There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Originally posted by Gonjo
Figured I slap that one here also, maybe our "believer" can tell us how those measured CO2 values are not true and we should trust the CO2 estimates from the icecore data.

Answering this in the other thread, I know you have difficulty telling science from pseudoscience but this article is a joke - an increase of almost 200ppm in 15 years, heh.

That's all these guys produce, they are pretty much irrelevant to the real science that is going on.

Originally posted by melatonin
Answering this in the other thread, I know you have difficulty telling science from pseudoscience but this article is a joke - an increase of almost 200ppm in 15 years, heh.

That's all these guys produce, they are pretty much irrelevant to the real science that is going on.

Yeah, yeah I got it already. You > 200 years of measurement data, gotcha.

Originally posted by Gonjo
Yeah, yeah I got it already. You > 200 years of measurement data, gotcha.

No, it's more a case of:

reliable science>unreliable science.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye

Unfortunately, there are any number of leftwing radical groups that want to use global warming as a scare tactic to further their causes. They make linkages to the hated corporations, globalization, false connections to other, genuine environmental concerns and so on. As a result, there is a lot of junk science being peddled, and our media are irresponsibly printing any "press release" these groups send out, and alarming a population that doesn't have the knowledge to filter the wheat from the chaff.

It sounds to me as if you are politicizing and blaming lefties for GW. The left wing isn't using anything as a scare tactic. I am on the left and I believe GW IS happening and that it's mostly caused by humans. I came to this conclusion after exhaustively studying everything I could find on it. Let me ask you: why would any political party need to use scare tactics to further an anti-corporate agenda? Environmental activists became activists BECAUSE of what they learned, not to use it as a tactic. There is alot of bad/misinformation being put out there. If you look behind the disinfo, you will usually find a corporation who is benefiting from either lax environmental standards or not following the standards.

This is not a political issue and it shouldn't be. The corporations are putting out ALOT of disinfo because it would cost them money to be more environmentally aware.

Originally posted by forestlady
This is not a political issue and it shouldn't be. The corporations are putting out ALOT of disinfo because it would cost them money to be more environmentally aware.

Agree 100% and here is a video that talks about this situation.

video.google.com...

Originally posted by selfless

Agree 100% and here is a video that talks about this situation.

Disagree 100% here is another video about the situation.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
Disagree 100% here is another video about the situation.

www.youtube.com...

Huh, you disagree that the corporations are putting efforts into dis info campaigns?

You can't disagree with facts buddy...

Exxon and other big oil corporations are indeed funding campaigns that promotes that global warming is not real.

Tobacco companies are also funding the campaigns that promotes the same message as big oil companies. That message is that what they are doing is no cause for concern and should not be stopped.

You honestly think that the corporations who put fundings into denying global warming is not for dis info purposes for the sake of not losing money?

Impossible to disagree with cold hard facts on the matter.

Originally posted by selfless
Tobacco companies are also funding the campaigns that promotes the same message as big oil companies. That message is that what they are doing is no cause for concern and should not be stopped.

You honestly think that the corporations who put fundings into denying global warming is not for dis info purposes for the sake of not losing money?

Impossible to disagree with cold hard facts on the matter.

No it is quite easy actually. As I recall you said it quite well on the other thread.

So no, I don't really need look at some debates on global warming, for me it's a reality. I always wanted to stop pollution anyways and global warming is not the thing that makes me speak bad about pollution and it never was.

So yeah im sorry, but I dont really take anything someone who isnt interested in the matter only in the possible outcome, claims it to be a fact. If you are not interested in discussion about the topic 'There is no Man-Made Global Warming' I fail to see your reasons on posting in the first place. I have every reason and right to disagree with your post as my views are opposite of yours on most of the propaganda on that video. Also last time I checked I was allowed to have my own oppinions.

As for your points that I am supposed to agree fully with, as they are "cold hard facts" as you put it...

Tobacco and Oil companies spending money to try and make their product more acceptable. Yes they had the right to do so at the time. They banned the tobacco promotonions to make people less likely to smoke, fair enough. And then there was the lawsuits and what not.

