It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Oh good. Now that we've been caught lying, we're going to play the victim card are we? Maybe you want to write me a poem comparing your plight to that of Bruno or Galileo while you're at it.

The scientific method is just another thing you have absolutely no grasp on Nathan. It goes like this:

Characterization
Hypothesis and Prediction
Experiment and Observation
Confirmation
and
Coherence Through Multiple Lines of Evidence.

Meanwhile here's YOUR version of the scientific method that you "do your best to practice":

Take anything you can
Cherry pick it
Distort it
Throw it at the wall
And hope it sticks:





edit on 16-11-2010 by mc_squared because: move the goal posts, and repeat!




posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

Oh good. Now that we've been caught lying, we're going to play the victim card are we? Maybe you want to write me a poem comparing your plight to that of Bruno or Galileo while you're at it.

I'm not playing the victim card, just pointing out your hypocrisy and flaws in reasoning. Whenever someone disagrees with you you aggressively brand them as 'denialists', denounce them as liars in the pay of the oil-companies, as lunatic crackpots who wear tin-foil hats, all without a shred of honesty to your sorry names. You try to intimidate and batter people into accepting your pseudoscientific fantasy world as the real world but the people have rejected it. Can you imagine how frustrated all of us are feeling who have tried to engage in rational and civil discussion and debate with you warmists?


Now that we've been caught lying.

Unless you could read my mind you couldn't possibly know whether I was lying, misinterpreted what you said, or didn't understand. I would address the 'evidence' above but I'd prefer not to get into another digressive slagging match.
edit on 16-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Let us put aside the previous bitching at each other and take a look at what we are fighting about.

I will attempt to create an interpretation of the carbon figures. (Figure 7.3 in ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf).

You quoted:


As you'll note in the IPCC document, there is a total of 8gtC (6.4 + 1.6gtC; fossil fuels & land use) from human activity.


Taking their figures that Gross sink stands a 44,750 Giga-tonnes of Carbon. Adding up the pre-1750 figures I get 44,700 and the net value of the sink changes is 0 (zero) This makes perfect sense since the CO2 debate is about moving sequestrated carbon from fossil fuels to atmosphere for the most part and a minor (relatively speaking) movement due to changes of land use.

The flux figure for the 1990s on that graphic should also be in equilibrium should they not? We are talking about the movement of carbon as an element around the planetary system so on the assumption that we are not actually manufacturing new carbon the flux should be in balance.

In the italicised text under the figure it states "....The net terrestrial loss of -39 gtC is inferred from cumulative fossil fuel emissions
minus atmospheric increase minus ocean storage....."


(Just as an aside here a loss of -39 is a gain. Somehow I do not think they mean that but obviously they are not very good at words either. This should either be the net terrestrial loss of 39 gtC, or the change to the net terrestrial figure of -39 gtC. See how important words are.)

The previous sentence said "The loss of -140 gtC from the ‘vegetation, soil and detritus’ compartment represents the cumulative emissions from land use change" (Still that curiously inaccurate wording)

Now either there is a loss from land use of there is not. What is taking up this fudge factor figure? Presumably this is being taken up by the vegetation soil and detritus (a wonderful scientific term referring to the bacterial element I believe). Rather than "requires" perhaps they should show some studies that have been done to confirm that the biosphere is indeed taking this up. Since the inference here is that the biosphere should be assimilating quantities of CO2 then it should be relatively simple to demonstrate this rather than using a 'required' get out clause. Until that is studied (and please enlighten me if it has been) then it is not possible to make such a statement. One has to assume that this report was written by scientists and.....ah, wait no it was not.

There is a possibility here that in fact if CO2 levels were to rise this mechanism might in fact be a part of a self regulating loop. As the vegetation enjoys increased CO2 (and it does enjoy it - never has it had to suffer such low levels as the past few hundred thousand years) it will increase surface area. Increased surface area (growth) will assimilate more CO2 and out put more O2. As the 'required' biosphere updake is not an insubstantial tonnage of carbon it is also possible for vegetation to (eventually) restore equilibrium - even if we are pumping out CO2 (That is NOT an excuse to go on doing so)

It would be possible to postulate, were that to be verified, that the existing vegetation could counterbalance the loss by land clearance if sufficient CO2 was available. This in fact is no different to what would happen naturally when there is large loss of forest and increased CO2 (Just forget humans for a moment.)

