Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

Except I can' find that

HEre is the Uni vic's webpage
http://www.uvic.ca

See if you can find what they claim is on "the front page"

It took me a lot of digging to finally get to this

http://communications.uvic.ca/releases/tip.php?date=26072013

Which is a pretty far step from what is claimed to have been there - and is hardly "alarmist"

 

the article calling them out was published aug 2013. So it would seem that they took it down..

 

wow that's great blogs from people who have no expertise which one of them was responsible for the wonky graph or the graph you posted, or the graph that verifed the hockey stick...

 

Don't expect any CAGW poster to accept that probability.

 

Out of interest only and no disrespect intended, is English not your first language?

 

Did you expect that the "front page" today would be the same as it was in Jan 17, 2012? Know your facts before posting.

 

No I actually did not expect it to be the same but then there is no evidence either that that IS what that "front page" did look like. Plus anyone who has ever navigated a University's website would know that the usual "front page" is full of how great they are, why they want YOU to enrol etc etc etc

The whole story was fishier than a Japanese long line boat

 

Have you any proof? What we have is a claim by an anonymous blog site that something hosted on A university might have been "alarmist"

And we cannot verify any of it

 

Then why did you try this: Except I can' find that HEre is the Uni vic's webpage http://www.uvic.ca See if you can find what they claim is on "the front page"

Were you hoping that you could fool some of the posters?

Well, we obviously can't trust your opinion.

 

No I was hoping to show that the cries of "Alarmism" are usually just that - cries of alarmism with little truth. It is a classic straw man argument - state something is other than it is and then attack the false image you have created.

I have tried to show that the website that Earthling linked to was misrepresenting something and crying wolf into the bargain

 

Have you made any attempt to contact Paul Macrae on this subject, articularly as it appears to be bothering you so much?

- - - Updated - - -

[h=1]Ship of Fools project asked to remove DoC endorsement[/h] by Cameron Slater on January 22, 2014
The Taxpayers Union has got themselves another scalp. This time it is the Ship of Fools project led by warmist Chris Turney.
It seems that their claim of support from the Department of Conservation was…well…a lie. Further, they have been asked to remove the logo of DoC from their website.

The DoC logo has been removed. Like the Taxpayer’s Union we look forward to receiving responses from the other New Zealand ‘supporters’, Landcare Research and the University of Waikato.
Chris Turney, though, has misled his supporters, by taking approval of a research permit for the sub-antarctic islands as support for their project.



Chris Turney is fast becoming a joke…and a proven liar.

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/ship-fools-project-asked-remove-doc-endorsement/

 

Yes we have proof.. we used a computer model to predict when a website will post "exaggerated alarmist propaganda" and then call them out on it.
Right now the model is telling us that there will be thousands of false and exaggerated articles. and in the near future it could skyrocket to billions. If we dont create a "alarmist" tax the world will literally blow up..

 

Nonsense. You were hoping to fool some posters.

By trying to say that it was not on the Front Page when you couldn't prove it? Who was misrepresenting? I actually didn't read the article. I just wanted to point out your distorted attempt to discredit the messenger.

 

Then maybe you should have because my impression of your behaviour is that it is both discourteous and disingenuous. The link Earthling gave accused the university of being "alarmist" by posting on the "front page" of the university website. I tried to show that a) universities rarely have news like this on the "front page" b) the blog that Earlhling referenced to had used hyperbole and misinterpretation of what was actually a quite somber academic paper and c) since it was no longer part of the "front page" we could no longer prove it was ever there

Now you have a choice either drop this or be reported because I have no further patience with someone who has misinterpreted my actions so badly

 

Oh, you hurt me deeply. But I do not like anyone using false tactics in their arguments. I can see arguing whether it is alarmist or not. Argue about what he/she said about the article.

I believe that we all spend too much time trying to attack the other poster. Don't get me wrong, if someone insults me, I will defend myself.

I just wish that we would all stay on topic.

But the fact is that it was probably on the front page at some point.

Good god. Who do you think you are? You had no idea whether it was on the front page or not. Go away.

