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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 



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 happen to know plenty of scientists, I study under them. And your sweeping generalization is what's beyond naive. Most scientists I know are intensely brainiac nerds who are way more motivated by the pursuit of knowledge and truth than money. Yes they need to put food on the table like everybody else, but that's what those administrative and teaching gigs tend to take care of.

If there's anything tainting their approach maybe it's the fact that some of them are driven by the need to be acknowledged by their peers too much, but this is precisely what makes the world of peer-review so robust and self-refereeing in the end anyway.

To think that they are all "in on it" is downright absurd, and nothing but some paranoid tinfoil fantasy of those who understand absolutely nothing of the actual business.

If their integrity was compromised others would be calling them out on it immediately. Meanwhile the only ones actually "blowing the whistle" are the ones who are routinely shown to be taking their pay cheques from much more dubious sources.




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

It has nothing to do with disagreement - it has everything to do with facts.

If you want facts, like you say, then don't get your information from the IPCC because they started off with a belief and a conviction that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming and have sought to gather evidence selectively to prove that conviction. That is not the way of scientists whose interest is only in finding out the truth. Surely only an unquestioning dummy would accept anything they dish out at face value?


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.

Sorry, but it still has not been established by empirical science that CO2 is having any significant effect on global temperatures, much less that whatever miniscule effect it might be having would be deleterious. You say that the evidence for the CAGW theory is all over the place and that I am irrationally ignoring it? What evidence may this be? You mean the continuing stream of nonsense-data from the NOAA's IR-satellites that have been on the blink for years and which the NOAA refuse to fix for some weird reason best known to their team of corporate psychotherapists? Or such as the latest surface temperature readings from thermometers that have been conveniently sited next to the air-conditioning vents of large buildings? Or such as the latest study of tree-rings? Or the IPCC's conjectural and subjective models which have failed to correctly predict the climate on innumerable occasions and which contradict 30 years of radiosonde observations? Or ice-cores that have been found to consistently underestimate the amount of atmospheric CO2? You mean that evidence?


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.

Once again, I am just pulling you up on your behaviour. You yourself admit you get aggressive. Well, a denialist is usually an aggressive type of person who is compulsively driven to attack other people who he perceives, usually mistakenly, to be carrying the characteristics that he hates in himself and which he is denying he has. A well-balanced and well-integrated person who accepts himself wholly for what he is does not need to play this game with himself and so he is not aggressive.


and then bragging how devoted I am to upholding the purity of the scientific method.

I am, or rather we are. The scientific position is intrinsically skeptical by default and the total burden of proof lies with the advocates of each and every new proposition.


And I'm not the one trying to lecture people with graphs I don't understand

Yes, I misinterpreted the graph and I have admitted that. At least when I make mistakes I can admit them, which is more than what you can say.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Team? Is there some requirement to belong to any 'team'? I am an individual and I don't do 'team' anything.


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


In plain English that is a statement that someone will not get more articles about warm weather since your statement "Somehow I don't think you will though" logically follows "You will get more articles than you will about cold weather.", thus you are saying that you do not think someone will get more articles about warm weather.

"more than about cold" is negated by "don't think you will" in other words fewer about warm.

Pretty clear cut I think. I was responding to your English. If that was not what you meant to say then perhaps you should be bit more succinct.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Yes, I misinterpreted the graph and I have admitted that. At least when I make mistakes I can admit them, which is more what you can you.


Are you ****ing kidding??? You completely DENIED it at first, until mel called you out on it in this thread and you had no choice but to admit it. Then you started denying it again once I jumped in.

You are soooo bloody deluded and this is exactly why you get called a denier.

I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong when you manage to actually show it.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I can't speak for atlasastro but I'm 99.9% sure he'll tell you "don't think you will though" refers to the idea that Poptech won't bother googling it.



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



I happen to know plenty of scientists, I study under them. And your sweeping generalization is what's beyond naive. Most scientists I know are intensely brainiac nerds who are way more motivated by the pursuit of knowledge and truth than money. Yes they need to put food on the table like everybody else, but that's what those administrative and teaching gigs tend to take care of.


No more naive than your sweeping statement of the converse.


