it from "global warming" to "climate change"? Can you at least explain that one to me?

Weather is what's happening today, climate change is the trend, the long term direction things are moving, looking over decades or so.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Weather is what's happening today, climate change is the trend, the long term direction things are moving, looking over decades or so.

Why did they change the name from "global warming" to "climate change"?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

The science is there for anyone who is willing to look. Even the Catholic Church is concerned. But some won't look and will trust instead the opinions they want to hear regardless of the source. Just look at how many believe that vaccines cause autism on the words of adult movie stars and comedians. Look at the site, read the papers, see the actual data for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Look at the droughts, see the displaced people. Or don't, and keep on denying. Those that see the danger will do their best to mitigate it anyway and hopefully they will succeed.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The science is there for anyone who is willing to look. Even the Catholic Church is concerned. But some won't look and will trust instead the opinions they want to hear regardless of the source. Just look at how many believe that vaccines cause autism on the words of adult movie stars and comedians. Look at the site, read the papers, see the actual data for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Look at the droughts, see the displaced people. Or don't, and keep on denying. Those that see the danger will do their best to mitigate it anyway and hopefully they will succeed.

You said all of that to avoid answering my question.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Why did they change the name from "global warming" to "climate change"?

I posted this site earlier but here you go.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Global warming vs climate change

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Global warming vs climate change

You are aware that data can be cherry-picked and manipulated, right? Do you agree that since neither you nor I are climate experts we can be easily fooled by manipulation of data? You have talked about how the studies are peer reviewed. When you say this, whether you realize it or not, you are talking about the scientists who would all answer uniformly to the left if they were asked what their opinion is on any political issue. But when conservative climate experts peer review their work they have come to a different conclusion.

 

[Lollerskates]

You are aware that data can be cherry-picked and manipulated, right? Do you agree that since neither you nor I are climate experts we can be easily fooled by manipulation of data? You have talked about how the studies are peer reviewed. When you say this, whether you realize it or not, you are talking about the scientists who would all answer uniformly to the left if they were asked what their opinion is on any political issue. But when conservative climate experts peer review their work they have come to a different conclusion.

I am a physicist and, while I am not a climatologist, I can certainly affirm that data IS manipulated, peer reviews most often mean "in-house" scrutiny, and scientist can be thoroughly bought. Moreover, I know of many scientists that have come out and blew the whistle on the criminal activity of climate alarmism only for their scholarly articles to be removed, suffer blacklist, and in extreme cases harassment and death (threats.) This activity relies on public incredulity and ignorance of science to keep it going. Good people are suffering harsh consequences in the name of transparency. It is real, unlike man made climate change. Too many scientists have tried to expose this political agenda only to be dismissed by their peers and public. Even when hackers provided clear evidence of scientists manipulating data for politics, people still scoffed. It is sickening what "academia" is doing to its own people, and the public laypersons.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

You? are aware that data can be cherry-picked and manipulated, right? Do you agree that since neither you nor I are climate experts we can be easily fooled by manipulation of data? You have talked about how the studies are peer reviewed. When you say this, whether you realize it or not, you are talking about the scientists who would all answer uniformly to the left if they were asked what their opinion is on any political issue. But when conservative climate experts peer review their work they have come to a different conclusion.

Why do you assume I'm not an expert?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

 

[Fantine]

Originally Posted by LivingWordUnity
You? are aware that data can be cherry-picked and manipulated, right? Do you agree that since neither you nor I are climate experts we can be easily fooled by manipulation of data? You have talked about how the studies are peer reviewed. When you say this, whether you realize it or not, you are talking about the scientists who would all answer uniformly to the left if they were asked what their opinion is on any political issue. But when conservative climate experts peer review their work they have come to a different conclusion.

And you are aware that the miniscule percentage of climate scientists who do not see man's role in global warming are all employed by the fossil fuel industry--oil, natural gas, coal--primarily oil?

In that way they have something in common with astronaut Cunningham--and the peers who are reviewing them are all members of the peer group know as corporate sellouts.

 

[brewmama]

And you are aware that the miniscule percentage of climate scientists who do not see man's role in global warming are all employed by the fossil fuel industry--oil, natural gas, coal--primarily oil?

In that way they have something in common with astronaut Cunningham--and the peers who are reviewing them are all members of the peer group know as corporate sellouts.

Oh the irony!!! First of all that is a ridiculous charge that can not be backed up, secondly, if you really want to use that argument, then you have to throw out anything the climate alarmists say, because, after all, where would they be without such a scare on a global level that governments pour forth money and grants on them? Where would their prestige and power go??

 

[brewmama]

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Actually your article neatly avoids telling us what the CRU emails tell us.

This is a much more accurate picture, but you have to actually read a book.
http://www.amazon.com/Hiding-Declin...4479342&sr=1-6&keywords=hockey+stick+illusion

 

[brewmama]

I am in this field and I have studied the peer reviewed science and attended the meetings like AGU. I have a graduate degree in numerical math and a terminal degree in engineering with significant work in modeling and simulation. If any of you think I'm missing the facts and can point to better quality research and data than I have access to, I'll look at it.

But have you actually read anything from the other side?
You could start with this
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds): A.W MONTFORD: 9781906768355: Amazon.com: Books

You seem intelligent enough to handle it.