Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Feds may be muzzling scientist over Arctic research

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


As I said, you have drank way too much of the Kool Aid for anything we show you to have any effect.

I'll leave you with my standard challenge.

Find me a scientific study that proves AGW, no computer models, and all data sets must be public and published to verify the findings, and I will concede your point.

Good luck, as I'm confident this will be the last exchange we have.

Real science is conducted out in the open, Climate Science is conducted behind closed doors.


Umm... essentially ALL of the scientific studies regarding global warming bolster the case for AGW. Are you living in some fictitious la-la land??

Climate science is absolutely NOT conducted behind closed doors. You keep convincing me that you're nothing but a liar and a shill.


Then show me one, as I asked.

Or shut your trap.




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


I'll take the liberty of answering this question.

The first one is a paper by Dyurgerov and Meier in 2005, and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service. These two are the top authority on glacial science. Observing glacial patterns is a much more sound indicator of warming trends, since they are some of the more sensitive landmarks to climate change.

GLACIERS AND THE CHANGING EARTH SYSTEM: A 2004 SNAPSHOT

The next one makes a poignant statement regarding the rise of sea levels over the last hundred years:

until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geolog- ical and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sea- level rise.


Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future

I think the title of this book chapter is self explanatory:

Acceleration of Global Warming Due to Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks in a Coupled Climate Model


Would you like more?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by theXammux
does anyone else find it extreely ironic that we can't even agree whether or not there is a consensus? here I am, on this site, always hoping against hope to witness a few people who can have a rational discussion on any topic. This is so depressing. How, can the human race accomplish anything underr circumstances like this? Why is everyone so sure they know the truth? cnn says so. brilliant. There's thousand and thousand of pages of climate data out there, no one here has read even 1% of it, but both sides are so convinced they MUST know and everyone else is brainwashed. If you can't get over yourself, don't hold anyone else to the same standard. And to think, so many on this site are always searching for those lost answers. I hope, after this, you'll have some idea why some things are kept secret


I can guarantee I've read more of the actual data and the denier arguments than the vast majority of people on this website. And more than EVER I am convinced that AGW is real, poses serious threats, and that the denial is manufactured by corrupt and blatant financial/political agendas.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


As I said, you have drank way too much of the Kool Aid for anything we show you to have any effect.

I'll leave you with my standard challenge.

Find me a scientific study that proves AGW, no computer models, and all data sets must be public and published to verify the findings, and I will concede your point.

Good luck, as I'm confident this will be the last exchange we have.

Real science is conducted out in the open, Climate Science is conducted behind closed doors.


Umm... essentially ALL of the scientific studies regarding global warming bolster the case for AGW. Are you living in some fictitious la-la land??

Climate science is absolutely NOT conducted behind closed doors. You keep convincing me that you're nothing but a liar and a shill.


Then show me one, as I asked.

Or shut your trap.


Are you KIDDING me??

GO TO GOOGLE, AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You know you CAN just search ".gov" and ".edu" sites right? It's not difficult... studies ABOUND, don't sit there and pretend they don't exist, you look like a fool, a madman, a liar, or all three.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Indeed we DO have a keen understanding of a medieval warming period, you know the elepehant in your room. We also know or at least I feel that whatever is causing it MAN cannot possibly stop it. As an environmentalist I HAVE to balance reality with my desire for a cleaner planet. Hoaxes like man made global warming are killing our credibility which in turns makes people doubt every thing we try to do. The only good thing about that is our every word gets a strong peer review as opposed to the IPCC. Speaking of which Dr. Gray peer reviewed them did you happen to catch his dialogue with IPCC members? Have you noticed that we don't get Dr. Gray's opinion in the news anymore? Notice scientist like Dr. Roy Spencer bringing sound questions to the table? Notice PhD indiviuals with authentic alternative devices which are IGNORED. Now Google all of that for a pardigm shift of your opinions on AGW theories!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Then show me one, as I asked.

Or shut your trap.


You know, for someone who went to enough trouble to declare themselves an AGW skeptic in their screen name, you are pretty damn lazy about doing any actual research yourself like a true skeptic would.

I've seen you post this claim that there's no proof of AGW, and that it's entirely based on computer models in a number of threads now. This statement is total horse#.