If there's anything tainting their approach maybe it's the fact that some of them are driven by the need to be acknowledged by their peers too much, but this is precisely what makes the world of peer-review so robust and self-refereeing in the end anyway.


Far from robust when there is evidence of rubber-stamping, but you will of course deny this.


To think that they are all "in on it" is downright absurd, and nothing but some paranoid tinfoil fantasy of those who understand absolutely nothing of the actual business.


Precisely so why do you think it is acceptable to apply it to others? (In your mind the dark side, the deniers.) Sauce for the goose and all that.


If their integrity was compromised others would be calling them out on it immediately. Meanwhile the only ones actually "blowing the whistle" are the ones who are routinely shown to be taking their pay cheques from much more dubious sources.


Touching your faith in humanity. Sad that your utopia does not exist. There there, never mind. When you are little older you might not have quite so much faith in peopole.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Then in that case I do apologise. It was not clear.

I hope he will clarify that.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong.

I doubt that'll ever happen. Seriously.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 





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?


Nothing to do with my "lack of understanding"....I take information from all sides, and that is why i can say there is no consensus for your claims.

For instance THIS
And don't forget to see the PDF included in that link.

And some more articles HERE



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
OK, answering the 5.36am post. Most of which applies to those that followed with corrections from bad figures.


Originally posted by PuterMan
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


It's a pretty well-established idea that photosynthesis might help ameliorate emissions to a degree - but they don't appear a magical cure (as CO2 is ever increasing). I just don't see the point of that long and winding tangent.

What was the point?


A ton is therefore 1020.528 tonnes


Cool.


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.


I think the 750Gt CO2 is the flux of CO2 in the carbon cycle, rather than the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The mass of CO2 in the atmsophere is easily calculated.

1ppm = 2.13 GtC, 1ppm = 7.81Gt CO2

cdiac.ornl.gov...

Therefore, (using 385ppm) 385 x 2.13 = 820.05 GtC

820.05 x 44/12 = 3006.85Gt CO2 (and 7.81 x 385 = 3006.85)


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?


Because your calculations are wrong? In my experience, it's usually not the case that 'warmist' maths are the problem.

ABE: The figure uses data from the 1990s, so it's not ideal to apply really. For example, the NOAA data you move to is from 2007.


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?


19Gt CO2 = 19/7.81 = 2.4ppm

0.6% x 3006.85 = 18.04

Then the differences will be random issues in units and decimal places (and periods in which data applies).

But that wasn't all the CO2 released. If we take the total emissions (and I have no idea if that was the estimate for 2007 - it looks to be a ballpark 27 from here ), then we'd have 19/27 = 70%. So only around 30% would have been absorbed by sinks in that year.


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.?


The 45% retention is a statistic that takes into account many years data. It's not writ into law in every year that exactly 45% is retained. This will vary like any statistic at individual data points (i.e., years). One concern is that sinks will actually start to be less effective over time. As, for example, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans reduces with increasing temperature. A few studies have examined this, and show some potential issues (e.g., La Quere et al., 2009). Knorr (2009, who I noted above) suggests the airborne fraction is unchanged (however, I've talked about issues with that study elsewhere).

So, yeah, the 45% issue....it's like someone complaining that because the statistics show boys grow around 6cm/year during 5-12, that there is a problem as their son grew 8cm in one year. It just means they grew above average in one year.

Figure 7.4 outlines this variation in AF over yearly data.


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.


You see, this is what irks me, Puterdude. I'm not your friggin' monkey! lol

If you want to go off and do 'citizen' auditing of something you admit you have little grasp of, that's fine. But you can't expect me to spend an inordinate amount of time deciphering where your error is, their error is, or even trying to solve something you think is important (but I think is little more than distraction).

It's not my job and, it might be a surprise to some, I have a life! If you keep it short and sweet, and therefore easily decipherable, I might be more accommodating.

And, overall, what is the point of your perseveration here? We are releasing 29ish Gt CO2. Each year we see around 2ppmish increases.

We emit more than is needed to account for the increase.