Now if you compare this to Oil. Which has its downsides along with coal is still a major source of energy to alot of people. This has nothing to do with the fact at hand but yes I believe we should, as we are, slowly cutting down both coal and oil as we shift into another sources of energy, afterall there is a limited supply of both of them.

My problem however is when so called "climatologists" start spewing their propaganda because they are being payed to look into CO2 and its "impact" on climate. The same people who now paint magical pictures of iminent doom by rewriting history, data and laws of physics with their "accurate" models used to do the same thing in the global cooling hype, that time they couldnt blame CO2 though, CO2 was a possible solution actually. Whats even worse there has been alot of money used on these models. But if you actually look at the principles they use on their models and sources of data you can only wonder what their real agenda is, it surely has nothing to do with actually trying to figure out whats behind the climate change we are experiencing.

They are basicly doing anything to make CO2 the reason behind everything even though the data and science says something totally different. Problem is if they actually just tell us its the normal effect from sun heating the oceans which causes release of CO2 and water vapor, which causes more growth of trees and increased heat on the hemisphere which has more trees and so on they will loose their funding.

Then there is the fear mongers like Al Gore that charge hundreds of thousands for his Presentation based on false data and no real science behind. Yes he is a good and convincing speaker, but the problem is he is out there to preach his gospel to take advantage of peoples fears and guilt cause he knows most of the public is too busy and/or scared to actually question their science behind it.

I have looked into this, granted im no scientist, however the data they claim shows their _models_ proofs something, is usually quite well made but rarely has anything that makes any sense or actually shows their conlusions are flat out wrong. Does it not worry you that the people looking for solutions for the problems are, like you, not actually interested in the problem just in ways to change the current situation with false reasons and solutions? Some of their plans could actually make the situation alot worse. Just like in the video I linked if you watched... They planned to melt the icecaps back in the 1970s.

I dont believe anyone is in denial that there is climate change going on, I know im not atleast, but the problem is that it has nothing to do with the hype. I also agree we should reduce polluting the planet the problem is calling CO2 a pollution is like calling O2 or H2O a pollution and the one mostly behind the actualy warming is H2O due to increased solar radiation.

Im sorry if my views dont please you but they are the only ones I have.

Originally posted by myself


so, again: Has the Antarctic ice shield increased in size since 1970

Y/N ?

since nobody is interested, i will have to answer myself

from www.timesonline.co.uk...

...
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

While I'm at it, let me explain to all of you who are adamantly defending the paradigm of Climate Change©, while turning a blind eye to undesired data and quetions, as long as it suits your clearly discernible bias and agenda, what I personally believe you are doing in plain daylight:

You are arguing solely in order to 'win' this dispute, while the cause remains hidden. there is no way on Earth you're constantly 'overlooking' the more obvious contradictions - even when pointed out by others - or simple questions like mine on the Antarctic ice sheets, or Greenland's settlements, remnants of trees below Alpine glaciers and so on....

one more link on the subject www.newscientist.com...


I could go on and speculate why you're actually doing it, but i'll leave it to everyone to make up their own mind, because spreading even more venom wouldn't change much if anything.

PS: more likely than not, this post will be buried just like all the others in an innuendo of countless, repetitive threads, filled with elaborate, yet strikingly similar posts, which only make it incredibly hard on everyone who's actually looking for real, tangible data (if not evidence), because all s/he's going to find is contradicting graphs and constant accusations of proliferating 'pseudo science', 'big oil propaganda' etc. and hundreds of increasingly vague and un-verifable posts complete with thousands of links.

In the future i will refrain from basing my posts on contradicting data alone, because it seems most of the more frequent posters around here could not care less about what is, only 'winning' the GW or GC 'battle', so, any point, no matter how convincing, is automatically lost.

I'm sorry you feel that way Longlance.

The difference is between those who use the scientific literature on which the current scientific consensus is based and those who obfuscate, cherrypick data, use completely incorrect data, and generally pollute the discussion with irrelevancies.

It is the same approach used in the evolution debate. I don't expect to persuade ideologues to accept the science, but solely to provide the real science and show that these people are spreading misinformation. It's purely for those who are reading. I aim to show the difference between the ideological ramblings found on websites and the science that is actually the basis of the consensus. The biggest hint is that the real science is contained in high quality peer-reviewed journals, not websites, newspapers, or other non-primary forms of scientific communication. There is little real scientific debate that human activity is having a significant impact on climate in the circles that matter (those doing the science).