You want proof - then try reading something other than completely lying, Exxon-sponsored "skeptic" websites like wattsupwiththat and junkscience.com.



Maybe start with a paper like this:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Arrhenius, 1896

...which was published way before computers even existed.



Meanwhile there are plenty of modern studies based on actual empirical evidence, all you have to do is look:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Harries et al, 2001

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Philipona et al, 2004

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.


Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate. Evans & Puckrin, 2006

an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.


Anthropogenic Warming of the Oceans: Observations and Model Results. Pierce et al, 2006

Comparing the observations with results from two coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models [the Parallel Climate Model version 1 (PCM) and the Hadley Centre Coupled Climate Model version 3 (HadCM3)] that include anthropogenic forcing shows remarkable agreement between the observed and model-estimated warming.




You can find hundreds more papers like this at AGW Observer.

So try shutting YOUR trap and actually learning something instead of making extremely ignorant statements about a topic you clearly have very little proper experience in, no matter what your screen name might advertise...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Total BS, this consensus they speak of does not exist. The lines are drawn along funding for research. The "97% agree" stat that the alarmists keep pushing is bogus, it was an online survey that only about 100 were allowed to vote on.

You're being played like a fiddle.


Yeah here's another golden nugget of ironic lazy willful ignorance. Thanks for leaving a link on this ridiculous claim by the way.

As usual one of us "getting played like a fiddle" brainwashed warmists has to do the homework for you all-knowing, authoritative, Koolaid-free skeptics. I'm tired of having to repeat this crap over and over again, so just going to quote myself from the last time I saw the same nonsense being floated around here.




Originally posted by mc_squared here

Try something crazy like reading the actual paper yourself. Here let me get you started:


Materials and Methods

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC.


Doesn't sound like there's a lot of ambiguity there, but just to make sure - try reading the next line:


We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century



So yeah, what a load of horsecrap you just tried to get away with. Does 1,372 sound like a small group? Do "signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing" sound like they were just vague "positive responses"? Give me a break. It's funny too because the 97.5% figure is EXACTLY the same number the 2009 Doran et al study got, and they sent out surveys DIRECTLY to the scientists and had them EXPLICITLY answer this question:


2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?



/end self-quote

See what the above is - that's called doing your own research. And reading original sources. And using your own brain to see for yourself what they actually say.


It's so obvious from your posts you get all of your information spoon-fed to you from skeptic blogs who are completely manipulating your self-declared skepticism, and using you as a pawn to help spread their disinformation for them.

But you go right ahead and convince yourself it's everyone else that's getting played like a fiddle lol.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
MC are you denying the medival warm period too? Why would you trust the peer review process after we have observed in this collection of 'data' outright, and IMHO proven beyond a shadow of doubt, lies? Why would you not consider the famous Dr. Gray's observations and challenges? Or the founder of the Weather Channel? I have been willing to look over the IPCC type data with a fair eye to how it was collected as my office uses long range models too. You just can't ignore things like how poorly the models traditionally perform or how it IS a product of what you set it up to express because models need to predict something based on the expectations. I have reviewed the small yet very telling details like studies showing the location of thermometers, the exclusion or removal of the data from the probes near the poles and the absolute failure to even slightly consider solar cycles etc.... Things that would cause a natural casting of doubt by any true scientific process as opposed to witnessing the almost 13th century tactics by the 'deciders' where by they use name calling and the obfuscation of reality is practiced for a political outcome and apparently major profits. Tsk tsk for honest science and the credibility of all who work in the field.

One more question for any to ponder, are you who would believe not in the warming periods saying that IYHO if we where to be floating way beyond our present orbit of Sol, that we would be able to sustain a level of warmth sufficient to feed ourselves without the currently strong rays of energy from said Sol? Because that to me is what AGW would have to do in the end for this to truly be a problem. We would have to be able to sustain ourselves or else this bogus 1 to 4 degree disaster would not do it. Plus any graded sceintific result comes with a ratio of error that is considered bad if not within at least 5 % and either 1-4 C or 1-5F would be under that 5% level and therefore subject to random error cancelling out the prediction because you can't predict if the error ratio is as low as the data. In other words, the statiscal data has to predict greater than 5% changes in order to have any hope of accuracy. Plus or minus 5% error is awesome but it sets a limit on a scale of C that would be 5 Celsius and it would be roughly 10 in Farenhiet. The models I saw were less than the percent error, cancelling out the predictions by my deduction.

