Comedy | January 11, 2010 | 31 comments

Stop The Presses! A Really Inconvenient Truth! New Climate Data Shows Minimal Effect by Humans!

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAd1b1s9ulg

WeAreChangeKy
A really inconvenient truth, for If the climate gate scandal wasn't enough to put and end to the AGW cap and trade nonsense then this new data ought to. This study proves the AGW alarmists computer models are based on false assumptions.

According to the IPCC, this "atmospheric fraction" of CO2 is increasing, and is destined to increase even more, because the processes which have been removing over half of human-emitted CO2 will be unable to continue to do so. But, according to this study, those models are wrong. The rate of increase is unlikely to be nearly as high as the IPCC modelers predicted, and the consequences are well... inconsequential.

I think the science is now in and Al Gore should be ashamed of himself.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

For We Are Change Kentucky:

Christopher Hignite
Monkey Press 2010
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Green,   Culture,   19 more
  2. tags:
    Science,  Climate Change,  Al Gore,  Fraud,  23 more
  3.     
    |

31 comments // Stop The Presses! A Really Inconvenient Truth! New Climate Data Shows Minimal Effect by Humans! // Video

  • curtisreed
  • Monkey_Films
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  
    • Image

    • http://www.alternet.org/blogs/water/145081/outrage%3A_guess_which_company_has_ov...
      Case in point, the EPA allows Massey coal to violate all it wants as long as they get money. EPA, Dept. of Commerce, all working for the same government but they don't want to save the planet, they want money. The Greenies should turn their attention to the governments, the wars, the EPA, track the money, picket these people, make them change, because somehow, a carbon tax doesn't fit my knowledge of a scientific cure for anything. Unless your trying to take a fat wallet and make it fatter, then, yes, it works.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • The name calling on this subject is objectionable and indicates a limited mental/emotional capacity for considering the opinions of others, or perhaps a fear of the truth. We all have certain things in common, and opinions are just one of them.

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
  • LotusPower
    • 0
      LotusPower  

    • Yes, science is all a big conspiracy to steal our freedom and implant satellite tracking devices in our brains. I'd say it is time to take you anti-psychotic medication, my poor Monkey.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • LotusPower:

      Science in and of itself is not a conspiracy. However, it is the stench of corruption from the alliance of scientists, politicians, and bankers that is the conspiracy. Science and many scientists have been corrupted by the need to acquire funding;"He who pays the piper, calls the tune", and "publish or perish".These facts have caused many non scientists (myself included) to question the validity of the data. Then we have the politicians lining up to control funding and recieving financial rewards to themselves and friends. Copenhagen was a farce. African politicians attended the conference expecting to receive $90 BILLION in reparations from the industrialized world. $90 BILLION is a large sum of money to me! The 3rd World politicians have no interest in climate change or environmental issues, they are simply lining up for a handout, while sabotaging what could be a legitimate concern. I will paraphrase a British Minister to Africa 1960's comment. "They will cut off their nose to spite their face and then call it cosmetic surgery"!
      Climate change assumptions and the assorted financial opportunities being created is shaping up to be an opportunity for enriching politicians greater than the days of the "Robber Barons". Vanderbilt would be impressed. It might even approach the financial clout of the Tennesee Valley Authority, which enriched Al Sr. tremendously!

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • No conspiracy there, that the Dept. of Commerce would want the data to show that we need a carbon tax, don't look behind that curtain, it's better to be ignorant than scared of the truth, I guess.

