PDA

View Full Version : The Great Global Warming Swindle



Edmund129
03-10-2013, 11:42 AM
The Documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" clearly proves the mass fraud and deception of "Man Made Global Warming" is dressed up as science, but is actually propoganda. --- Dr. Riener (Former member of the IPCC).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

1) All the Proxie Measured data clearly shows the Temperature rising first and CO2 rises 800 years to 4000 years later.

2) We are told that it is warmer than it has ever been in 640,000 years, yet the Midieval warm period 1000 years ago was 1.5 degrees warmer than now.

3) The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than now, and was like that for 7,000 years. Yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct.

4) The previous interglacial warm period about 100,000 years was many 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene Maximum and it was like that for 36,000 years. And yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct then; any more than now. (See Warm Period # 4)

5) We are told that Man Made Global Warming will bring about global environmental destruction. Yet when anyone looks at these warm periods, it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for both humans and nature.

6) The greates greenhouse gas is Water Vapor, it is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2. H2O makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is only 380ppm (0.038%). And human contribution is less than 1ppm per year.


In this Graph the bottom plot is temperature and the top plot is CO2 levels.

And as one can easily see:

1) Temperature is always rising first (see the rectangles of time blocks).

2) The 4 previous interglacial warm periods were all warmer than the current warm period (Holocene Maximum)

3) Notice how the CO2 levels are rising near the end (now time) yet temperature is trending downward. Clearly proving that rising CO2 levels do not cause a rise in temprature.

3320

Nourjan
03-10-2013, 12:10 PM
Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread (http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077)you started ?

ribshaw
03-10-2013, 01:09 PM
Not so sure!

Following your logic we can dump as many pollutants into the water supply as we want and it will have no effect? Store as much radioactive material as we want, anywhere we want with no impact? How about pesticides, are is there no impacts on say the honeybee population? Seems to me just logically that man has quite an impact on the earth around him.

More importantly I would ask is why have liability insurers all but stopped underwriting coverage for the risks associated with global warming? They have hundreds of White Papers on the subject. If it is such a HOAX, as you seem to claim, why are the insurance companies walking away from what can only be considered risk free profits?

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 01:10 PM
Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread (http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077)you started ?

No they never did, all they would do is beat their chests and make one scientifically illiterate claim after another without one shread of measured data or field expirement to back up their worthless claims. I'm the one with the detailed data and the IPCC scientists actually doing the research.

Here are the irrifutable facts:

1) The Climate has had far greater changes before humans ever set foot on the Earth.

2) It is always Temperature that rises first and CO2 that always rises second in the timeline based on all proxie data including Ice Core Data, Tree Ring Data, etc., ...

3) All Proxie data from all Universities, Except for Dr. Michael Mann's cooked up Hockey Stick Graph (Which has been the laughing stock of the scientific community since 2001), clearly shows a 500 year long Medieval Warm Period and a 700 Year Long Little Ice age.

4) The Holocene Maximum started 10,000 years ago and ended 3,000 years ago and on average was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than now. And was like that for 7000 years. Far warmer than the most insane global warming propogandist on steriods could of ever imagined it to ever be.

5) Water vapor makes up 40,000ppm of our atmosphere and CO2 only makes up 380ppm, CO2 is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, and humans are sponsible for less than 1ppm (parts per million).

...

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 01:16 PM
There have been a number of law suites filed in civil and federal courts by environmental organizations and their scientifically illiterate claims can't even pass the laught test. All of these law suites have been thrown out one their kiester. Not yet been one single law suite has ever been successful at sewing the fossil fuel industry. Insurance isn't need, only lawyars are needed.

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 01:20 PM
CO2 is no more a pollutant than Oxygen is a pollutant. Man Made Global Warming is about naturally occuring gases, not toxic gases. Environmental extremist are trying to outlaw greenhouse gases that life on Earth is totally dependant on for food, oxygen, warmth, weather stability and temperature stability. The only reason it isn't -250 degrees F in the shade and +250 degrees F in the sunlight, like it is on the moon, is because of greenhouse gases.