For over a thousand years CO2 appear to have been relatively stable around 280ppm until the industrial age. Ice-cores show that for over 650,000 years CO2 barely rose above 300ppm. We are way above that level.
edit on 17-11-2010 by melatonin because: My dinga-ling, my dinga-ling...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



cdiac.ornl.gov...


A useful link. Thank you.


The figure uses data from the 1990s, so it's not ideal to apply really. For example, the NOAA data you move to is from 2007.


That is a point.


You see, this is what irks me, Puterdude. I'm not your friggin' monkey! lol

'citizen' auditing


'citizen' auditing? Why do you persist in assuming I am trying to pull you up. I am not auditing, just developing an understanding. Neither is it my 'job' to educate or help people with understanding my area of interest including help systems that I participate in the upkeep of voluntarily however I certainly hope I do not respond to people in the tone that you respond.


And, overall, what is the point of your perseveration here?


I will assume that you refer to perseveration in this instance as persevering or perseverance rather than any other meaning. I should have thought that would be obvious to someone of intelligence. I wish to get the basis right before I look at the rest.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
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 pity your anti-science leanings, and I think you do have little experience of science and scientists.

Mainstream scientists not towing the line? Well, I can think of two very easily.

Roy Spencer appears to do OK, while working with the Marshall and Heartland think-tanks (part of the denial machine).

Henrik Svensmark's CLOUD project at CERN attracted over 2 million euros.

In place of little more than your wild allegations of scientific fraud (which is what you said comes down to, no?), I can refer you to the escapades of the Bush government in gagging scientists and manipulating their work...


"The Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming," said the report, which is the result of a 16-month probe by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues."

www.csmonitor.com...

Oh yeah, but the scientists just had to tow the line...


Hansen, who holds a doctorate in physics, has been issuing warnings of the consequences of man-made pollution of the atmosphere for 15 years. He rightly refused to comply with the gag order. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he told The New York Times, noting that "public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." According to Hansen, many scientists within the government have been pressured to avoid public discussion of climate change.

Climatologist Jeff Masters, who blogs for the Weather Underground, denounced government censorship aimed at downplaying the dangers of global warming. "Our taxpayer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically appointed officials concerned with 'making the president look good.' Climate change is of critical importance ... and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best.

www.chron.com...

But maybe Hansen just had Bush cooties...


Indeed, "goals" and "caps" on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen -- caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

www.grist.org...

Oh, I see, he also gave Obama a piece of his mind telling him he thought Cap and Trade was 'practically worthless'.

Even outside Climate Science there are examples that come straight to mind (David Nutt).

Your allegations and characterisation of scientists as some sort of meek and weak muppets under control of The Man is beyond BS. But I guess it's one way to maintain denial in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence - just reject science as an enterprise. Problem solved!


Originally posted by PuterMan

The figure uses data from the 1990s, so it's not ideal to apply really. For example, the NOAA data you move to is from 2007.


That is a point.


Uh-huh. I suppose it is, lol.



'citizen' auditing


'citizen' auditing? Why do you persist in assuming I am trying to pull you up. I am not auditing, just developing an understanding. Neither is it my 'job' to educate or help people with understanding my area of interest including help systems that I participate in the upkeep of voluntarily however I certainly hope I do not respond to people in the tone that you respond.


Oh, come on. That post was actually fine and not barbed at all, and I don't think you're trying to pull me up. The term is just meant to express that you are less than someone with the skills or knowledge to understand what you're doing.

I think how it all has gone down sort of illustrates that very clearly, and shows that without some basics you're going to have these issues. And my point is that it's not my job to work your problems out for you - I'm being entirely sincere when I said I'm busy, and the next few days/weeks are only going to be busier. So, again, my aim is not to be mean or rude, I just don't have time (or the motivation) to school you in the way in which you appear to think I should.


I wish to get the basis right before I look at the rest.


An honourable endeavour. Might be an idea to get on some physics courses.

What I'm trying to get across when asking 'what is the point', is what is your aim? What are you trying to find? What do you expect to find? What is it you want to know?

And I'm not interested in the answers. I didn't say any of that for me, it's to hopefully help you figure out just what the hell you're trying to achieve by playing with the numbers?

Because if you come from the perspective that scientists are merely puppets and the science is a fraud played out to tax and control the masses, I have a slight intuition that perhaps there's some potential pre-existing biases which could colour your efforts, lol.

ABE: and I wanted to add that you did get kudos from me for so readily accepting your boo-boos earlier. It's one of the reasons why I'm still bothering to reply. It does get negated by your opinions of scientists, though.
edit on 17-11-2010 by melatonin because: us kids know!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I pity your anti-science leanings, and I think you do have little experience of science and scientists.


Quite how you deduce that I do not understand but then I am beginning to realise that 'anti-science leanings' is one of the little barbs that you like to prod people with to see if you can get them worked up. As a taunt it is meaningless as you have absolutely no idea what my background is so how can you tell I am anti-science. The fact I may not be aware of one science does not mean I an unaware of all of them or indeed against the sciences. That is a completely fallacious statement.


Oh, come on. That post was actually fine and not barbed at all, and I don't think you're trying to pull me up. The term is just meant to express that you are less than someone with the skills or knowledge to understand what you're doing.


There really is not much to say if you cannot understand how that was barbed, but then in fact I do believe that you understand perfectly well. You accuse me of playing mind games when you are just as much a user of such techniques if not more so. Your main tactic seems to be to attempt to belittle everyone who does not subscribe to your view. After our initial contretemps I was prepared to be civil however it seems that you are not, or are just not aware of your incivility.

Whilst you quote examples of scientists who may have stood up to the constraints that in fact confirms the constraints. There are also others who have admitted these constraints, and whilst the few you mentioned may have stood up and been counted, how many have not?


I think how it all has gone down sort of illustrates that very clearly, and shows that without some basics you're going to have these issues............ So, again, my aim is not to be mean or rude, I just don't have time (or the motivation) to school you in the way in which you appear to think I should.


Obviously it completely escapes you as to just how rude you can be, but never mind. Just as you cannot be bothered to enlighten me I to cannot be bothered to attempt to teach manners to you as I do not have the time for what would probably be a very looooong process.


What I'm trying to get across when asking 'what is the point', is what is your aim? What are you trying to find? What do you expect to find? What is it you want to know?


You don't know? You are less intelligent than I thought.


And I'm not interested in the answers.


That does not surprise me.


I didn't say any of that for me, it's to hopefully help you figure out just what the hell you're trying to achieve by playing with the numbers?


Playing with the numbers. Mm, now let me see. If I 'play' with the numbers I might understand them, oops no better not do that, just accept them as gospel instead.

I am fully aware of what I am trying to achieve. Unlike you I like to look at all sides of the argument. If you choose to accept as gospel everything that you see if it agrees with your agenda then you do not have as enquiring a mind as I had presumed you have. I am assuming that is what you do since you are telling me in effect that I should not enquire into things with terms like 'just what the hell you're trying to achieve by playing with the numbers'.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by melatonin
I pity your anti-science leanings, and I think you do have little experience of science and scientists.


Quite how you deduce that I do not understand but then I am beginning to realise that 'anti-science leanings' is one of the little barbs that you like to prod people with to see if you can get them worked up.


Uh-huh.

Or perhaps it's an observation I've made over the last few days.

As I effectively said in U2Us, best wishes.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Poptech
 



Google record warm temperatures.

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

19 million plus on record warm temps.


You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Now with cold temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 538,000 results (0.16 seconds)

Is that all, I think Poptech will be disappointed, he may run out of "Cold Weather" articles to spam on this thread.

Lets compare though, hey!
19,400,000 for record warm temps.
538,000 for record cold temps.
Roughly 18, 850,000 million more for record warm temps.


Some how I don't think you will though.

I was right here, Poptech didn't do what you did. I wonder why!

Thank you Puterdude.





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


I already knew the result. So did Poptech. Hence his lack of reply.
But thanks for the light entertainment.


Case closed.



My closing comment was directed at Poptech.
"Somehow I don't think you will" was my opinion that Poptech would not google record warm temps.
And you have displayed exactly why I had expressed that opinion.

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


Thank you, it has been a while since I have lost total bladder control from an extreme episode of laughter.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Glad you enjoyed it. Laughter is good for you. Actually mc_squared did explain that you were meaning poptech would not do it.