Dinosaurs thrived as giants because of the past warmth yet people wish to stop it's cyclical return, if they could. How arrogant we've become.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


The founder of the weather channel? John Coleman??
Seriously.

You're going to decide that 200 years of physics + thousands of studies + thousands of scientists are ALL lying and/or wrong because of what a TV weatherman says...

Hey - we're still waiting for that lawsuit against Al Gore he promised us too!

And who is this "famous" Dr. Gray?? Do you mean Vincent Gray? This Vincent Gray:


Wellington-based Vincent Gray describes himself as an old-fashioned scientist. The retired coal industry researcher and author of The Greenhouse Delusion


Gray refuses to even acknowledge that the planet has been warming:


The claim is, of course, that there has been an increase in temperature. This claim, in my opinion, is false.


Even when the data compiled by other skeptics like Roy Spencer shows it clearly has: drroyspencer.com: Latest Global Temps

So not surprisingly this crackpot can't even get himself published, but of course he just uses that as a convenient excuse to blame the scientific establishment - and then explain that's why he "has" to get published by Exxon-funded sources instead.


Gray finds it difficult to get his views aired, which he's why he's unashamed about being published by the Tech Central Science Foundation - an organisation that has received US$95,000 ($141,000) in funding from ExxonMobil.


I mean really - are you guys seriously THIS naive?

Do any of you "skeptics" have the slightest idea how insanely hypocritical you look by constantly spouting off on the supposedly "political" agendas of all the world's climate scientists - and then backing up your claims with nothing but a bunch of unqualified fame-seeking contrarians and paid off shills for the fossil fuel industry?

And I don't believe for a second you looked over any of the IPCC data yourself. If you did you would know this absurd claim that they don't factor in solar activity is completely untrue. But I have seen enough of these regurgitated memes to know you have simply read about it through some bull# skeptic blog instead, and decided they must be telling the truth because they're the ones claiming everything else is a lie.

So tell me - do you understand how disinformation campaigns work?

Either you don't or you're just too proud to ever admit it might actually be YOU who is the one getting swindled and brainwashed by all the political propaganda here.

The Medieval Warm Period wasn't warmer than it is today, and even if it was, that wouldn't matter. Because we know why it was warm then - just like we know why it is warm now.

I don't need to "trust" any scientists on global warming. Because all I have to do is look at the science myself. The greenhouse effect has been a proven fact for over 150 years. There are no computer models needed to show this.

I can work out with a pen and piece of paper alone that the greenhouse effect makes the Earth 33 C warmer than it would otherwise be. This is a simple mathematical and physical fact. And this is true despite all greenhouse gases accounting for less than 0.5% of our ENTIRE atmosphere.

Meanwhile anyone who wants to, can confirm CO2 is a significant GHG themselves:



So where's the conspiracy here?


Yet you think messing with something that's been PROVEN so powerful and PROVEN so delicate can't possibly have an effect because...why?...because a TV weatherman and a retired coal industry researcher told you not to worry about it...yeah.


You know I really don't even care what you guys want to believe - it just embarasses me as a conspiracy theorist to know there are so many other conspiracy theorists on this website who are this gullible, and this easily brainwashed - that you can't see the very obvious forest of disinformation here for all the damn trees.

You are so eager to represent yourselves as some kind of hardcore, critical thinking "skeptics" that you swallow up any information that presents itself as skeptical WITHOUT applying any actual skepticism to IT.

Try actually using that skepticism both ways sometime and you will see there's a very clear agenda here to DENY global warming.

Because curtailing global warming is synonymous with curtailing oil, curtailing overconsumption, curtailing inefficiency, curtailing waste - curtailing all the things that the real evil, diabolical forces in this world use to keep you all lazy and ignorant and entirely dependent on a finite resource-based, easily exploitable system that they can control.

The scientists in this world are the few people smart enough to actually liberate you from all this mindless slavery - and instead you're all being trained like monkeys to attack the very people trying to free you from the cage.

(Yikes)

edit on 10-8-2011 by mc_squared because: really - YIKES!