 

Attention ~ To all contributors of this thread...

Focus on the thread topic. Stop the baiting/taunting. If unable to post according to posting guidelines, move on to another thread.

 

By Roger Franklin
December 28th 2013


Somewhere in a parallel universe a prominent climate scientist much given to doom-laden predictions leads an Antarctic expedition of likeminded warmists intent on chronicling the damage mankind’s CO2 emissions are doing to our fragile planet. His party finds the polar sea largely free of ice and he concludes that whales and penguins are in all sorts of trouble as waters warm and food sources vanish.

After re-tracing the route of Douglas Mawson’s expedition and comparing his measurements and findings with contemporary readings, everyone voyages back home, the ABC sends a camera crew to the dock and that night’s news is another warmist sermon dressed up as that fabled stuff “quality journalism”. This report is further amplified by 7.30, Four Corners, Q&A, Lateline and Radio National staffers working overtime to expand upon a point the expedition leader has been making for some time: ()http://www.christurney.com/Blog/Entries/2010/12/2_Delving_in_Antarctica.html

“Antarctica continues to experience change, seemingly not all of it natural, with some parts of the continent warming five times faster than the world average.”​

Alas for University of New South Wales ardent warmist and climatologist Professor Chris Turney cold reality has Turney interviews tweet melted his plans while failing to remove a scintilla of ice from the pack in which his ship has been hopelessly jammed since before Christmas. This was not what he expected, as the ABC explained in the bally-hooed lead-up to the departure of the Australian Research Council-supported “scientist, explorer and writer” and five dozen of his fellow warmists: (http://www.christurney.com/Blog/Entries/2011/12/9_Review_of_How_to_get_Expelled_from_School_by_Ian_Plimer.html)

Expedition leader Professor Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales says Mawson and his team collected hundreds of thousands of measurements on the frozen continent that have become critical to charting signs of global warming.

“They’d have been blown away to know their science has become more important than ever,” he said.

Professor Turney and his UNSW colleague Professor Chris Fogwill are leading a team of 60 scientists, including meteorologists, marine ecologists, oceanographers, ice-core and tree-ring specialists.

The research stakes are high because the Antarctic is one of the great engines of the world’s oceans, winds and weather, especially in Australia.

Already scientists believe there is evidence of climate change.

“The southern hemisphere westerly winds encircle Antarctica and over the last 20 or 30 years or so they’ve been pushing further south,” Professor Turney said.

“It’s almost like Antarctica is withdrawing itself from the rest of the world.”

"When Turney is quoted he is mentioned only as a common or garden-variety “professor”"

Source:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/12/cold-comfort-antarctic-warmists/

In keeping with the truth and the original post, I searched out one of the first reports regarding the failed 'Warmists' trek to Antarctica. Seemingly Turney and his group were so intent on proving their theories of Global warming they really thought that Antarctica was truly melting, along with the winds going 'further South' and it would be an easy jaunt in -31 degree weather.

 

Another precinct heard from.....

Mike Sanicola says:

January 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/history-repeats-itself-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312874

 

WOW! What a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Atmospheric temperature profile
source : marine.rutgers.edu/
CO2 doesn't absorb and radiate on the earth's surface.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One



And if CO2 is not a factor, then why is there a measured decrease in outgoing radiation in the 15micron range?

 

I can't answer your question.

I might suggest you engage the author at the link provided.

 

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

Goodness knows where Turney fits.

 

So you take someone's argument, which you obviously do not understand, and use it to form an opinion. May I suggest that in the future you actually become informed on the subject you're discussing before you form an opinion. A good place to start would be the Science of Doom link I've provided.

 

How odd that a "professional infrared astronomer" is unaware that blackbody radiation for Earth peaks at about 19-20 microns, rather than the 9-13 microns he claims. The fact is, infrared astronomers use the 9-13 µm frequency window specifically because there's not much atmospheric absorption there.

And these well-known facts are supposed to cast doubt on climate science? How, exactly?

 

What opinion did lucasd6 form that was based on the article by Mike Sanicola?