I suppose the approach used surrounding the ideological attack on evolutionary science would be better - just don't debate it, ignore the ideologues and their minions, they are totally irrelevant to science. These people are led by their emotional attachment to a ideological viewpoint and like Allport noted:

"Like sponges. Ideas, engulfed by an overpowering emotion, are more likely to conform to the emotion than to the objective evidence" (1954/1974)

So it doesn't matter that almost all of the major points of some people here on this issue are easily shown to be erroneous, the emotional barrier is just too robust. Their viewpoint just feels good, the other feels bad. Add a fine chunk of confirmation bias and intellectual gymnastics = no cognitive dissonance and pre-existing viewpoint maintained.

These people do not respond to answers given, but just move on to the next canard. And so it goes on, round and round we go, suppose it's a bit like 'whack-a-mole'. It doesn't make me happy to do this, I have other ways to spend my time, but I like educating and science is important to me and many others. Luckily, these people are irrelevant to the major issue, as most have little idea how to do science, how scientific process works, and don't particularly care for it either. They care more for stars (I like to think of them as cookies) than real substance, heh.

As for the Antarctic question, I think I've said this to you before, if you direct a question explicitly to me, I will do my best to answer it. I don't have time to read all posts in threads as I do have a busy life, sorry.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by melatonin]

i've seen far too much flip-flopping, dishonesty and sometimes outright fabrications, in the medical field, in cosmology, heck, even history that i'm unwilling to accept spoon-fed data by any single source or grouping.

i'm perfectly aware that nobody knows everthing and a simple 'd'uh who cares, i don't think it's relevant' or a simple 'i don't know' at times are perfectly acceptable answers.

silence isn't and it's not just directed at you, Melatonin, it's directed at anyone who's simply too busy to refute solid counterpoints. tbh, the Antarctic's ice sheets respond to more than just temperature, precipitation has to be accounted for, which is why this particular fact doesn't refute anything, imho, but it does shed some light on short cuts taken by far too many people who are just selling alarming data along with their even more alarming interpretations. if glaciers on the northern hemisphere are routinely used as a scare item, how come glaciers bucking the trend elsewhere are being ignored? how come NOONE (you and Muaddib aren't the only participants here, Melatonin) jumped me and accused me of lying (the expected thing to do) ? twice, in a row. why is it that you think a question needs to be directed at somebody? does it matter who provides the answer? do you think most people here believe the same? is that really the reason i'm talking to myself most of the time. i seriously doubt it. had i posted obvious falsehoods, i would have gotten hammered.


it's selective perception like this which can't be explained away by citing 'peer reviewed' journals. review works both ways, because if i'm able to find one paper with numerous obvious omissions, i can flatly deduce that a) everyone who reviewd this particular paper is incompetent and b) that since they got their reviewer status by review, that their peers didn't notice either, therefore a sizeable portion of reviewers is incompetent. considering this logic, it is imho unwise to base an entire debate solely on peer review, isn't it?

PS i don't need to be a climatologist or a glaciologist to know that trees below a glacier, complete with carbon dating, mean the glacier wasn't there when the tree grew. if lack of glaciers is a good thing, locally and if sea level rises are constantly being amended i doubt the idea of stopping climate change will garner much support, will it? will try to find a link. as if it mattered

Originally posted by Long Lance
it's selective perception like this which can't be explained away by citing 'peer reviewed' journals. review works both ways, because if i'm able to find one paper with numerous obvious omissions, i can flatly deduce that a) everyone who reviewd this particular paper is incompetent and b) that since they got their reviewer status by review, that their peers didn't notice either, therefore a sizeable portion of reviewers is incompetent. considering this logic, it is imho unwise to base an entire debate solely on peer review, isn't it?

I don't think it is really voluntary selective perception. For example, when your write a scientific manuscript for submission you have a quite restrictive word count, there is just no way you can include all the information you would like to. So, they will focus on what they feel is directly relevant to the scientific question under examination. It's not a choice, but a requirement. Authors will usually write more than required, and then chop out the less relevant information, if required, to meet the word count.