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


"Yet you think messing with something that's been PROVEN so powerful and PROVEN so delicate can't possibly have an effect because...why?...because a TV weatherman and a retired coal industry researcher told you not to worry about it...yeah.


You know I really don't even care what you guys want to believe - it just embarasses me as a conspiracy theorist to know there are so many other conspiracy theorists on this website who are this gullible, and this easily brainwashed - that you can't see the very obvious forest of disinformation here for all the damn trees.

You are so eager to represent yourselves as some kind of hardcore, critical thinking "skeptics" that you swallow up any information that presents itself as skeptical WITHOUT applying any actual skepticism to IT.

Try actually using that skepticism both ways sometime and you will see there's a very clear agenda here to DENY global warming. "

MC I would like to go on record saying as a non Doctoral degree but still paid to work as a scientist that the so called "PROVEN", is not so based upon facts mentioned ad nasium in these debates. In fact what has been proven for literally centuries now, is that an extreme cyclical behavior of the temperatures is the norm. Why ignore that and kill the messenger? Failure to START there and ignore other factors seen by many scientist in tangential fields is in fact politics. I have one desire in my duties, stop/mitigate pollution and false flags like AGW will likely ruin my credibility. We can't let politicians dictate science or it becomes something ugly.

The pollution everyone is so concerned about, believe it or not, had went way down. So far relative to the 70's that the EPA has lowered recognized standards several times and yet there are still less days where the air was filthy here than any other years. The EPA has done a good job on many pollutants but can be zealous. The EPA recently changed the Lead standard so that it is now 10% of what it was but the lead production facility's are still NOT getting bad readings. Lead is dangerous and this is a good thing. But some of their ideas are overboard yet they would NEVER allow placement of critical recorders where the data would be skewed.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Further, the EPA would not ignore data. They might discount it based upon a methodology and that is reasonable to say go against collection of data near an air conditioner of a building don't you think? It is reasonable to recognize NASA's Hanson has retracted data you appear to cling to very closely. Method is important if not everything in observation. The attempt by those who just don't get it to say "concensus" is followed by the laughing off other climate experts who have years in the field and explain why they dissagree. This is exactly how the shills against true scientific process can illogically rationalize there is a proven this or that which is still in major doubt. MC, it is my sentiment that you've been had and you've closed the door to ideas that contradict the data you think was there. Look closer and you will know I am using straight logic and hard data.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 



MC I would like to go on record saying as a non Doctoral degree but still paid to work as a scientist that the so called "PROVEN", is not so based upon facts mentioned ad nasium in these debates.



I already left you a direct link (this one) that shows the math step by step, that yes indeed - proves - how powerful the Greenhouse Effect is.

You claim to be a scientist, then you should be able to work it out for yourself easily since all it requires is basic algebra skills.


That's where the actual, ahem "so-called", proof behind AGW exists - in completely unambiguous, fundamental physical and mathematical facts. (And by the way - if you want to play this game of pulling out credentials to validate each other's opinions - my undergrad degree happens to be a double major in physics and math).


But as I was saying - this is where the proof is - all the observations of the last 150 years have done is merely confirm what was *already* written in the science. That's why I also left a link earlier to a paper that predicted this 115 years ago in case you didn't notice.


Yet your entire outlook on the subject seems to be predicated on this very common misconception that it works backwards. That scientists have slowly noticed it's getting warmer and so have tried to reverse-engineer an explanation. This is completely wrong, and one of the typical myths the denial industry perpetuates to seed doubt and confusion amongst the poorly informed public.

Nobody has EVER said climate cycles don't happen. This is simply the go-to strawman argument in the denier playbook.

What we care about however is why they happen.

And extensive study into this field has revealed the obvious importance of factors such as solar forcing, but it's also exposed just how much of a critical amplifier greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have been in carrying out these changes. The actual variations in solar forcing that have initiated past ice ages and interglacials are KNOWN to be far too weak to explain the wild swings in global temperature that actually occurred. It is only by factoring in feedbacks from things like ice melt and greenhouse gas concentration that the puzzle becomes complete.

