Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:14 | #

This is a nice video to enjoy with Sunday morning coffee, but I was a little disappointed when I realized it was only exposing climate fraud.

I had initially thought they were going to expose the Holohoax.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:51 | #

Climate denier?  I thought this was a stockings and suspenders thing.

Posted by Hail on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:07 | #

Then I checked the facts
Now I’m a denier
We can all just relax
The planet’s just fine

I don’t think anyone denies there is warming. The singer seems to. But—How many of the hottest years on record are in the past 20? 18 or 19, is it? Coincidence?

Barring coincidence, the possible causes are:
1.) An extremely-rapid-onset natural global climate trend, mysteriously coincident with the emergence of fossil-fuels.
OR
2.) Fossil fuels.

Posted by John on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:11 | #

“I had initially thought they were going to expose the Holohoax.”

That’s an easily adaptable song to any religious belief.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:07 | #

Off topic but an interesting data point on variable ethno-centricity

H/T http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/genetic-similarity-theory-in-play-on-myface/

relating to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/hu-srp110110.php

“the sociologists initially saw same-race friendships develop rapidly: White students befriended each other one-and-a-half times more frequently than would be expected by chance, Latino students befriended each other four-and-a-half times more frequently, and African American students befriended each other eight times more frequently.”

Assuming the instincts of the white students were partially suppressed by the multicult then a final ratio of around 2:4:8 would fit my experience with blacks at one end, whites at the other and everyone else in between. jews would be in the middle imo if they didn’t distort themselves (or hadn’t distorted themselves if you accept the evolutionary argument).

Posted by fellist on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:04 | #

Hail, there has been no statistically significant warming in the last ten years, that’s why they stopped talking about GW and began talking about ‘climate change’ or more recently still, ‘climate disruption’. That is so even though we know they have fiddled the numbers, for example by favouring temperature samples from expanding urban areas over rural areas—the Russian government exposed this part of the scam. ‘Global cooling’ was actually on the agenda at a recent meeting of global elites.

Posted by Hail on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:33 | #

RE fellist

Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2007 as the hottest. Right now 2010 is on track to join the top ten, which will knock 2004 off of the list. source

Accoding to this, as of 2009 there’s been a 1.46 C rise in global measured-temperatures over 1945’s. 1880-2009 shows a rise of 0.89 C.

RE the contention that urban samples are responsible: Find a few fixed rural points that have the same development level in 2009 as in 1880 and measure their average-temperature over time. Can you provide a link to someone who has done this and found no change? If so, that is very intriguing indeed.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:31 | #

That’s why they stopped talking about GW…

Being as he is an Ontologist, what more can be said?

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:58 | #

The global warming hoax isn’t about the science. It’s a con. It’s a mixture of stealth marxist attack aimed at weakening and de-industrialising the west in alliance with a bunch of conmen aiming to make money off carbon trading scams. Their solution is shutting down plants in the West and replacing them with *more* polluting plants in the East. The whole thing is blatantly bogus.

Also, simple fact of life - if the BBC is strongly pushing something then it is guaranteed to be hostile to be anti-white.

Posted by Hail on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:32 | #

The BBC says global-warming is real, the BBC is anti-white, ergo global-warming is a hoax? I sense a logical fallacy somewhere in there. Let’s not be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A “hoax”. That’d mean weather-station information is being fabricated, at a fantastic rate, across the planet, every day—but never too much at once, to make it seem incremental. How many hundreds of thousands of meteorologists are in on the hoax? What is their cut?

Or is it just those compiling the data after the fact hoaxing us? A vast conspiracy of pencil-pushers? If so, it’d be very easy for the skeptics to blow over the house of cards: Find weather station information from various places over the past century, run the numbers, and show us there is no rise in temperature.

AFAIK, no one has done that.

Posted by Hail on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:40 | #

Wandrin and others: Pretend, for the sake of argument, that global-warming/“climate-change” is real. How can it be used by pro-European forces?

The NPD in Germany, for example, boasts of itself as “Germany’s greenest party”. Whatever party functionaries really think (they may think it is a hoax, for all I know), they have used it.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:59 | #

Hail,

I’ve had this argument a thousand times in different places i’m not doing it on here. I’m frankly staggered anyone on here believes it.

How many hundreds of thousands of meteorologists are in on the hoax? What is their cut?