So, for example, knowing that trees were below a glacier doesn't really tell us much about melting rates etc, it just tells us that before the glacier impinged upon this area, there were trees. So, I doubt people would include it in a paper on melting rates of glaciers.

But as far as basing the debate on peer-reviewed research, there is no other approach for science. Peer-review is not perfect, a lot of crap makes it through, but we need some sort of quality control. Trust me, I'm no great friend of reviewers, heh, but we need someone to look at the studies with a critical eye before publishing. And if an author is not happy with reviews, they can submit elsewhere. Usually there are a couple or more of reviewers and an editor who oversee the peer-review process. There is a move to more open-reviewing though (i.e. anyone with an interest can make comments on submitted articles, as well as the main reviewers).

Science is the objective part, but as it includes people, it also has a subjective part, and also can be contaminated by human failings. To science's credit, most dishonesty is uncovered by scientists. For example, it wasn't the creationists that uncovered and exposed some of the early paleontology frauds. And that is its beauty, it is self-correcting. Thus if AGW is wrong, it won't be internet warriors who show this, but the same scientists that people criticise as supporting a 'green religion'.

As far as the wide ranging debate, what to do etc, this is not for science to provide. But is for politicians etc. If they provide enough dosh, alternative sources of energy can be found, we can prepare, we can act. Science can say this is likely, that is unlikely, but it won't make the decisions for us.

PS i don't need to be a climatologist or a glaciologist to know that trees below a glacier, complete with carbon dating, mean the glacier wasn't there when the tree grew. if lack of glaciers is a good thing, locally and if sea level rises are constantly being amended i doubt the idea of stopping climate change will garner much support, will it? will try to find a link. as if it mattered

Well, I live near mountain range, complete with valleys formed through the action of glaciers. If we fall into another glacial period (which we would have eventually), then I would expect the same valley to eventually become the home of another glacier, complete with a bedding of trees.

I guess, as with many things, there is a happy medium. It is quite possible that we could use the situation to our advantage, maybe we can use the increasing knowledge of the process of glacial cycles to maintain this interglacial for another million years, I don't really know. But, if we could, it would be a good thing. It is no coinkydink that agriculture and society expanded following the last ice-age. So extremes of either direction would be an issue. If it gets too warm or too cold, society will be affected in one way or another.

Climate change which is being caused by humans can be ameliorated by simply reducing our impact. It is also possible that with more knowledge we could use particular approaches to control natural climate chnage in the future, but I wouldn't really support such approaches, we tend to have a questionable success rate when we try to meddle with nature in this way, heh.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Gonjo
So yeah im sorry, but I dont really take anything someone who isnt interested in the matter only in the possible outcome, claims it to be a fact. If you are not interested in discussion about the topic 'There is no Man-Made Global Warming' I fail to see your reasons on posting in the first place. I have every reason and right to disagree with your post as my views are opposite of yours on most of the propaganda on that video. Also last time I checked I was allowed to have my own oppinions.

I am not debating wetter global warming is real, I am stating facts that big oil corporations put forth fundings into campaigns that promotes the none existence of global warming.

You saying that the corporations are not funding the none existence of global warming is like a person saying the earth is flat...

Because you see, IT'S HAPPENING, THEY ARE FUNDING THESE CAMPAIGNS and no matter what your opinion is about global warming, it won't change these facts to be not true.

Originally posted by Gonjo
Im sorry if my views dont please you but they are the only ones I have.

Your views about global warming are not relevant to the post I did that quoted forest lady talking about corporations that funded dis info campaigns because that is the absolute truth.

I was not debating about global warming, I was merely confirming what forest lady said about corporations putting forth dis info efforts to not lose money profits.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

I am not debating wetter global warming is real, I am stating facts that big oil corporations put forth fundings into campaigns that promotes the none existence of global warming.

You saying that the corporations are not funding the none existence of global warming is like a person saying the earth is flat...