You can read more about all that in this absolutely essential paper from 20 years ago:

The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Lorius et al, 1990


So again - NOBODY is saying that climate change isn't a natural cycle. But that doesn't mean it can't be an unnatural one now that we've arrived to the party either. What we know about past climate changes reveals (and thus once again confirms, from a completely seperate line of evidence) how powerful greenhouse gases are in the overall equation. Those cycles were natural simply because the GHG's in those cases were released naturally. Now we are releasing them artificially.


So as for your assertion that the facts are subjective and that people like me are being had -

I've backed up my claims not only with peer-reviewed literature but also with pure, bare bones mathematical proofs. You've countered by referencing the baseless claims of a TV weatherman and some Coal industry stooge, by changing the subject to the EPA (which has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the science), and by making inaccurate offhand claims about the science - that I happen to know from extensive experience are rooted in totally dishonest memes peddled by a very calculating, politically motivated denial industry.


And thus far you have failed to provide one link for these claims. So please, give me something to work with here - and I will not only to tell you that in fact you're the one being taken for a ride here - I will gladly show you.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I was waiting for that.


Here

epw.senate.gov...


climatedepot.com...



Now read these, please. Then you can see from where I sit more clearly. Thank you for your challenges they make it more clear and I realize the Ghandi line about (paraphrasing but close) "even if only one is telling the truth, it is still the truth".

To answer your doubt that it is not natural you have to ignore Occum's Razor and say the MOST logical conlusion must be wrong and that is backwards. Occum stated that the most likely outcome was the simplist. Simplist to me is the fact we have literally tons of evidence in the rocks of huge temperature swings over time periods stretching millions of years. How can we discard this evidence now? We can't that is the answer, we can't.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Justoneman because: more



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justoneman
To answer your doubt that it is not natural you have to ignore Occum's Razor and say the MOST logical conlusion must be wrong and that is backwards.


The "most logical conclusion" is the one that follows the logic, which I just laid out above, which you seem to have instead chosen to ignore with the wave of a hand.

The math speaks for itself. It is completely unambiguous. 2+2=4 no matter how you want to look at it. You apparently looked at it (if you looked at all) and decided that it looked really complicated, so you didn't want to look at it. If that's your position, then there is nothing I can do for you. This discussion is unfortunately a total waste of time.

If Occam's Razor was the answer to everything, then the Earth would still be flat wouldn't it? Incidentally - that's why climate deniers are often referred to as "flat-earthers". Because Occam's Razor applies in the absence of outstanding evidence, but AGW skeptics tend to cling to it in the face of all the other evidence.

So as for this:

Simplist to me is the fact we have literally tons of evidence in the rocks of huge temperature swings over time periods stretching millions of years. How can we discard this evidence now? We can't that is the answer, we can't.


Well...yeah, but guess what - we don't.

Again, I just showed you this.

I assume you didn't read the paper I linked, but at least look at the title:
The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Lorius et al, 1990

So like I was saying - nobody has ever claimed the climate doesn't, or hasn't changed (naturally) before. In fact if you read up on the scientific history of global warming (see this link from the American Institute of Physics) you will understand the argument for man made global warming was first stumbled upon by scientists pondering what caused natural climate changes of the past:


In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.


So back to the Lorius paper -

It is well agreed upon today that ice ages and interglacials are triggered by Milankovitch Cycles, i.e. gradual changes in the Earth's orbit that affect how much sunlight it receives in specific locations like the poles.

However, these cycles only explain how such changes are triggered, not how they are carried through. That's because the resulting orbital variations are known to be far too weak to explain the massive 6-7 degree celsius swings in temperature that ultimately come to pass. This is explained on page 141 in the Lorius paper:


The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr).


(For comparison, a doubling of CO2 is known to have a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing - i.e. over 5 times as strong).

And by the way - the raw data for all this is freely available right here. I bring that up because earlier in the thread AGWskeptic made this ludicrous claim that all the science on AGW is conducted "behind closed doors", which is totally untrue. Funny though how he has conveniently disappeared from this conversation ever since his open challenges were met, and trounced.

But I digress...

So the point is what the ice core record has revealed about past climate changes is that greenhouse gases play a crucial role in amplifying relatively minor shifts in climate and explaining how they become major ones. Orbital variations start the process by raising the temperature just enough to begin releasing more GHG's into the atmosphere, which then trigger a feedback process that shows how delicate our climate sensitivity is.