You obviously haven’t read the climategate emails. There was only ever about 20-30 people involved in rigging the base data. The whole scam was built on thousands of scientists trusting those 20-30 people and tens of thousands trusting those thousands and hundreds of thousands trusting those tens of thousands etc. The climategate emails showed that at the base of this giant scam were 20-30 people rigging the data.

The NPD in Germany, for example, boasts of itself as “Germany’s greenest party”.

I agree with using green propaganda especially related to population control. I could even go along with the global warming angle if it was used purely as a tactic but it would still be a scam.

(Apologies if this sounds dismissive but i’ve had this argument too often already.)

Posted by fellist on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:03 | #

Hail, from memory (I’m in a library and the website with the Russian data on, iea.ru, search “toko”, is judged risky and I cannot access it), the totality of the Russian numbers suggested a 1 or 1.5 degree rise over a century or so, and Hadley CRU was found to have selected among the sites for greatest increase and that boosted the figure by around 50% to around 1.5 or 2.   

The conventional explanation for the rise in surface temperature on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto over the last 7 decades is the Solar Grand Maximum of the same period during which the sun has been more active and for a longer period than at any other time in over ten thousand years. Might that be a better explanation for any small rise in temperatures here on earth over that period?

Posted by fellist on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:07 | #

Hail, from your first link:

The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is a weak argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.

... is a better argument against the hysteria than against the hysterics’ critics.

Posted by Grassy McKnoll on Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:36 | #

Nice one! Thanks, GW.

I hope you’re watchiong, Mark Lynas!

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:11 | #

I heard a rumor today that Neil Armstrong is coming out of retirement to teach Holocaust studies on the moon.

Has anyone else heard this?

Posted by ahmad feri fauzi on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:40 | #

a very important information in the business world
thank you friend

Posted by Hail on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:06 | #

Wandrin writes:
The climategate emails showed that at the base of this giant scam were 20-30 people rigging the data.

I don’t know enough about “Climategate” to judge.

But, in this case, the negative can be proved. The data is there. Many independent weather stations have recorded temperatures for well over a century. They’ve kept their own records. Unless there’s been a truly gargantuan conspiracy to manipulate every weather station on Earth going back decades, then the paper records will tell the truth. If anyone has done this, that would be interesting to read. Just a link would be enough.

It is much easier, of course, to wave the hand and say “Bah, it’s just a hoax.”

Posted by Hail on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:11 | #

fellist writes:
the totality of the Russian numbers suggested a 1 or 1.5 degree rise over a century or so

NASA data (for Lower-48 USA states) seems to agree with that:
1879-1909: -0.787 C
1910-1945: +0.223 C
1946-2009: +1.455 C

1879-2009: +0.891 C
1910-2009: +1.678 C


I’d also point to the shrinking of the arctic ice and of glaciers, seen all across the world. More giant hoaxes?   Really, how can these be explained absent “global warming”, of whatever cause (Maybe it is solar, as you suggest; I don’t know enough to comment on that)?

Posted by AnalogMan on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:10 | #

Hail:

A good summary of the case against AGW can be found here.

The climategate emails were significant in that they showed bad faith in the principal researchers in the field, but the real pay dirt was not in the emails, but in the computer program code and maintenance notes. They showed that the climate models upon which the case for AGW depended were, let’s say, in need of some elucidation.  “Fudge factors” that would have shown a warming trend in the absence of any real warming, with no provenance for those factors. There was also a heart-rending (for a fellow programmer) record of one programmer’s attempts to reconstruct the data in the reports. After a couple of years of trying, he was unable to work out how the reported data were derived from the raw data.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:46 | #

A UPS Brownshirt just delivered a token of hope for something informative to arise from the hostility of recent exchanges on this thread: The Battle for the Mind

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:50 | #

Oops. I had intended my comment to be posted on the Eternal Nation thread.

I should probably leave well enough alone. 

Posted by Karl LaForce on Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:14 | #

Friends
  I have had the opportunity to do something that most people have not, that being fly from Lima Peru to La Paz Bolivia, with a window seat during the last few years.  The Andean glaciers in the tropics are gone; it is quite obvious that they were there, and quite apparent that they are gone.  Also, in case you have not noticed, the Northwest Passage is ice free in the summer months, and some Danes are farming potatoes in Greenland.  We can debate why, but the world is getting warmer.
  Oh yah, how about that cowbell.  I got to have more cowbell Nixon!
Karl LaForce