Have a nice day.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Just on the subject of Science Daily, tell me why do you always quote this source
I use them because they are actually up todate, all those links I used are for 2010. They always SOURCE and REFERENCE the material. The quotes used are always attributed to its source, the papers and studies too, so you can research it all yourself.


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

A simple search on science daily refutes your argument, in spades.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.
www.sciencedaily.com...
This study downplays the warming induced by CO2.
Too bad it is from Science Daily hey!
Otherwise you could have used it to prop up your ignorance.


Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
www.sciencedaily.com...
This article is critical of the very charge you lay against Science Daily.
At the bottom of the article, this is displayed.

Story Source:
The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of California - Berkeley. The original article was written by Yasmin Anwar, Media Relations.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA
University of California - Berkeley (2010, November 16). Doomsday messages about global warming can backfire, study shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from www.sciencedaily.com... /releases/2010/11/101117094248.htm

Which has this link in it.
www.berkeley.edu...
Takes you to Berkeley.
Where you will find this:
www.berkeley.edu...

In view of the above examples. Would you like to reconsider this statement:

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.

As I said before, all the material is sourced and referenced.
IF you would like to refute any of the information in the articles to Science Daily I linked before, then simply do so. It is that simple.
I don't see you applying the same criticism to PopTech, who uses News Papers and traditional MSM for many of his links related to "cooling".
Care to explain your bias in relation to this?


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

Point out where I claim it is?
Just point it out bro. Simple.
I guess Berkeley is not reputable!




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

Considering you have not compared the two in a critical manner renders your opinion useless.
I think your statement:

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

could be stated in a much more concise and valid manner if you had simply said:

I don't think.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.


Yeah, "Science" is a comic book.
darn scientists are messin up the scam.

Take a look at what " mr seaside residence's" chart actually shows in his movie
"an inconvenient carbon credit trading scheme designed by enron "

The carbon goes up after the temperature
he left out some major cooling periods...Hockey stick...yeah right.


MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

above two quotes:
www.xrwh.com...

Apparently all that avaliable plant food made the earth a veritable paradise and the high carbon periods are when life has flourished the most.
This is why C02 is introduced into greenhouses
because there isn't enough to make plants REALLY happy in the air now.
But I guess you need a farmer to tell a scientwit how to find his own butt....
that a man outstanding in his field for ya.....


"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

www.sciencedaily.com...

There is the NOAA sat that was scewed to read temp up to 15 deg higher than it actually is...
Then there are the Canadian mathmeticians who showed the Global warming models went up no matter what numbers were entered in......
So, because the fundi mental figures of the global warming crowd were designed to justify the fleecing of the global population and were not designed to convay the truth,
the math I suspect
WILL NEVER WORK OUT.

And now thanks to the inconvienient truth movement's exposure of the some of the more glaring warming frauds hopefully the Carbon trading scam math will never work out either...

If you will notice now the carbon trading scam has been trashed, have any of you warmers noticed the price of oil lately....
Yep... that's right....see you @ 200.00 $US a barrel dudes.
Mr inconvienient OCCIDENTAL OIL....
Pig oil is funding WHO??????


I luv my down jackets and quilts.
AND ICE FISHING.

The movie An inconvienient Truth has so much dis info in it, it is illegal to show it to school kids in Britian while labeling it a documentary.


edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: ICE FISHING!!!!!!!!!

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: I spell like warmists do math, lol

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: edtwiting my edits now.......aaaarrrrggghhhhh



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.


Yeah, "Science" is a comic book.
darn scientists are messin up the scam.

Yeah, I like Science the Comic book, I think you are in it, Captain Ignorance.


Your "myth" above fails to include the fact that the ICE CORE samples measured the environment without 6 billion people in it, all consuming and emitting vast amounts sequestered carbon( see OIL, GAS and COAL).
So comparing ice core records and CO2 and then using them to dismiss CO2 trends related to man is a false logic.
But anyway you actually prove that anthropogenic CO2 is significant because you are referring to NATURAL trends in climate and CO2 levels. We can determine the many different facets that give us the information that a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to temp. increases of around 3 degrees. So, we can refer to the levels of man made GHG emissions as being significant along with rising temps because we have the history you mention as a guide to NATURAL CO2 in relation to temperature levels.
It is pretty simple logic really.
Well, at least to most people.


MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

Actually, the CO2 related to AGW is totally unprecedented and has nothing to do with any natural process.
Never before in the entire history of the earth have humans released so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you can point out in the history books where this has happened before, you may start making some valid arguments.
CO2 is known to effect temperature.
Again, it is pretty simple to equate.


Apparently all that avaliable plant food made the earth a veritable paradise and the high carbon periods are when life has flourished the most.
Yeah, we can see how well life is flourishing at the moment. Not.


This is why C02 is introduced into greenhouses
because there isn't enough to make plants REALLY happy in the air now.


The reason scientists are worried about CO2 is because temperature rises will effect sea levels which will effect literally hundreds of millions of people. It will effect rainfall that will effect the globe and its ability to supply agriculture and people with water, water supplies for millions from seasonal Glacial melts will be threatened, the list goes on.
The world won't blow up
, it is just that the effects will create many problems.

Introducing the benefits of CO2 are fine, but ignoring the "issues" that scientists have raised as a concern is quite frankly astounding.




"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

It fails to explain the warming in a specific period. That being the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
www.sciencedaily.com...
That is a really interesting article.
Because it refers to the level of warming in the PETM. In this period the cause of the rise in CO2 was unknown.
In this era, we know exactly who is raising the CO2 levels. Humans.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span

7 degree's

I hope the models are wrong!
Anyway, to finish of in context near the end.

Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

WTF!
The models account for half the warming in an era that they cannot attribute a cause to CO2 or other factors contributing to warming.
Half would mean a 3.5 degree temperature rise.

The CO2 levels in the PETM rose by 70% and the models are correct up to an account of half the warming at during the PETM @3.5degree rise from a 7 degree rise.



There is the NOAA sat that was scewed to read temp up to 15 deg higher than it actually is...
Then there are the Canadian mathmeticians who showed the Global warming models went up no matter what numbers were entered in......
So, because the fundi mental figures of the global warming crowd were designed to justify the fleecing of the global population and were not designed to convay the truth,
the math I suspect
WILL NEVER WORK OUT.
Which they fixed. Still showing a warming trend.
You Fail. Again

But any way, just point out who is being fleeced.
The Chicago Carbon Exchange just shut up shop, for example. Copenhagen, failed. USA and China are not interested in meeting any realistic policy or will even come close to the suggestions, recommendations or expectations from the scientific community.

Your rational or accusation for the scientists "inspiration" for "creating fraudulent temps" has failed to materialize.
The only math not working out, is yours.


And now thanks to the inconvienient truth movement's exposure of the some of the more glaring warming frauds hopefully the Carbon trading scam math will never work out either...

The biggest scam going is that Oil, gas and power are heavily subsidized so as to make it cheaper than it actually is, and YOU are actually paying for it, WITH THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET.
That is the most expensive scam I have ever seen.

The artificial cost of Oil has made the west dependent on it. It has crippled innovation and research and development into alternatives and more efficient methods across the spectrum of power supply, its use and its distribution and this mentality has spread to manufacturing, production and transportation industries.
That is the scam.
So much for freedom, democracy, capitalism and a free market hey!
You have bought into the real scam, and now your denial is protecting that scam.


If you will notice now the carbon trading scam has been trashed, have any of you warmers noticed the price of oil lately....
Yep... that's right....see you @ 200.00 $US a barrel dudes.
Mr inconvienient OCCIDENTAL OIL....
Pig oil is funding WHO??????

*Sigh*
Oil won't hit 200.00 US a barrel. It will rise though because the US dollar is dropping in value because the US is printing 6000000000000000bazzillion dollars.

Try and keep up, won't you.

But dude, let me tell you if Oil hits US $100, The US will be back to the state it was in around 2008.
And this will have nothing to do with scientists or global warming.


I luv my down jackets and quilts.
Woud that down jacket be the one with the buckles on the back?

AND ICE FISHING.
Get it in while you can.



The movie An inconvienient Truth has so much dis info in it, it is illegal to show it to school kids in Britian while labeling it a documentary.

It is a good thing that the whole scientific debate surrounding AGW rarely uses Al Gore as a source.


edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: ICE FISHING!!!!!!!!!

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: I spell like warmists do math, lol

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by Danbones because: edtwiting my edits now.......aaaarrrrggghhhhh







posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

Your "myth" above fails to include the fact that the ICE CORE samples measured the environment without 6 billion people in it, all consuming and emitting vast amounts sequestered carbon (see OIL, GAS and COAL).

Atmospheric-concentrations higher than 7000ppm of CO2 didn't cook the planet millions of years ago. Why is anthropogenic CO2 different?


So comparing ice core records and CO2 and then using them to dismiss CO2 trends related to man is a false logic.

The ice cores show us that CO2 lags temperature change and this fact fundamentally contradicts the very heart of the AGW-theory. If CO2 is such a significant driver of global temperature instead of lagging temperature surely it would precede temperature?


But anyway you actually prove that anthropogenic CO2 is significant because you are referring to NATURAL trends in climate and CO2 levels.

That makes no sense.


We can determine the many different facets that give us the information that a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to temp. Increases of around 3 degrees.

This has not yet been determined by empirical observation. Since CO2 has not had time to double from any observed (not estimated!) baseline that specific prediction has yet to be checked against observed reality. Until it can be so checked it remains merely an imaginative speculation. Furthermore in order to get the 3 degrees you must have invoked positive feedbacks and very powerful ones too. But you didn't mention those and they are unproven.


So, we can refer to the levels of man made GHG emissions as being significant along with rising temps because we have the history you mention as a guide to NATURAL CO2 in relation to temperature levels. It is pretty simple logic really. Well, at least to most people.

Indeed. The logic is spectacularly simple and yet you seem to be having such a hard time grasping it. Changes in CO2 come after corresponding changes in the temperature.


Actually, the CO2 related to AGW is totally unprecedented and has nothing to do with any natural process. Never before in the entire history of the earth have humans released so much CO2 into the atmosphere. If you can point out in the history books where this has happened before, you may start making some valid arguments.

How does the fact that humans are burning hydrocarbons at an unprecedented rate prove CAGW?


CO2 is known to effect temperature. Again, it is pretty simple to equate.

Can you point to any evidence (aside from a correlation) that shows CO2 has ever significantly pushed up temperatures? Do you agree that we need to see a measurable climatic difference in temperature due to CO2 in the past in order to give the CAGW theory any credit?


Yeah, we can see how well life is flourishing at the moment. Not.

Life is flourishing. Satellite measurements show that overall biomass is accelerating (thanks, in no small part to CO2 which has probably contributed to enhancing the growth-rates of photosynthetic organisms). See here: wattsupwiththat.com...


The reason scientists are worried about CO2 is because temperature rises will effect sea levels which will effect literally hundreds of millions of people.

And how fast are sea levels currently rising?


It will effect rainfall that will effect the globe and its ability to supply agriculture and people with water, water supplies for millions from seasonal Glacial melts will be threatened, the list goes on.

These catastrophic world-disrupting consequences you speak of didn't seem to effect anyone thousands of years ago when it was considerably warmer during the Minoan Warming Period.


Introducing the benefits of CO2 are fine, but ignoring the "issues" that scientists have raised as a concern is quite frankly astounding.

And how many scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 is an immanent threat? Can you name 20 climatologists that subscribe to the CAGW position?


In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span.

How do you know that CO2 caused the temperature to rise as opposed to the temperature causing the CO2 to rise? After all, we already know that warming oceans increase CO2 levels.


Which they fixed. Still showing a warming trend.

How significant is the warming trend over the last 10 years in the satellite (not GISS) data?


Your rational or accusation for the scientists "inspiration" for "creating fraudulent temps" has failed to materialize.

I think you might want to reconsider that statement in view of the developing scandal surrounding the NOAA's temperature-reading satellites. See: www.sott.net...


NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defence to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.


U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson) agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.


The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously comprised.

And in case you should think it is only the NOAA's satellite-data that are compromised:


NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia.


(Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join