Meanwhile, this process not only confirms the power of greenhouse gases like methane and CO2, it also provides an elegant solution to the mystery of what caused the ice ages, and thus verifies the suspicions of those 19th century scientists who got the ball rolling oh so long ago.


...
So when you ask "how can we ignore all this evidence?" - the answer is this evidence is in fact some of the strongest we have for anthropogenic global warming, and I'm afraid the only one ignoring it here is actually you.

So you at least seem reasonable enough to consider it, therefore all you need to do is to make the effort. If you want to learn more about the vast amount of evidence, and science, and logic there is embedded here - then I suggest watching the following lecture by Geologist Dr. Richard Alley available here:

The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
And last but certainly not least:



I was waiting for that.


Here

epw.senate.gov...


climatedepot.com...


And I was waiting for that


So thanks for the links, but now, as I promised - watch:


Notice both these articles are written by a guy named Marc Morano.

Morano is a well-known right-wing extremist who in the 90's used to be known as "Rush Limbaugh's Man in Washington". He was also the first "reporter" to launch the swiftboat propaganda campaign against John Kerry during the 2004 election. Furthermore, Morano is actually the proprietor of the climatedepot.com website you linked to, which is well known for posting inaccurate and spin-laced articles refuting global warming, and has received all sorts of funding from sources like ExxonMobil and Oil tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife.

More info on that available here:
Marc Morano
climatedepot.com


Notice also your first article is written on the blog of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. That's because Morano used to be his "Director of Communications". So I don't know how familiar you are with the politics of the climate debate, but Inhofe is a NOTORIOUS shill for the Big Oil lobby. Just check his sourcewatch page for stuff like this:


James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.


In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress.


Inhofe is so deeply embedded in the fossil fuel lobby, he even went so far as to claim before congress that oil and gas "doesn't pollute". See:




The guy is really kind of the poster boy for paid-off, corrupt politicians - yet he and Morano have been actively outspoken critics of man made global warming. Amazing coincidence huh?



But ok - what about the content in those links? I'm just attacking the messenger right? Well let's start with the first one:

Here we have the testimony of one Dr. William Happer, who went before the Environment and Public Works Committee (which was coincidentally chaired by Inhofe FYI) and claimed that more CO2 in the atmosphere will be a good thing. Do we really need to even discuss why this is an absurd claim? If you want a detailed rebuttal maybe check out this link.

I'm going to just skip to the part where I show you Happer himself, whose views on this go against the vast majority of actual climate scientists, is just another paid off shill for the Oil lobby:

Happer is on the Board of Directors for the George C. Marshall Institute. See his own profile page on their website for instance. The Marshall Institute is yet another one of these politically oriented, right wing "think tanks" that always seem to be involved in preaching global warming skepticism. So go over to sourcewatch and see where a large majority of their funding comes from:


The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.


So if you want to stick with this point about how scientists can't be trusted because of their political motivations - I think Happer obviously doesn't make the cut of your own standards. But interestingly enough, go watch his testimony (video available here) and take note at the 1:50 mark, where even this Exxon-funded shill admits raising the CO2 concentration will cause "some" warming of the planet.



Now. The 2nd article...heheh *cracks knuckles*


First off - did you look at the names of the five physicists who authored this petition? Notice Happer is one of them? And notice the credentials of the fifth? From your own link:


Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil



As for the other names, particularly Hal Lewis and Fred Singer, and as for this petition itself - I have already written about this incident in great detail in this post. So I'm going to let the content of that post, and the amount of stars it received, speak for itself.

But in case you're going to skip it - let me give you the gist:

Hal Lewis attempted to petition the entire 47,000 members of the American Physical Society to show they disagree with their own "official statement" on man made global warming. A statement that includes strong language like this:


Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.


Source

Lewis wanted to show this statement by the APS, does not reflect the views of its constituents, and there's in fact "no consensus" here. He failed miserably. So while your link is bragging that 160 people signed this petition, understand that this is out of 47,000.

I mean I already posted two proper, peer-reviewed articles both showing there is somewhere between a 97-98% consensus on man made global warming. Hal Lewis' own research would imply it's more like 99.5%.