Note: Well it seems that my hypothesis may indeed be correct. As I continued on through the document I cam across this on page 22/90 of the PDF file


An intriguing possibility is that rising CO2 levels could stimulate this uptake by accelerating photosynthesis, with ecosystem respiration lagging behind. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by about 1.5 ppm (0.4%) yr-1, suggesting incremental stimulation of photosynthesis of about 0.25% (e.g., next year’s photosynthesis should be 1.0025 times this year’s) (Lin et al., 1999; Farquhar et al., 2001). For a mean turnover rate of about 10 years for organic matter in tropical forests, the present imbalance between uptake of CO2 and respiration might be 2.5% (1.002510), consistent with the reported rates of live biomass increase (~3%).


Back to the calcs.

The NOAA report states:


Almost 45% of combined anthropogenic CO2 emissions (fossil fuel plus land use) have remained in the atmosphere. Oceans are estimated to have taken up approximately 30% (about 118 ± 19 gtC: Sabine et al., 2004a; Figure 7.3), an amount that can be accounted for by increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 without any change in ocean circulation or biology.


Since the diagram is meaningless to me I have transferred all the figures to a spreadsheet where I can better visualise them.



There is a minor discrepancy of 0.4gtC in the fluxes but we can ignore that.

I have to make an admission that I am not very good a warmist mathematics so please bear with me.

45% of CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere. So that is 165 Giga-tonnes of carbon. Correct? This gives us 366.6 gtC in total of which approximately 30% is estimated to have been taken up by the oceans. This is 109 gtC. 109 does indeed fall within the plus or minus 19 gtC even if somewhat loosely.

The report also states that all the gross flux values can be plus or minus 20%


Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%


So if I accept your 8 gtC (6.4 + 1.6) then you arrive at your calculation below.


What he's done is confused gtC (gigatons carbon) and gigatones of CO2. One is the mass of carbon, the other includes the oxygen bit as well. As you'll note in the IPCC document, there is a total of 8gtC (6.4 + 1.6gtC; fossil fuels & land use) from human activity. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, RMM of CO2 = 44.

So, 44/12 * 8 = 29ish gigatonnes of CO2.


Well OK 29.333. I don't like ishes.

So far so good. I am going to assume that you intended to say Giga-tonnes of carbon/CO2 in the two instances above. The distinction is important as you will see shortly.

Let's define the terms ton and tonne as I understand them. This is without reference to documentation since I was dealing in tonnages for crane lifts for quite some time in my earlier years.

1 ton = 2250 pounds. (Imperial)
1 tonne = 1000 kilograms (Metric)

There is another version in common use which is the short ton and that is 2000 pounds (Imperial)

1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms. I had to remove the link is to Google calculator as it just would not function correctly.

A ton is therefore 1020.528 tonnes

Mr Williams Pratt's figure of 8 gtons is therefore 8.164663 Giga-tonnes always assuming that when he says tons (as he does) he is referring to the Imperial measure. Converting his figure of 750 Giga-tons of CO2 to metric I arrive at approximately 765.437 Giga-tonnes. As you will see below this is very close to the weight of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Turning to this site I find that the weight of the atmosphere is 1.2E+19 lbs which is 5.33E+15Kg. 1 ton is 1020.528 kg so the figure in Kg is 5.44282E+18

On this site and on Wikipedia I find that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3E+18 Kg (suite101) or 5E+18 Kg (Wiki) - close enough for Jazz and thus I will accept the weight of the atmosphere as calculated on the suite101 page.

Turning to Wikipedia again and their article about the Atmosphere I find according to this document that ~40% of the atmosphere is composed of water vapour. If the atmosphere has a weight of 5.4E+18 kg then taking the proportions of gasses in the 'dry' atmosphere I derived the table below from their figures using the dry weight as 1,959,414 Giga-tonnes



Under the figures in Item 1 you will see that this gives us a figure of 758 Giga-tonnes of CO2. (I will choose in this instance to ignore the fact that Wikipedia has its figures wrong since it gives the percentage of other gasses as 0.037680 and then proceeds in the smaller pie chart on the right to show 0.0387 as the proportion of CO2. Since this is the ppm [roughly] we are working with I will use that figure)

This is where I seem to be having a slight difficulty. Using your formula 44/12 = 3.666666667 (which is verified by this site), if I divide the 758 gtCO2 by this I get 206.81 gtC as the weight of carbon in the atmosphere sink. (Ignore other trace gasses for the exercise). Let us be quite clear here, the Wiki figures are for CO2 and not Carbon so the calculated weight as a percentage of the whole MUST be divided by 44/12 to get the carbon element. The IPCC however has the total atmospheric sink as 762 gtC. How can this be? Have the IPCC done the reverse of Mr Pratt and called the CO2 figure the Carbon figure? It sure looks like it.
  • 758 gtCO2 calculated as above
  • 762 gtC from the IPCC


Each ppm represents roughly 2 gtC (1.95941376) so if the human caused element is according to you 102 ppm this is represents just under 200 gtCO2. There is a slight inaccuracy here as 27% of 758 is 204.7

As these figures are not all hard and fast and we are dealing in ball-park figures we can ignore this minor difference. That said if we adjust that figure to gtC it becomes 54.5 gtC

According to figure 7.3 in the IPCC report 165 gtC is the anthropogenic element of the Carbon in the atmosphere sink. Unfortunately 165 matches neither 200 or 54.5. Since by you own deliberation you ascribe all the increase in ppm to AGW can you explain the derivation of the figure 165 gtC which appear not to match gtC or gcCO2?

Turning now to NOAA they quote as follows:


Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons.


(Ignore the fact that they do not know the written difference between tons and tonnes.) Since they say atmospheric carbon dioxide I have to assume we are talking about that and not carbon. If the amount increased BY 0.6 percent then I have to take it that the figure of 19 billion tons is the equivalent of the 0.6%

0.6% of the figures (see item 4) is either 4.549758751 gtCO2 or 1.240843296 gtC, neither of which is 19 gtC or 19gtCO2. Can you explain where the figure of 19 gtCO2 is derived?

Let's see if we can find this. Using your 29 gtCO2 and the IPCC figure of 45% retention, this means that of 29 gtCO2 the retention should be 13.05 gtCO2. Yet NOAA is saying it is 19 gtCO2. Do you have an explanation for this apparent difference.? As far as my rather simple mathematics can determine it would require an outflow of 42.4 gtCO2 from human sources to retain 19 gtCO2. That being the case it would represent 11.59 gtC, yet the IPCC figure is 8 gtC.

Forgive me for observing that there appears to be something wrong with these calculations. I would be delighted if you could explain them, and show me the error in my calculations that makes me get different results from the IPCC.

Finally, you made no observation on the graphic I put up for the August and October temperature anomalies.



Surely an apparent decline in the temperature anomaly of 0.09 deg C whilst there was still an increase in CO2 ppm should elicit some sort of response?
edit on 16/11/2010 by PuterMan because: to correct a link



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by melatonin

Turning to Wikipedia again and their article about the Atmosphere I find according to this document that ~40% of the atmosphere is composed of water vapour. If the atmosphere has a weight of 5.4E+18 kg then taking the proportions of gasses in the 'dry' atmosphere I derived the table below from their figures using the dry weight as 1,959,414 Giga-tonnes.


The dry air mass of the atmosphere has been estimated at:

5.13 x 10^18kg

journals.ametsoc.org...

And I think your water vapour figure is an error. It only gets up to a max of around 4% in certain areas.

You can do it again, but I'm not really interested in your 'auditing'.


Finally, you made no observation on the graphic I put up for the August and October temperature anomalies.



Surely an apparent decline in the temperature anomaly of 0.09 deg C whilst there was still an increase in CO2 ppm should elicit some sort of response?
edit on 16/11/2010 by PuterMan because: to correct a link


Puterdude, I gave lots of responses to your points you've entirely ignored, why would I care? But as you seem desperate and in the hope I'll be able to resist replying to you again (you twist my melon, and I have better things to do)...

As I said, you appear keen to misrepresent me, and the same issue on which you implicitly misrepresented me t'other day (more than once) is related to why you think that temperature anomaly falling over a period of 3 months matters in any way to the long-term climate effects of CO2. I'll spell it out with the same strawman you again used today:


It is a gamble, but and I am not stating my position here, I cannot equate any laudable passion for protecting our planet when it is blindly directed at saying all climate change is man made...


User error.

Firstly, I know of no-one who has a half-decent grasp of climate science who says 'all climate change is manmade'; and, secondly, a period of 3 months is weather not climate. It means nothing in relation to an increase of CO2. Indeed, the fall is most likely due to a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions.

And I don't mean to be mean or rude, but, honestly, cba. Perhaps someone like MCsquared can be bothered to spare you time and allow you to twist their melon.
edit on 16-11-2010 by melatonin because: a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

The dry air mass of the atmosphere has been estimated at:

5.13 x 10^18kg

journals.ametsoc.org...


I don't want to get into a slanging match again melatonin. Mass is not weight and I clearly pointed that out in my post and gave the mass of the atmosphere and the weight.


And I think your water vapour figure is an error. It only gets up to a max of around 4% in certain areas.


You are absolutely right, thank you for pointing out my error.


You can do it again, but I'm not really interested in your 'auditing'.


I spent a very considerable amount of time trying to understand the figures, and since I have not been 'into' global warming before I needed to set things out so I could understand them and ask on the thread if what I have calculated was right. You pointed out a serious error on my part and that is fine. I will redo my figures, even if only for my own benefit. It is not auditing, it is trying to deny my ignorance of the subject so it is a shame that you take that attitude.


Puterdude, I gave lots of responses to your points you've entirely ignored, why would I care? But as you seem desperate and in the hope I'll be able to resist replying to you again (you twist my melon, and I have better things to do)...


I have not ignored any of your points that were worthy of response.


As I said, you appear keen to misrepresent me, and the same issue on which you implicitly misrepresented me t'other day (more than once) is related to why you think that temperature anomaly falling over a period of 3 months matters in any way to the long-term climate effects of CO2.


I never said it was to do with the long term effects. Why do you continue to be belligerent and unreasonable? I merely asked for comment. You could have made the comment that you have made above in a reasonable manner and not make assumptions.


I'll spell it out with the same straw man you again used today:


It is a gamble, but and I am not stating my position here, I cannot equate any laudable passion for protecting our planet when it is blindly directed at saying all climate change is man made...


User error.

Firstly, I know of no-one who has a half-decent grasp of climate science who says 'all climate change is manmade'; and, secondly, a period of 3 months is weather not climate. It means nothing in relation to an increase of CO2. Indeed, the fall is most likely due to a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions.


So you see that despite not actually understanding a straw man - which that was not - you can answer the question. If you think that was a straw man then you obviously either do not understand a straw man or do not understand the statement it would seem. What I said was exactly what you said, but never mind.

edit on 17/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Revised figures



Turning to Wikipedia again and their article about the Atmosphere I find according to this document that ~40% of the atmosphere is composed of water vapour. If the atmosphere has a weight of 5.4 x 10 to the power 18 kg then taking the proportions of gasses in the 'dry' atmosphere I derived the table below from their figures using the dry weight as 1,959,414 gtonnes

My error was pointed by you out that this is 0.4 overall and 1% to 4% at the surface and not 40% as I misread it. Thank you for pointing that out.


~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

From the Wikipedia source above.

In view of the extremely small value of this it can safely be ignore for the purposes of this exercise.

The revised figures therefore are as below but I have to say that this actually worsens the position in some respects. I am still looking for some explanation. Perhaps if you feel that you cannot cope with it someone else can because I am a little disappointed that my amateur attempt at verification should apparently be so far out. As I said in the previous post I must have something wrong, but I cannot see it (the error that is).



Under the figures in Item 1 you will see that this gives us a figure of 2,106 giga-tonnes of CO2.

This is where I seem to be having a slight difficulty. Using your formula 44/12 = 3.666666667 (which is verified by this site), if I divide the 1,264 gtCO2 by this I get 574.46 gtC as the weight of carbon in the atmosphere sink. (Ignore other trace gasses for the exercise). Let us be quite clear here, the Wiki figures are for CO2 and not Carbon so the calculated weight as a percentage of the wole MUST be divided by 44/12 to get the carbon element. The IPCC however has the total atmospheric sink as 762 gtC. How can this be? I really don't know because I can see no similarity and would appreciate an explanation.

Each ppm represents roughly 5.4 gtC so if the human caused element is 102 ppm (your calc) this is represents 555.167 gtCO2. If we adjust that figure to gtC it becomes 151.41 gtC

According to figure 7.3 in the IPCC report 165 gtC is the anthropogenic element of the Carbon in the atmosphere sink. Unfortunately 165 matches neither 555 or 151, but I will conceed it is at least getting closer to it with the 151 figure. Since by your own deliberation you ascribe all the increase in ppm to AGW can you explain the derivation of the figure 165 gtC which appear not to match gtC or gcCO2? To match 165 would require the human caused element to be 111.2 ppm. This would require the pre 1750 figure to be 275.2 if the total increae in ppm was ascribed to human input if we are assuming that had humans not started buring fossil fuels the figure would still be at the pre 1750 level.

I am sure these are just differences caused by timings of figures etc but I would like you to point them out if you would be so kind.

Turning now to NOAA they quote as follows:


Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons.


(Ignore the fact that they do not know the written difference between tons and tonnes.) Since they say atmospheric carbon dioxide I have to assume we are talking about that and not carbon. If the amount increased BY 0.6 percent then I have to take it that the figure of 19 billion tons is the equivalent of the 0.6%

0.6% of the figures (see item 4) is either 12.63821875 gtCO2 or 3.446786932 gtC, neither of which is 19 gtC or 19gtCO2. Can you explain where the figure of 19 gtCO2 is derived? This NOAA figure appears to be just plain wrong.

Let's see if we can find this. Using your 29 gtCO2 and the IPCC figure of 45% retention, this means that of 29 gtCO2 the retention should be 13.05 gtCO2. Yet NOAA is saying it is 19 gtCO2. Do you have an explanation for this apparent difference? As far as my rather simple mathematics can determine it would require an outflow of 42.4 gtCO2 from human sources to retain 19 gtCO2. That being the case it would represent 11.59 gtC, yet the IPCC figure is 8 gtC.

There appears to be something wrong with these calculations. I would be delighted if you could explain them, and show me the error in my calculations that makes me get different results from the IPCC. Since your comprehension of my terminology seems to be at odds with my intended meaning that is NOT a dig, barbed point, disagreement or anything else but a request for information and enlightenment.
edit on 17/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Poptech
 



Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Some how I don't think you will though.



Wel
obviously you did not back up your argument before you posted.

Starting with warm temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 19,400,000 results (0.26 seconds)

Now with cold temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 538,000 results (0.16 seconds)

Case closed.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Just on the subject of Science Daily, tell me why do you always quote this source which is not credible in my opinion for the main reason that it never almost without exception presents anything than an alarmist point of view usually cleaned from an AGW friendly alert service. It is not a scientific web site and is not the original publisher of anything.

On top of that it hardly belongs to a credible scientific institute. Part of the iVillage Your Total Health Network

Is this souce of yours more credible than Poptech's site? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


A very simple question this. Please tell me the locations of all the sensors used to collect this data and the numbers of stations included in the set from the period 1980 to 2010 on a yearly basis.

If you should happen to find that sensors in colder areas, be that above lat 62 or at higher altitudes, have been removed from the equation can you then explain how such removal does not have an impact on the overall temperature figures?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Poptech
 


lol and just like that you help prove exactly what I wrote in the above post.

Again does this look like it came from a website full of lies?
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

You frivolously accuse all of mainstream science of being corrupt and lying but then wah wah cry foul when you get a dose of your own medicine.

Pathetic.


Can you please explain why you have a problem with this? First of all AGW is funded by Governments and Institutions such as the IPCC as their mouthpiece and they definitely have an agenda just as much as 'big oil'

The fact that any scientists funding comes from Big Oil is an extreme irrelevance particularly since in the advent of failing fuel supplies or the curtailment of the use of fuel supplies, 'Big Oil' will be the ones to find renewable more friendly alternative and indeed they are ploughing research money into that.

I don't have a problem with AGW research being funded by organisations with an eye on the tax take, why should you have a problem with Big Oil.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


5442816000000000 times .0387 = 210,636,979,200,000 = 210 gtonnes.............NOT 2,106......

(i hope my maths is right been 20years since i did my 'A' lvl maths....)

my bad i did indeed forget about the percentage......



edit on 17/11/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Mm, this does nasty thing to the figures if you are correct

Checking....

5,442,816,000,000,000 x 0.0387 / 100 (I think perhaps you forgot this is a percentage?) = 2,106,369,792,000
2,106,369,792,000/ 1000,000,000 = 2106.369792

Please tell me if I am wrong but any other solution throws the figures so far out that I would have to manipulate the original data because I don't like the result!


edit on 17/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
I don't have a problem with AGW research being funded by organisations with an eye on the tax take, why should you have a problem with Big Oil.


I honestly don't know how to answer this other than to tell you - you crazy mang.

I mean if you really can't see the conflict of interest there, the double standard, the long history of corporations cutting environmental corners in the name of profit over public health and safety - good luck to you PuterMan.

Let me guess - you're a Libertarian right?

If this is the case I'm going to tell you what I tell every one of you guys: I don't believe in Big Government either. I don't believe in it because I believe governments are inherently corrupt. However, the reason I believe they're corrupt is because they're in the back pocket of Big Business. So fighting one by falling right into the lap of the other is idiotic. All you're really doing is cutting out the middleman who at least might fight on your behalf sometimes, and bending over and taking it straight from the source.

But the mistake you make is thinking all of us warmists are just in bed with big government ideals. I don't go around telling everybody to just listen to whatever Al Gore says. I preach personal responsibility - something that is essential if you want some sort of Libertarian utopia to exist anyway.

If you get past all the political propaganda surrounding the global warming issue you will see this is what it's really about. And there is no way in hell I'm going to hand over the reigns to corporations and oil companies on this just because they are industry leaders or whatever. This is tantamount to admitting they are basically our overlords anyway.

If people really want true personal freedom and liberty - they need to realize the power really does lie in their own hands. This means dictating where the market goes through our personal decisions and lifestyle choices. But people need to wake up first - and the so-called global warming "alarmism" provides them the platform to do that.

However sheeple in general are constantly conditioned to just go wherever the big boys want it to go - which is clearly evident in how much all this big oil funded propaganda is working on the common folk these days. And anyone with the slightest clue should know their route involves the path that leads them to the most profit, not our personal freedom and liberty.

Furthermore, the idea that this is all just a giant hoax to git our taxes doesn't even make any sense. Because the end result is we're all consuming less and generating less revenue to tax. The elitists have a lot more to lose than they stand to gain from this - and big oil and coal clearly stand to lose the most.

So this is why I would absolutely trust the 97% of all mainstream scientists who happen to be sponsored by government grants or whatever, much more than the 3% who clearly seem to be tied to the idea of profit before planet.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

not sure as i said its been a long time since i did maths.

try this link to see where u might have gone wrong
micpohling.wordpress.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Poptech
 



Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Some how I don't think you will though.



Wel
obviously you did not back up your argument before you posted.

Starting with warm temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 19,400,000 results (0.26 seconds)

Now with cold temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 538,000 results (0.16 seconds)

Case closed.





Erm - I don't get. Which team are you on again lol? 19,400,000 >> 538,000



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



Whenever someone disagrees with you you aggressively brand them as 'denialists'


It has nothing to do with disagreement - it has everything to do with facts. First off there is a patently clear denial industry out there that is feeding you the vast majority of your talking points. How is pointing this out a "flaw in reasoning"? You can try to write it off like that all you want, but the evidence for this is all over the place and ignoring it the way you do only helps reinforce your own stereotype.

So you are branded a denier because you constantly stick your fingers in your ears and deny all the mountains of evidence put before you that challenge YOUR stance. Just like a creationist would. You have an insanely ridiculous double standard for evidence.

You take the slightest typo or hiccup and treat it like it's some linchpin that unravels 150+ years of atmospheric physics and climate science. And you're always so immediately charmed by this nugget of fool's gold you uncovered (on some blog usually), that you automatically ignore the 10,000 other pieces of the puzzle that beg to differ.

Then when someone turns the skeptic tables on you, and puts the slightest bit of pressure on your stance by looking at the WHOLE STORY, you play the victim and claim you're being ostracized for having an opposing viewpoint - but all you're really doing is dodging the question. Somehow you think you're immune from this scrutiny simply because in your world you've painted yourself the heroic underdog fighting the evil empire, and therefore can do no wrong.

Likewise you constantly misrepresent the science, and then when you get caught - you try to dismiss your own ignorance offhand and blame everything somehow on the supposed arrogance and defensiveness of the people who understood it in the first place.

Yes I do get aggressive and defensive in these situations, but it has nothing to do with my beliefs being challenged. It has everything to do with reacting to the way people like you absolutely butcher proper science and critical thinking to make everything fit your flimsy point of view.


...
So it's absolutely re-DONK-ulous trying to have a reasonable open discussion with you. Because all you ever do is move the goal posts or cry foul every time someone points out something that gets those cognitive dissonance bells in your head ringing. Meanwhile your understanding on this topic is so backward, half the time you're kicking the ball into your own net and claiming victory.

So yeah, disagreement doesn't enter into it when there's no logical discussion going on in the first place - only blind contradiction.

The problem is your head is so polluted with all the misinformation and lies you get from these little denier blogs, that you think everybody else's must be too. So anything we present to address and challenge your points becomes automatically invalid in your world because somehow it's all tainted by Al Gore or something.

That's why objective facts and logic don't matter in this debate - because they're all tainted by your dogma, not ours.

You've been schooled enough times already that you should have learned this by now, but of course I guess how could you when you're stuck inside the box and can't see what it looks like from the outside?

So go ahead and make the same claim about me now. But you know what - it comes down to track record. And I'm not the one trying to lecture people with graphs I don't understand. I'm not the one contradicting myself by agreeing CO2 must trap heat in one post, while claiming it violates the laws of physics in another. I'm not the one making a general mockery of science, posting links from right-wing propaganda sites like junkscience.com, and then bragging how devoted I am to upholding the purity of the scientific method.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 





So you are branded a denier because you constantly stick your fingers in your ears and deny all the mountains of evidence put before you that challenge YOUR stance. Just like a creationist would. You have an insanely ridiculous double standard for evidence.


No, i think you brand people "Deniers" because you have painted yourself into a corner.....And that is the only option you have left to you.

Sceptics, or those who express doubts on the evidence so far on the other hand can accept ALL outcomes as the facts continue to mount and a TRUE consensus is reached. Which is why the term "Anthropogenic Global warming" has been dumped and a more general term of "Climate Change" adopted........Because there is not consensus at present.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I have absolutely no idea what a Libertarian is. I don't like politics or politicians and I would happily remove the whole lot of them and let us get on with our lives.

Mainstream science is funded by governments with a tax and control agenda and most scientists have to go along because otherwise they would not get research funding. This no different to my way of viewing it than someone who is not mainstream turning to big oil or anyone else to get funding.

I cannot believe that you are so naive as to seriously believe that if a mainstream scientist did not tow the party line (and I am not just talking AGW) that he would find it easy to get funding for the next project. Dream on.

I don't trust any of them, mainstream or otherwise as they all have an agenda and there are few who can tell the whole truth because of the constraints. They are all warped and all tell lies. The trick is to try and extract the truth from the tangled web on both sides.

At the end of the day we get screwed over either way so what the hell.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


From that site:


Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 1015 tonnes
= 2.996×10pwr12 tonnes.


This is 2,996,000,000,000 which is 2,996 gigatonnes. The difference is because they are using a much higher percentage of CO2.

I think that makes the magnitude of my figure correct.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by mc_squared
 





So you are branded a denier because you constantly stick your fingers in your ears and deny all the mountains of evidence put before you that challenge YOUR stance. Just like a creationist would. You have an insanely ridiculous double standard for evidence.


No, i think you brand people "Deniers" because you have painted yourself into a corner.....And that is the only option you have left to you.

Sceptics, or those who express doubts on the evidence so far on the other hand can accept ALL outcomes as the facts continue to mount and a TRUE consensus is reached. Which is why the term "Anthropogenic Global warming" has been dumped and a more general term of "Climate Change" adopted........Because there is not consensus at present.


Great, thanks for the enlightenment there chief.

Unfortunately your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The idea that we have painted ourselves into some desperate corner stems from your own lack of full understanding on this topic, not ours. Want proof?

Here you go:
Can We At Least Get One Thing Straight About Climate Change?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join