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
  • Monkey_Films
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • 0
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • Ah, geophysicist. A study of the Earth and physics. Mostly concentrating on internal Earth and tectonic plate movements. Aren't your Sciences typically used to find oil, archaelogical finds, mineral deposits, groundwater locations, and study the thickness of soil or ice? I'm just asking because I was going by asking Glen Conner of the Kentucky State Climate Center in Bowling Green. He's a Climatologist: is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,[1] and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. Basic knowledge of climate can be used within shorter term weather forecasting using analog techniques such as the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Northern Annualar Mode (NAM), the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Northern Pacific (NP) Index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Climate models are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate.
      But thanks for the info on your degree, kudos.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • LotusPower
    • 0
      LotusPower  
    • Image

    • Monkey, it isn't just about numbers, it is about your ability to understand what the numbers mean, which you don't. Your statement (possibly that of your retarded colleague) "Absolutely no rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in the last 150 years" is an absolute lie and complete mis-characterization of the content of the article, as I explained. You have no credibility whatsoever with regard to climate because you are a liar I am a geophysicist who knows how to read scientific papers. You can't even read a simplified science periodical with any comprehension. I would be wasting my time debating you if it weren't for the fact that so many readers seem to take your nonsensical interpretation of the science at face value.
      By the way, the chart you showed is for December not the summer, which shows a decline in sea ice of -3.3 percent per decade for the time period. The chart you want is for September, which is when the minimum ice extent occurs. Now looking at that one, while you might see a huge decline in ice in 07, Al Gore would correctly tell you that measuring any "trend" from the most anomalous point in the history of the dataset is known as cherry picking and is looked down upon by real scientists. The ice extent trend for the September data is -11% per decade and would appear to be accellerating downward. That is a very rapid rate of decline and it is a long term trend, which is what climate is about, not your one or two year cherry picking trick. This makes it absolutely clear that you are being intentionally deceptive (lying) and don't know the meaning of the word climate. Very sad. Very disgusting.
      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  
    • Image

    • So I go to bottom right of the page showing the ice and lo and behold the same people who expect to take control of everything you do with carbon taxes pay for the research on that page. Additionally, Monkeys are actually extremely good at charts it seems because the page you pointed out has this chart that shows yes a decline over a long period of time but as I POINTED OUT, it also shows a 26% increase in summer ice over the last two years. JUST AS I SAID. You see, it's right there on your own website's chart. The problem is, I actually understand the Science rather than just read what those who support my opinion are writing. I understand how you could get confused. Monkey See, Monkey Do, you proved my point now it's back to you. Go Monkey Power!
      Supported by:
      NASA NOAA nsf.gov - National Science Foundation

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  

    • This was done by a SCIENTIST at a UNIVERSITY and posted in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Why are the numbers only legit when they, albeit altered, support YOUR thesis. The number are what's at issue here and my SCIENTIST used LEGITIMATE numbers and your 'scientist' used altered ones. Somehow that seems to make mine legit and yours skewed, maybe my professor taught me logic backwards, if so, my bad.

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
  • LotusPower
    • 0
      LotusPower  
    • Image

    • On the question of arctic ice increasing or decreasing, a look at the actual data might be useful The premier scientific site on ice extent is at: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ Now if you asked a 10 year old, "Is that line increasing or decreasing?" he or she would obviously say "Decreasing, stupid!" In fact it is decreasing at a rate of 3.3% per decade. But the Monkey isn't nearly that smart and tries to convince people it is increasing. This guy is beyond pathetic.

    • 2 years ago
  • LotusPower
    • 0
      LotusPower  

    • And your statements totally mischaracterize the actual research. The results stated in the article are that "the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade". That is a big error bar for such a small number. So statistically, the actual trend could reasonably be as much as 2.1% per decade, so that from 1850 the airborne fraction of CO2 ADDED TO THE ATMOSPHERE could have increased by about 40%, in which case the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would be accellerating. AND IT IS! And it doesn't negate the possibility that the trend is not linear such that the airborne fraction recently could be a lot higher than the overall average. Right on Jan. This guy is a big energy shill or just mind numbingly ignorant.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • The ice that has grown ON THE SURFACE IS THINNER and not perennial ice. It is also WINTER refreeze that is the key to this, and that is what has been diminishing due to warmer waters below it. You really are an ignorant shill aren't you? So I will publicly tell you what you can do with this garbage which is the same thing I told you in response to the e-mail you made sure to send me with this link as if for some reason you think Al Gore gives a damn about it. Shove it. Oh, and while you're at it, actually look up real scientific studies and stop wasting our time and space here with this BS.