You and I and all life on Earth is made up of CO2. To declare CO2 pollutant means you are also going to proclaim all life on Earth a pollutant too. Anyone that does that is not a true Environmentalist, but instead an Anti-Environmentalist.

Anyone that says most of the warming of the 20th Century was caused by man made CO2; hasn't even looked at the basic numbers.

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 01:30 PM
As one can clearly see it is really the solar cycle of the sun driving The Earth's temperature and climate; and not CO2 levels as these graphs produced by the IPCC and NASA clearly show:

3321

ribshaw
03-10-2013, 01:39 PM
[QUOTE=Edmund129;48105]As one can clearly see it is really the solar cycle of the sun driving The Earth's temperature and climate; and not CO2 levels as these graphs produced by the IPCC and NASA clearly show:

FOR PROFIT INSURERS must not be as smart as you. Not only have they stopped underwriting general liability insurance, they have seriously curtailed coverage for directors of companies that emit greenhouse gasses. Why is that? Are they afraid of making too much money?

You can repeat all of someone else's research you want. I choose to let the free market speak and they have spoke loud and clear saying the risks of climate change are too much for us to make a profit, and to the taxpayer, you take the risk. One final tidbit you won't get just anywhere, the US Flood insurance program (flooding and soil erosion being the biggest financial risks) is fully funded by the US Taxpayer, with risk free profits of administration going to the insurance companies.

Always follow the money, and I will ask again why are insurance companies going hat in hand to the taxpayer if this is such a big hoax?

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 02:01 PM
The facts say the exact opposite.

Acording to Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT Senior Fellow Climatologist and Lead Scientific Reviewer at the IPCC, says that every book on Meterology and Climatology states that the root cause of violent storms is temperature differences in the Earth's atmosphere, and the greater these temperature differences are, the greater the magnitude of the storms. These temperature differences are mostly found between the polar and tropical zones of the Earth and the lower vs. upper atmospheric regions of the Earth.

But in a Global Warming world, acording to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the exact opposite is happening. Greenhouse gases trap the suns heat and redistribute it more evenly. Greenhouse gases resist temperature difference and temperature changes thus causing milder weather and milder climates. But for some reason that isn't catastrophic enough, so we are told the opposite.

Only talking about the negatives of using fossile fuels is clearly pushing an agenda that is intended on sending us back to the stone age. Today's environmental extremist never talk about the seriouis ramifications of not using fossile fuels for cheaper energy, never again having low cost travel over great distances at greater and greater speeds, never having emergancy 911 resque's able to reach those in trouble more quickly, never having a military able to confront the enemies before they have a chance to harm the citizenry, no more law enforcment which will force people to bare their own weapons to defend themselves, going back to killing whales, whalresses, seals, orcas, elephants, rinoes and trees for our raw materials, etc., ....

Clearly not using fossile fuels is far more harmful to the environment than using fossile fuels.

Edmund129
03-10-2013, 02:09 PM
Most of the flooding in recent decades has been caused by the EPA, and other radical environmental NAZI like groups, that have been tearing down dams along the Missouri Rivers and Mississippi Rivers destroying what was once a vast and huge series of dams built up over the 20th century to controll the nations flooding, and to also create irrigation for agriculture, and electricity for local cities and other communities.

But in the 1990's the EPA has been grossly missmanaging these dams along the Missouri Rivers and Mississipppi Rivers and the rivers that feed these primary rivers since the 1990's to get the rivers to flow like they used to flow before the dams were built. In a time When the area did constantly flood and destroy forests, plant life and animal life on a regular basis. And because of the missmanagement of these dams by the EPA and many of them even being torn down, there has now been annual flooding of cities and fertal farmland along these rivers since, destroy much of America's bread basket. This has never had anything to do with greenhouse gases, but instead Environmentalists destroying the Environment so they can destroy America's standard of living and our national security to embolden our enemies even more and to destroy free Market Capitalism.

The Greenhouse gas propaganda machine is more to do with covering up the Environmentalists extremist destruction of the environment on the rest of us, while avoiding blame for themselves. They create the problem, then they blame everyone else for it.

...

ribshaw
03-10-2013, 05:28 PM
Clearly not using fossile fuels is far more harmful to the environment than using fossile fuels.

