Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[Bind]

“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.

[FlipPro]

“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.

Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

No, that is what you are doing...

[bb113]

So while clouds remain a significant uncertainty and more research is needed on this subject, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further, and are very unlikely to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.  It's also important to remember that there many other feedbacks besides clouds, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is positive and will amplify global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

[RandyFolds]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

[Bind]

Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

By that, could you mean the same groups who now claim global warming, who were the same groups who claimed global COOLING in the early 1970's ??

By that, could you mean the thousands of scientists who disagree that global warming is caused my man ??

My question is, if its a man-made reality, which it isnt, then why is all the documented fraud and fakery needed ??

Maybe its just another insidious agenda to steal your wealth, freedom, and liberty ??

Nah, the elite of the world certainly wouldnt be doing anything as nefarious as lying to get what they want, now would they ??

You know, those age old royal bloodline families who historically ruled with an iron fist over everyone, who grew up being taught the supreme right to rule over all the little slaves, and have them grind their fingers to the bone scratching out an existance, most of which is taxed or stolen so the pharohs, kings, and leaders could get rich off the backs of the peasants.

Nah, couldnt be. Our business and world leaders are nice and honest and altruistic and philanthropic and benevolent and not at all concerned with raping you and taking you for everything you are worth.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

[Bind]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

[dree12]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

So you really think (based on carbon dating, and past charts) that we are headed for a cooling period?

Is this what you people really believe? That we are in a "natural" cycle, and that all of the stuff that we have been building on this planet for 200+ years, that emit tons of green house gasses (not just CO2), are not the major contributing factor to this rapid warming we have been seeing?

Why bring Al Gore into this debate? Who mentioned him?

Lets keep it simple...

[Bind]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

You should care because its raping you at every turn and stealing your wealth, freedom, and liberty by those with an insidious agenda.

[FlipPro]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

You should care because its raping you at every turn and stealing your wealth, freedom, and liberty by those with an insidious agenda.

You are analyzing this from a conspiracy theorist standpoint.

You don't study science with a preconspired agenda.

That's not the best practice..

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

[FlipPro]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

[dree12]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The title of this thread and the OP imply that the melting of ice was faked. This is not a reason to dispute the warming of the Earth, and that is the extent I dispute on this issue.

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The title of this thread and the OP imply that the melting of ice was faked. This is not a reason to dispute the warming of the Earth, and that is the extent I dispute on this issue.

The melting of the ice was exaggerated in those maps. This particular evidence of a coming cataclysm was "fake". I think this is clear from both the OP and article.

[FlipPro]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

Markets will never decide to go with green energy.

There is simply way to much money and influence in big oil for there to be any considerable progress in the alternative fuels arena. These people have been documented to block patents, buyout alternative fuel innovations from small-time inventors, and there have even been reports of certain green energy inventors "disappearing" after telling close ones that they had finished a radically new invention.

And unfortunately it is up to them to build the infrastructure/research to support alternative fuels.

What you are seeing now by the US government is simply the manifestation of the desire to go green by the American people. We have seen more progress in the last 3 years than during the entire Bush presidency in that arena, and it's not NEARLY enough IMHO..

We need to be "pushed" over the edge as humans, so that we can hopefully transcend to a cleaner, and more efficient society.