      http://current.com/items/91699289_arctic-ice-melting-even-in-winter.htm

      I believe this is the one important point about Arctic ice melt that is left out when explaining it. The ice is not only receding, it is thinning under the surface. And as this report from Oct 08 shows, even though SAT was colder, the ice still melted in winter. That means the water under the ice is warmer and that is causing thinning of much of the old ice, leaving newer ice that is weaker, thinner, and ice that cannot stand up to summer melts, thus resulting in thinner ice above and below the surface. And that is being caused by global warming. Of course, "skeptics" always like to move the conversation away from that. They don't want people knowing that the ice below is thinning and even though you may have a winter with a lower SAT that winds up giving you what looks like a greater refreeze on the surface, that refrozen ice is thinner and that is the point that must concern us.

    • 2 years ago
  • LotusPower
    • 0
      LotusPower  

    • And you are an ignorant ideologue trying to pass out nonsense propaganda. As I said in your other idiotic post on the same topic, the article is about the fraction of ADDED CO2 that humans emit to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels that remains in the atmosphere, not the total fraction. As this NOAA FAQ explains, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE on the question of humans being responsible for the largest recorded increase in CO2 in the atmosphere: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2 Please try to pull your head out of your butt and then leave us alone.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • LotusPower:

      actually, Lotus, the % of new carbon is irrelevant if the actual % of carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of "global warming" or climate change, pick your term.

      The debate is far from over.
      And resorting to personal insults to the person who posted the article hardly shows any intelligence on your part.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • 0
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • 100% agreement on everything funkmaster. Let's just make sure each time someone comes up with an idea that it will actually do something to fix the environment and not just someone's bank account. I think the smell of corruption is why people questioned Al's science in the first place. In addition to the fact that nothing he or the IPPC or Copenhagen proposed would amount to anything but a Wall Street scam sending money to banks and investors and no actual work would be done to stop any destruction.

      I'm curious, also, as to why nobody involved the the man-made Climate Change issue addresses the damage the multitude of wars we are engaged in is doing to the environment as well as CO2 emissions. As I've stated in other posts, we could all change our behavior and even start green and renewable industries, but if we continue wars at this pace no impact would be felt. So, it's extremely hypocritical for those in Copenhagen to demand money from the citizenry for carbon taxes while continuing the worst violation of the environment with their wars. We'd save the planet but we have to stop terrorists! LMAO, do you see the ridiculousness of that statement?

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • 0
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • I guess we should also add that it was officially announced today that the arctic ice has grown 26% in the SUMMERTIME over the past 2 years. Let's see if Al Gore can explain that without stuttering.

    • 2 years ago
  • funkmaster98
    • 0
      funkmaster98  

    • There are always going to be people pushing one way or another and some may say that which ever conclusion is most profitable for a person is the way they will lean.

      I think one scientists paragraph in one scientific paper in one journal is not enough to discredit the whole science behind global warming. What is important is a dialogue that this hopefully opens up and the fact that people can question the state of the world.

      Global warming is not wholly cause by just carbon dioxide and there are plenty of worse gases and effects of our carbon energy dependence. Even if global warming is a hoax, forests are still being clear cut, coal mining destroys ecosystems and people's health, and ocean levels are rising.

      I would be ecstatic if global warming was a hoax and that the environment wasn't slowly degrading, but if by chance that is not the case, I want people to be alarmists and to be working tirelessly to stop the effects of global warming.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • Vierotchka
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • Al has no honor, thus no reason to apologise! He was spawned from a father that abused the environment for money and political patronage and why should Al be any different!

    • 2 years ago
  • ny_nj_soulchild
    • 0
      ny_nj_soulchild  

    • Forget that...someone who began this should explain what's up. We cry wolf whenever its convenient to profit from it. (in this case...climate and science.)

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • 0
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • Absolutely no rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in the last 150 years. That's the real science. That's the real data. So come on Big Al, time to come 'clean'.

    • 2 years ago
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos