The Fiction Of Climate Science

Originally posted by mushibrain

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
...








Now, what's the catch in AGW propaganda?

Now there is the critical thinking I was wanting to see. But ask the reciprical question. Could the deniers have an agenda? What I see when I fly over Greenland or Baffin Bay has no agenda.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Am I getting this right? If so, when did the CRU flip to the Strong position?

After Lamb retired.

The first IPCC report had a graph showing the Roman and Medieval warming periods and the little Ice Age. That graph was replaced by Mann's Hockey stick graph that was later debunked by Steve McIntyre.

This is the same or a similar graph to Lamb's. www.c3headlines.com...

Remember a scientist can work on a question - Is mankind influencing the climate? - without believing anything. As a mater of fact he is best to remain completely neutral or he jeopardizes his studies by ignoring things he should note. A scientist can do this without even realizing he is skewing the data.

Things started getting dicey when the greed for grant money and professional recognition over came honesty. Unfortunately I have seen it all to many times. Today honesty is a much rarer character trait that people are led to believe even within science.

Remember back in the fifties when you never bothered to lock up the house unless you were going on vacation and you often left the keys in the car. When it was safe for kids to trick-or-treat and hitch hike. When drugs were unknown in the grammar school?

I now live in the sticks. My road was just recently paved yet we have at least three drug dealers, four thieves and one murderer on a six mile stretch of farm road that I am aware of - ARRgh.



This is a super site showing the historical information and graphs from the medieval warm period. The guy who put it together did a lot of very good work.
pages.science-skeptical.de...

This is the graph of the difference between now and the Medieval warm for different locations.
joannenova.com.au...

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by mushibrain
...
Now, what's the catch in AGW propaganda?

Now there is the critical thinking I was wanting to see. But ask the reciprical question. Could the deniers have an agenda? What I see when I fly over Greenland or Baffin Bay has no agenda.

OK, first of all, everyone has an agenda But what you mean is sinister agenda, right? Let’s just call it agenda henceforth.

True, some people who deny AGW have an agenda as well as some people who promote it. Others, let's be honest just jump on one side or the other for no particular reason, just because you have to pick.

The way I look at the problem it is this:

-- What's the risk? So far the science I saw (and I didn't go through all, granted) does not conclusively show that the warming or indeed the climate change is mainly affected by human activity. So if we are going to die, we're going to die no matter what politicians decide. So maybe we should look at spending money on giant parasol orbiting the Earth?

-- What's the price of the proposed solution? Money, foothold to global control, developing countries are pressured to stop their development, new initiatives to alternative fuels competes with other initiatives to help people. If bio-fuel is not dropped, this will compete with food supply = starvation, commodity prices go crazy, this will finish the crippled economy, financial system is destroyed = need for global currency and global control.

There was an interesting youtube video by someone who ran a simple risk/reward probability matrix and showed we better stop our carbon emissions, but his risk was based on slightly more dire assumption and price was underestimated (he only took into account slightly reduced money available to us). Don't get me wrong, I'd rather look like a fool than be dead. But anything that comes from shady organizations funded by shady families mentioned in this post and all over ATS one must take with caution.

Now who's in the skeptics camp? Big petroleum companies? not obvious, they sit largely in the believers camp. They invested substantial sums of money in patents, research, commodities, land and anything that will profit from AGW going though. Who else? many paranoid people, many scientists, some dubious organizations (perhaps trying to gain popularity among paranoid people, not sure).

So why big petroleum and energy companies are in the believer's camp? naturally they want to be energy providers in the future, but why not fight the AGW movement?
1. Maybe they do, maybe they work on both fronts, trying to cover all bases so whoever wins they'll have a position in it.
2. Maybe they know something. for example, the future of oil flow is very dark (economically or politically or resource is actually depleting), it's not going to be available anymore at the same rate, so why not invest in alternatives. So to be in AGW camp means they become more popular, also reinforces the fundamentals of their new investments and makes an impression that they are investing in alternatives for reasons different than in reality (so not to cause unfavorable market moves). Who knows.
3. Maybe they do believe what AGW promotes.

In summary, I don't think anyone would be against more efficient electronics, alternative energy sources, what many are against is the solution that will be shoved down our throats. For this reason, Copenhagen deal must fail. Maybe they rushing in with the deal because countries begin to change to alternatives anyway, solar becomes more and more efficient - give it 10 years and no one will buy this "we need global government to tackle the issue" crap anymore because we can do it without global government. And with the fiat system collapsing, the price of oil to developed world will be so high that they'll all switch to electric cars, bicycles and horses anyway. So naturally there is an urgency to push this through.

You will notice that global warming proponents are also the most insistent that the world must not turn to clean nuclear energy but only to renewable sources.

Essentially, nuclear energy provides modern energy sources capable of sustaining modern society. Yes I understand that there is nuclear waste created but there is methods of reducing depleting the radiation and storing it.

However renewable energy sources throw us back to pre-industrial times. It is unstable and cannot support a modern society.

Now I am not saying that there is no use for renewable energy. ON a small localized scale, supplemented by more stable forms of energy, its fine. But it just won't support an entire city (or even a village for that matter).

Tired of Control Freaks.

I'm sure in ten years they'll be telling us that smoking is a good way to exercise your lungs.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Agreed, nuclear power is the way forward. Go for local renewable energy production till your hearts content if that's what some people want. But back in reality and looking towards the future, nuclear right now is the only viable option. Just get the french to build them all

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


My take on it is that there is indeed climate change and will always be climate change.

1,000,000 years ago, the climate was different than it is now.
100,000 years ago, the climate was different than it is now.
100,000 years from now, the climate will be different than it is now.

The Universe and our Earth is in a constant state of change. Always has been and always will be. I don't think that there is anything we can do about it.

All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot stop corporations from filling our skies with whatever toxins they wish to produce. Whatever treaty will be created and signed will NEVER reduce the pollution (I'm NOT talking about CO2) which is spewed out.

No matter the climate, only one thing will be the same: our dependence on the blue bloods.

1,000 years ago, we were serfs with pitchforks and mud huts. Today, we are serfs with mortgages. Different clothes and dwellings but the same situation.

Reply to Factbeforefiction:

Smoking is like everything else. There are risks and there are benefits. The benefits include:

1. Smoking is known to produce more mucous production. The purpose of mucous is to trap environmental irritants BEFORE they reach the lung and cause damage. Notice how its not smokers complaining of increased rates of asthma and allergies? Considering the other sources of the very same contaminants contained in smoke (or like traffic) then having that extra mucous protection may be valuable.

2. Nicotene is extremely volatile and oxidizes at temperatures far below the level of combustion. Oxidized nicotene is known as NIACIN (Vitamin B3). Vitamin B3 is essential to normal functioning of the brain and neuro transmitters. As a result, smokers suffer less MS, Parkinsons and Alzeimers.

3. Smokers have slightly higher level of carbon monoxide in their blood. Carbon monoxide is a free radical

4. Niacin also has the advantage of encouraging the growth of small blood cells. That is why smokers, while suffering more heart attacks, are 4 times more likely to survive heart attacks. Smoker's Paradox. Look it up!

5. Valuable substances are contained in tobacco smoke including Solensol, currently in use as a respirator treatment in asthma. Co-enzyme10 is made from fermented tobacco.

6. Nicotene is a very useful drug. At dosages between 500 mg to 1000 mg per day, it is more effective in controlling triglyceride levels that statins and with far fewer adverse effects. As a matter of fact it is so useful that a pharmaceutical company has just acquired a registered patent for Solensol.

7. Tobacco smoke has anti-microbial properties to control the spread of disease.

Remember Tobacco and smoking has been used as a healing herb for far longer than it has been reviled. Centuries longer in fact.

Climategate has shown us that politicians, scientists, media and public health have a vested interest that coincides to encourage fraud.

Climategate and its techniques of suppressing dissent, playing with statistics, hiding vital information, attacking naysayers, and outright fraud is based on the very same techniques used by anti-tobacco forces.

The truth will out. Just how toxic is a substance when people who are exposed daily still live to their 70s and 50 or 60 years of exposure? It sure ain't SARIN gas!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I remember it well and I was only 11. I was very disappointed when it did not happen. My dad was a snowmobile dealer during the 70's and I had plenty of riding to do.

Originally posted by melatonin
The notion of global cooling being much more than media-hype and supported by a scientific consensus is fictional. A myth. One generally pushed by deniers.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Petersona, William M. Connolleyb, and John Fleckc

a. NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
b. British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
c. Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

ABSTRACT
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Dinky-link

Cheers.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by melatonin]

Great link. In the study it cites...

SURVEY OF THE PEER -REV IEWED
LITER ATURE . One way to determine what scientists
think is to ask them. This was actually done
in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the
eastern United States. “Collectively,” the 24 eminent
climatologists responding to the survey “tended
to anticipate a slight global warming rather than
a cooling” (National Defense University Research
Directorate 1978).

But it's not about science or facts...it's about "culture wars" and politics.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
You will notice that global warming proponents are also the most insistent that the world must not turn to clean nuclear energy but only to renewable sources.
....
But it just won't support an entire city (or even a village for that matter).

I am surprised of that too, certainly in terms of the size and operational cost it’s good. Not sure about fuel pricing and how much more efficient it is, though.

Thermal efficiency of nuclear plants is about 35% but we almost ready to build plants with 60% efficiency (see for more info), whereas good solar ones give max 30% (that's thermal: concentrated beams of sun giving >35%, photovoltaics are less efficient, but you cannot directly compare the two methods). The solar based heat storage system are 98% efficient., that's storing heat when the sun is down. The coal plants are roughly the same, 30-40% efficient .

So the only issue I see is the issue of space. I am happy to go nuclear but if I have a choice to pay for batteries which I need recharge at an additional cost, or batteries that do not cost me anything to recharge for about similar price then I know which ones I am going for. That's putting any ethics aside; on purely financial basis solar (at least in many areas) is better value for money.

The other option to consider is political, going nuclear is tricky after UK and USA keep stopping middle east developing their own - not fair. On that basis, many politicians would not want to go that road, I'd think. Also if all countries start going nuclear, then we have a real issue with waste, they'll be dumping it in the oceans and so forth, not nice - for once I am with NWO on that one (if indeed NWO thinks about oceans and common good).

Originally posted by Solomons
Agreed, nuclear power is the way forward. Go for local renewable energy production till your hearts content if that's what some people want. But back in reality and looking towards the future, nuclear right now is the only viable option. Just get the french to build them all

Sure, if it works out to be a good option, cool. But solar looks OK too, storing energy is not an issue, even space is not that much of an issue. Just as an example, using existing solar technology you need to cover an area of France to supply ALL CURRENT ENERGY NEEDS of the WORLD. Cool, init? Also, are you sure you want to let French build it I, of course, base my stereotypes on car industry, I'd let Japanese do it.

I think what we can agree on is that, energy is not an issue here, climate is not an issue here, elites loosing grip and running out of time is the real issue here.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Ok my friend, you are right on target with a thread I though should be had.
I really love these "scientists" the way the speak out of both sides of their mouths at once.
They have such a grand time showing everyone how God does not exist and that the world is billions of years old and over that time the atmosphere has swung back and forth to the extremes.

They show that even over the last several 100's of thousand of years that the ice all melts and then we go into an Ice Age.

Now at the same time they come out and say that we are causing this huge problem with earth and we are going to burn up and other BS.

So which is it?
How come it is, that they cannot even answer the questions? How come I have tried and cannot get the raw data to process?

This is nothing but a power grab for the elite to run their worldwide scam.
Notice how China will not do it?
That show tell someone something.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

You will notice that global warming proponents are also the most insistent that the world must not turn to clean nuclear energy but only to renewable sources.

What I noticed was the Boston Globe had want ads for protesters they were being PAID $10/hr in the mid eighties, that is three times the minimum wage. The equivalent of $17.50 an hour today. That is darn good money for some high school or college kid during the summers.

I also noticed that Greenpeace gets lots of money from the Rockefellers, owners of standard oil and Exxon. Seems to me the protest had more to do with the Rockefellers protesting against the competition than anything else. Also as Kissinger said Control oil control nations, control food , control the people. And that is exactly what Waxman is doing with Cap and Trade and the Food Safety enhancement bills.

Reply to mushibrain:

Please back up your statement about solar power.

www.eia.doe.gov...

Even without too many electric cars on the road...the world, in 2006, used about 18 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.

Please show your calculations of how large on area must be covered by solar panels in order to produce that much electricity. And while you are at it...please read the little paragraph about renewable energy in the link I have provided. Note how it says that renewables cannot compete economically with nuclear or coal-fired plants. That renewable projects can only be built with the funding of government. Now how can that be...isn't the sun "free" energy.

If we relied solely on renewable energy - we have to be prepared to pay at least twice as much for each kilowatt than what we currently pay.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
You will notice that global warming proponents are also the most insistent that the world must not turn to clean nuclear energy but only to renewable sources.

Wrong actually. I'm a supporter of moving to nuclear as a stop-gap. And so is one of the most alarmist scientists I've come across - the Gaia dude himself: James Lovelock.

James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution

We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger

dinky

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
You will notice that global warming proponents are also the most insistent that the world must not turn to clean nuclear energy but only to renewable sources.

Wrong actually. I'm a supporter of moving to nuclear as a stop-gap. ...

OMG, have we reached an agreement? Quick mods, you have to do something

Hey melatonin, I am even afraid to ask now, but you also don't like the idea of polititians finding solutions for our energy needs, right? how about global government in the form it is emerging?

Is it possible that people who have different opinions agreeing on the way to go (pretty much globally) whilst keeping their opinions, without the need for G20 with caviar champaigne and everything? Now that's what I call an inconvenient truth...



[edit on 8-12-2009 by mushibrain]

Can somebody in this thread demonstrate that CO2 and methane don't actually scatter a large fraction of IR back? Did anybody notice ever that clear night are usually crispy and cloudy nights are balmy? Do you guys ever get out?

Originally posted by mushibrain
OMG, have we reached an agreement? Quick mods, you have to do something

lol

Hey melatonin, I am even afraid to ask now, but you also don't like the idea of polititians finding solutions for our energy needs, right? how about global government in the form it is emerging?

I don't agree that it's anything like a global government. I don't see an issue with nations working together as best as possible towards a common aim (tragedy of the commons blah blah). Makes sense.

I don't think that the market is capable of moving on its own towards non-fossil fuel energy and eventual sustainability. Only by pushing up the price of carbon sources will this happen. That'll take regulation of some sort.

Is it possible that people who have different opinions agreeing on the way to go (pretty much globally) whilst keeping their opinions, without the need for G20 with caviar champaigne and everything? Now that's what I call an inconvenient truth...

It would be nice to think we could, just can't see it happening. Look around you, lol. People can't even agree on the very simple basics of the science.

As for mitigation approaches, I'm as easy as can be. No real firm favourites, too pragmatic. But I see C&T as perhaps a better approach than straight taxation. Indeed, it was meant to be the market-based approach.

Problem is that even politicians prefer to pay lip service. Eventually they'll have to face the situation. Physics couldn't care less about 4 year terms and GDP.

reply to post by melatonin


Hmm, maybe you're right on global government not being such a bad thing. But it looks like it's moving far from the directions of nations working together. If EU is a blueprint for World government then it doesn't look that good. People will have even less control.

I am still not sure about an extent to which human activity influences the warming though, not to the degree some believers say. Surely humans can't be the main reason. I wish I found the article (proper science, honest) about dangers of global warming cause by cows farting. CO2 is nothing compared to methane

Now the interesting issue is the methane trapped in ice, which may be released when temperature goes a bit higher, then thing can go out of hands. On the other side, we've been there before, the methane then would have been in the same predicament as today, yet we are here live and chatting...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Can somebody in this thread demonstrate that CO2 and methane don't actually scatter a large fraction of IR back? Did anybody notice ever that clear night are usually crispy and cloudy nights are balmy? Do you guys ever get out?

Yes I do get out. Hard to believe isn't it? I live in a country side, nice and in the UK we get loads of balmy nights. I often drive into the clouds.

Don't know how to explain this but balmy nights are result of something else, the clouds are result of the very same something else. So we have a correlation, well spotted there, buddhasystem. However the correlation is not the same as cause and effect relationship. Well in reality the relationship is more complex than that, but that’s my point – the relationship between the temperature, CO2 and other gasses, fauna and flora, and the entire Earth in its glorious Technicolor and special effects is so much more complex than the simulation models with dodgy temperature readings as input. Do you see my point?

I also drive and walk through a big city, and I often notice how much warmer the city is compared to the country side I live in only 15 miles away. What does that tell you?