McIntyre (a mathematician who has worked for fossil fuel comapnies) and McKitrick (a free-market exconomist) intentionally deleted a significant proportion of the data in order to change the outcome. Other studies, some showing greater variability, do NOT contradict MBH98, simply because they do not cherry pick the data.

“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
http://books.nap.edu/openbook&.....amp;page=4
———————————————–
BULLSHIT AND LIES FROM PATHALOGICAL LIAR..GETS SOME THEREPY

Kamakase wrote…“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co…..ths/2.html
——————————————————
BULLSHIT AND LIES FROM PATHALOGICAL LIAR..GETS SOME THEREPY

“It’s all about using GW (Global Warming) for more control.
I will agree that we should work towards less waste and emissions of all types, however lets not make life unlivable and destroy prosperity.”

Actually, it is about IGNORING AGW for fear of them LOSING control as I explained to “Paulson is an idiot”.

Secondly, how does not using fossil fuels make life unlivable? Right now we have the technology to make cars that are just as fast, just as long range, and just as convenient (quick “refuel”) as petrol cars, using for example Lithium Titanium batteries, or hydrogen. In fact there is NOTHING you would lose by NOT using petrol. So where is the HARM? Unless you are talking about the harm to the elites wallets as they lose their number one income source, that is.

“Modern nuclear reactors are a passively safe, efficient and (over time) cost worth solution for our energy needs. Additionally, they can desalinate large amounts of ocean water as well as create hydrogen for many uses, not the least of which is for use in cars.”

Actually, nuclear power is one of the most expensive if not THE most expensive options, and is far from efficient. Like all centralised electricity generation, a very large proportion of the power generated is lost in transmission due to the resistance of power lines. The MIT concept is much better – generation at the home via solar/hydrogen hybrid. No power is lost in transmission that way, no messy waste to get rid of, and no more paying for electricity.

Hell, if we REALLY didn’t care about potential misuse, we could use thermoelectric generators – full contained units that use radioactive fuel sources that generate electricity via heat. Such units can run for 25 or more years providing plenty of electricity and when they are done, can be taken away as a unit. Similar units are used in satellites. Of course, you could make a dirty bomb out of the fuel so I doubt that will ever happen. I believe Scott Base in Antarctica uses one of these units. They simply buried it in the ice for safety and free power for decades. You could even power a car with one, but well, like I said it’s unlikely as long as someone might want to make a dirty bomb out of it. These units are safer than nuclear reactors, because they can not melt down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....._generator

“Because Global warming is just another geo-political circus, created to trick incompetent scientists and of course, “Joe sixpack”. Global warming is about halting nation state DEVELOPMENT.”

BULLSHIT. Only a retard would think THEY are smarter than TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS. Seriously, YOU are the one being tricked by the fossil fuel companies, NOT the scientists.

“If nations states develop, populations RISE. I shouldn’t have to explain why.”

BULLSHIT! Developed nations have VERY LOW birth rates, and some of the worlds most developed nations would have negative population growth if it wasn’t for immigration!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....birth_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....rowth_rate

Have a look where the US is on those lists. Then have a look at the countries above it. Notice anything?

“The elites think this is their world, a lot of them are racist, and they don’t like the idea of African’s and others growing their countries. In fact they don’t give a rat’s ass if YOU live or die. Yes YOU.”

This is true, which is why they DON’T want development! As I have shown, development leads to lower birth rate AND lower (if not negative) population growth. Think about it, the undeveloped nations have remained undeveloped for decades while the world has supposedly been helping to develop them via the IMF and World Bank etc. The truth is, development is the LAST thing the elites want!

I won’t bother with the rest of your post, as it is basically true except you seem to think that is NOT what they already have, and HAVE had for CENTURIES. If we were to cast off their number one control mechanism, electricity generation, then they would be nearly powerless. If we cast off fossil fuels altogether, they would be truly fucked.

The truth is, their power literally comes from their power! It is our energy requirements that make us slaves. Everything we do, eat, make etc requires power, and THEY own it all. In many countries it is actually illegal to go off the grid and generate your own power! THAT is why they are fighting AGW so hard, because the way to solve THAT also destroys their control over us.

Remember Tesla? Remember how he claimed to have figured out how to transmit power wirelessly to anyone who wanted it, but it could not be metered or controlled (can’t turn off the power if you don’t pay their bill) so it never happened. This has been their control mechanism for a very long time, and they will do anything to protect it, including tricking people like YOU into believing that THEY want a Carbon Tax, when the reality is, if THEY wanted it, it would be everywhere already!

In fact, the number one thing required to become a “developed nation” is abundant electricity. The rest comes from that. If you control the electricity generation in a country, you control that country. Have a look at California to see what the elites can do if you don’t play ball. The easiest way to destroy America for example would be to black it out. Everything grinds to a halt without power. They know it, and that is why they will do anything to keep control of it.

Because Global warming is just another geo-political circus, created to trick incompetent scientists and of course, “Joe sixpack”. Global warming is about halting nation state DEVELOPMENT.
But why would they not want nation states to develop? Don’t they WANT Africa to develop? Don’t they WANT China to develop? Well, no, and if you think they do, you simply are ignorant of world history and the history of economics.

If nations states develop, populations RISE. I shouldn’t have to explain why.

Don’t they WANT populations to rise? What??? WTF? No. Price Phillip (founder of the World Wildlife Fund) has spoken out about population for the last 30 years. Many other Malthusians and racists support his claims.
You see, I hate to break this to you, but some people in this world are… racist. Wow. I know, BIG shocker.
And some people in the world actually want to have MORE power. WOW, really?
People want POWER???
Yep, they do. Believe it or not. In fact, if you bother to ever read a history book, you’ll find this is the case quite often.

The elites think this is their world, a lot of them are racist, and they don’t like the idea of African’s and others growing their countries. In fact they don’t give a rat’s ass if YOU live or die. Yes YOU.

Why don’t they just ASK people to kill themselves? Or ASK the governments to force people to stop having babies?

Well, first of all, they think there are too many people right NOW; irregardless of population growth.
Second, I don’t think governments would be able to force people to do that. Of course, they could force people IF, they had more control.

But how do they get more control?

First, you control the creation of money and you make the nation state a debt slave to you. You do this in as many countries as you can and set up central banks.

Then you have to get MORE control of this part of the world. You do this by giving them a common enemy, real or imagined. A PERFECT enemy is one that is ALL around. Around every corner; in fact you never know WHO it could be. The enemy could be ANYBODY. Obviously, if the “enemy” could be anybody, there must be some form of “protection” from everybody. Its a rather clever tactic.

Are you saying Al Qaeda doesn’t exist you conspiracy nut?

Of course Al Qaeda exists. Fortunately for us, they are a bunch of people in caves with guns, that’s IT. They don’t have a vast network in multiple countries, not a SINGLE SHRED of evidence has ever existed that says they COULD or that they DO.
And besides, people like Saddam Hussein HATE them and… oh, wait a minute.

The next step up is getting control of the world. If you don’t have control of the world, any and all countries who are NOT yet controlled will form up alliances with each other to defend their sovereignty. And that makes it more difficult.
So you play a cat and mouse game with these countries, this involves many things.

To top it all off, you do the MOST important thing. You wreak the economy.

Why the hell do you do that?

It IS a risky move, true. But it is necessary to achieve RAPID population reduction and RAPID desperation from the population. For example, who CARES to protest a war if you are looking for something to eat, or a place to sleep? Also, if a leader comes along promising food etc, who cares if he is also a fascist pig?
Germany is a good example. Their economy was destroyed purposefully by the Treaty of Versaille. This caused fascism to become easily accepted in a very small amount of time.
Basically, the more chaos and confusion the easier it is to do what you want. The MORE stability, peace and prosperity the more DIFFICULT it is to take control and do what you want.

Once you destroy China, Russia, India with guns or butter, you can now put your central banks into their countries, once you have your central banks in their countries, you essentially OWN them just like the rest.
Obviously, once you own all of the major countries of the world, you can make your little utopia, where you enjoy your unearned wealth, and the rest of the workers stay out of your way. At that point, whether they know terrorism, global warming is real or not. It doesn’t matter, you have them.

The United States was founded by FIGHTING these oligarchs, and separating from them.
People don’t realize that most wars these days are not fought with guns, but rather, they are fought with butter.

“LIAR!!!”

“MBH98 calculated PCs of proxy sub-networks separately for each interval in their stepwise reconstruction. This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data available over each sub-interval to be used (i.e., first for 1400-1980, then separately for 1450-1980, 1500-1980, and so on). This requires 159 independent time series to represent all indicators required for reconstructions of all possible sub-intervals, even though the maximum number ever used for a particular sub-interval is 112. By not following this protocol, MM appear to have eliminated in the range of 100 proxy series used by MBH98 over the interval 1400-1600.”
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/.....roblem.pdf

McIntyre (a mathematician who has worked for fossil fuel comapnies) and McKitrick (a free-market exconomist) intentionally deleted a significant proportion of the data in order to change the outcome. Other studies, some showing greater variability, do NOT contradict MBH98, simply because they do not cherry pick the data.

“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
http://books.nap.edu/openbook......amp;page=4

NOT a LIE!!!

“LIAR!!!”

“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....ths/2.html

NOT a LIE!!!

“LIAR!!!”

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....yth6_1.gif

NOT a LIE!!!

—-

@Paul T

“Still trouncing out the same old regurgitated bullshit eh krazykarma. How’s the temperature in Rotorua then? HOT??? Ha frickin ha. Reeeeeeeeetaaaaaaard!”

A creationist calling ME a retard? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Maybe god created AGW to test your faith, retard!

Kamakase wrote..Another blatant lie. The fact is that temperatures have continued to rise on a decadal average of 0.1 Degrees Celsius, EXCEPT for the last 18 months, which has flattened out (dropping by 0.03 Degrees Celsius from the 2006 global mean temperature) thanks toy La Nina. When La Nina is over, the temperatures will once again rise.
———————–
LIAR!!!

Kamakase wrote..A trend is by necessity a decadal creature though. In fact in climate, natural annual variability is enough that a true trend can only really show up in at least 30 years of data. Still, we CAN project trend lines into the future and see where we’ll be, and it is clear in another decade, we will have had yet again the hottest decade on record, just like the last one has been.
———————-
LIAR!!!