Because you see, IT'S HAPPENING, THEY ARE FUNDING THESE CAMPAIGNS and no matter what your opinion is about global warming, it won't change these facts to be not true.

does that make us all shills? the best way to find a shill is to ask for solutions.

if they propose centralized, controllable, money based and consumption-oriented solutions, chances are they might just be shills. so far, i'm not aware of a single country within the Kyoto limits, but the money is alrady flowing into an air tax. feel safer already?

the ends don't justify the means, even if the former are kept hidden.


PS: the link on glaciers i promised www.climate.unibe.ch...

High price for load of hot air

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

It would seem that again not all are convinced that it is even happening let alone caused by man. Yesterday there was a post by a climatologist who said outright that Global warming is rubbish and nothing more than a money game.

Interesting is it not?

I think its warming but no more than in the past. One thing I will mention again is that for a long time an ice age was expected, what if we are helping delay that? I highly doubt it since I think mankind only has a very small part in the whole process, but it is food for thought.

thanks for posting, Edsinger.


ain't it curious how such incenvenient facts are simply ignored? people argue for days about various graphs, yet simple contradicting or mitigating evidence is simply ignored.

Actually, they are not ignored, it's just more misleading information. But why bother wasting my time showing you why?

You'll just be parroting the next misleading contrarian article as if it has some legitimacy.

The only one "parroting misleading information" is noone else but you melatonin.

There is no scientific debate when it comes to discussing this topic with you. You want to claim Mann et al, are right and every other scientist is wrong, yet not once have you been able to demonstrate the AGW claim is true.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The only one "parroting misleading information" is noone else but you melatonin.

Yeah, yeah. Keep telling yourself that, whilst I'll do the research for you and find YOUR cherrypicked ice-core proxy data within a paper supporting Mann's reconstructions, heh.

Originally posted by melatonin
Actually, they are not ignored, it's just more misleading information. But why bother wasting my time showing you why?

You'll just be parroting the next misleading contrarian article as if it has some legitimacy.

enough is enough.

it's misleading to paint doomsday scenarios without foundation, while constantlay ignoring evidence of warmer climate in the past. it's misleading to use fuzzy graphs of CO2 and heat indicators of past climate to scare people, which, upon closer scrutiny show that temperature is actually leading, therefore the cause, not an effect.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

talk as much as you want, imho, this is damning evidence that a) the GW crowd is tremendously dishonest and b) that you don't think highly of forum readers, to put it mildly.

all talk about 'feedback' evaporates immediately when you realize that much of the AGW case is built on CO2/temp correlation figures (which is why Al Gore used them so much), and how detrimental the logic of 'forcing' CO2 is becauswe it would mean that the current situation is unparalleled (in the past temps lead to CO2, today CO2 without the temps leads to... what?) may i remind you that coincidence does not make a cause...? at this point, considering your track record, Melatonin, i'll insert a disclaimer:

CO2 being a GHG or not may warm a sample ina lab setting, the question is whether the system Earth with its intrinsic complexity reacts the same or if mitigating or cancelling factors exist, which are not included or underrepresented in your holy climate models.

/disclaimer

it's even more misleading to focus only on CO2, and only contributions by fuel sources, when f-ex. fertilizer are derived from fossil fuels, too and savings there would translate into more than CO2 saving, it would actually cur land use, too. none of this is discussed by AGW'ers of course, because it would actually benefir everybody, save a few GM corporations and largest-scale agribusiness.

please note that emphasis is not coincidential.

www.fromthewilderness.com...


finally, it is misleading to simply ignore a post immediately above, when it does not suit your agenda, along with criticism because you discarded it, citing the alledged use of 'misleading data' without ever showing the slightest inclination to explain why.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

just a simple question without much room for evasion: is it true that surface temperatures have remained stagnant, as the article states, or not?

btw, i'm still waiting for your answers on the increase of ice area on the southern poles and remnants of forests below glaciers in the Alps.


considering all these points and my experience with you so far, i conclude that a) you'r er.....misleading on purpose b) you're not citing the real reasons for your engagement in global warming or climate change debate (which i presume to be purely political in nature) and c) you could not care less about climate.


PS: for the record, i don't expect any of you to plead guilty, but i do expect more than baseless accusations. i'm not posting in this quagmire only to be scoffed at and belittled by a bunch of mutually-reinforcing fanatics.