And meanwhile like I'm trying to tell SHOW you - the small handful of skeptics who disagree with this consensus, are virtually ALL connected to right-wing political ideologies, if not straight up bought out and paid for by fossil fuel companies and other shady sources. So if you want more proof of that, then I suggest you do some research into the other name on that list: Fred Singer


Or go watch this excellent documentary, which features Singer and other hack scientists - and sums up the REAL conspiracy behind man made global warming:


Google Video Link



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It will take a while getting to read your diatribe and attempt to absorb it's meaning in relationship to the very simple questions I asked such as how you can avoid consideration for standard statistical bias error of + or - 5% ? So bear with me a bit and I will study your observations more closely than just now. It does surprise me to constantly see simple ideas lost in illogic with respect to this subject and I hope I don't see more of that approach as it is obvious that big, humongous temperature swings will occur in the future of the planet Earth until we cease to exist. Unless of cousre, we figure out how to obtain equilbrium. It was taught to me that it can never quite be reached in a closed environment, and especially with respect to the atmosphere of a planet with moons and water. Throw in tilt, orbit location and normal cyclical actions of the sun and ahh, well some get the picture.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 



It will take a while getting to read your diatribe and attempt to absorb it's meaning in relationship to the very simple questions I asked such as how you can avoid consideration for standard statistical bias error of + or - 5% ?


Take all the time you need. That's why I post these "diatribes" - because I have already taken the time to research this subject comprehensively and thoroughly, and anyone who wants to truly understand the intricacies of climate science, even as a (real) skeptic, needs to make the same effort.

But I think you're still missing the point a bit. You're treating both past and present as well as natural and man made climate change like it's some big magical mystery that scientists can't possibly ever understand, and so therefore it must be arrogant of them to think they can seperate one from the other.

But all these different natural variations you allude to are still physical mechanisms that can be quantified and measured. This is exactly what climate scientists have been trying to do for 150 years now. And what our research into both past and present climate change reveals is you simply can't complete the puzzle without allocating a significant portion for CO2's vital role.

As it pertains to modern warming - again, this was understood before it was observed, because it's written right into the math and physics. This is why CO2 induced global warming was already being predicted 115 years ago.

As for past climate change, the ice-core record verifies what we already knew from the math and physics. So it simply ALL adds up.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


Anyway - I know this might seem kind of overwhelming and confusing to you because of what you've previously been told. But that's why I'm also trying to show you everything you've heard from the so-called "skeptics" on this is a politically driven and carefully crafted LIE.

The science speaks for itself, and so these denialists have done everything they can to drown it out in propaganda instead.

Just learn to forget everything you've been told by these manipulating shills, and you will see for yourself this stuff is in fact actually quite simple and self-evident.

It really is a forest for the trees thing here. The evidence shows a vast, coherent and well-defined forest when you look at the full body of scientific data on this. But the denialists are trying to keep you from seeing that by repeatedly pointing to all the individual trees and exclaiming how impossible it must be to ever think we can truly separate them from each other.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I'm calling BS on you proof MC. The questions were not remotely answered with your attempt todazzle me with brilliance while really trying to baffle me with BS. You can believe in a narrow hard to prove lie if you want to, but I will not care who put together an article about the dissenters. Especially, when I know some of these scientist who signed off on this already have came forward where I could hear them with their concern. Many of these have come forward with the express purpose of emphatically denying this "consencus" nonsense. You give a good debate for those who are esoteric in their observations but it is fluff compared to the hard facts of deep temperature swings and naturaly statiscal deviation. The simple reality is deep Solar cycles which bear the planets tremendous changes coupled with the eccentric aspects of the solar system to hurl stones our way is a recipe for these things. Your jumping through hoops to follow these 'scientist' in places others say we should not go claiming all agree when they clearly do not.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


And so I see the confusion mechanism kicks in. It looked like there might've still been hope for you but apparently it's too late. Yes that's right, my attempts to "dazzle" you with things like facts and math were just BS...

It's funny how you can't seem to show how anything I've said actually is BS - but it confuses you so it must be, right?

They've trained you well. Yes it must be solar cycles then. Makes sense considering solar activity has been in decline for the last 30 years while temperatures have continued to rise.

Whatever helps you sleep at night....






top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join