Here is what I would say Ed. If you want people who have not already formed an opinion to take you seriously have the respect for them to write original ideas extrapolated from what you have read. Your whole argument is cut and paste followed by the above quote. Tell you what, I will cut and paste all the points made from the thread already linked and we will call it a day. You have no way of verifying anything you're repeating is true. Where are your personal studies?

"The Greenhouse gas propaganda machine is more to do with covering up the Environmentalists extremist destruction of the environment on the rest of us, while avoiding blame for themselves. They create the problem, then they blame everyone else for it."

What on earth does that even mean?


Second, and this comes to my follow the money statement. Who is feeding you this information? Is it someone on AM radio who wants you to buy Andy Willougby's 3 step plan and some gold coins at 20% over spot? Are they making a living ginning up this big conspiracy, or are they doing it from the goodness of their hearts? Or maybe it is research from one of the companies that pollutes and wants to do so on the cheap? Nah that could not be it.

You know what else comes from humans besides CO2? Try sewage on for size, that's right poopy and pee pee. And do you know what countries have found from 100s of years of observation and dare I say "science"? That if you don't treat it and dispose of it properly it makes people sick. Does that mean that everyone who lives in an area with raw sewage gets sick? Of course not, but you are essentially telling your audience that because you found a few scientists who said something you happen to agree with that some conspiracy is going on. That is as silly as saying smoking is safe because your grandma smoked until she was 105 and you found a Dr that disagrees with the medical community.

So where does this fit in with "climate change" you might ask. The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that polluting the atmosphere has consequences, the only question is to what degree. I am not a scientist, nor do I want to take the time to cut and paste their work, so I will say this. There is a consequence to every action. If we pump a bunch of crap into the sky, the water, or the land it will eventually do damage. Damage to the point of human extinction? Well with water certainly, clean air maybe, and usable land almost without question. Many of us are not going back to the dark ages, so the less pollution the better is where I come down.

My position is very simple and free market, the users and consumers of energy should pay the cost of what they consume. The taxpayer should not backstop what should be a free market function. So if climate change is a hoax as you say, let's let people that live in coastal areas buy coverage in the free market and pay a free market rate. No more taxpayer subsidized coverage. This means no more military intervention for oil companies, and no more taxpayer funds to treat the effects of pollution. When people have to dip into their own pockets they will make different choices and stop head bobbing to everything they hear.

Most importantly though, in your cut and paste argument you glossed over the biggest fact about climate change related risks so I will repeat it. The insurance companies are running away in droves from almost all risks related to climate change. You can insure anything and everything Ed, from a tennis player's hands to a singers vocal cords. And the actuaries can calculate fairly accurately almost any risk. The model then becomes to weigh the probability and price of the risk against the premium they can collect. If there is a profit to be made they will take it every day, all day. That is what capitalism is all about, the effective allocation of resources. What they have said with respect to climate change is that it is a very real threat because they have no interest in taking the other side of the risk. If it was a hoax, they would be lining up around the block to collect your premiums. And that is all the proof I need that something real is afoot.

baylee
03-10-2013, 06:49 PM
For several years I have volunteered one of my computers to assist Oxford University in conjunction with BOINC projects in researching global warming. There have been some problems when it was discovered that some data collection points are not in correct places. Denver for one was placed next to an incinerator. Talk about screwing up results. There were several others examples but the researchers were going to correct the improper collection points but after several years I cut off my support of them. If they erver correct the data collection points I might be convinced to help them agaim but for now, I disbelieve everything they have came out with.

On a different note, Bonic Projects have many other research projects with many different causes. For now I still devote one computer, divided among three projects, SETI, with University of California, Berkley, Einstein with Univ. of Wisconsin, and Milkway with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Here is a link if any or interested in helping with many different projects and all it takes is allowing a computer to run with what is sent to it.

Choosing BOINC projects (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php)

Beacon
03-10-2013, 07:12 PM
As one can clearly see it is really the solar cycle of the sun driving The Earth's temperature and climate; and not CO2 levels as these graphs produced by the IPCC and NASA clearly show:

3321


Could you supply a link to your data and show how it supports you contention?
Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.
The Sun and the Earth's Climate (http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/)
"The absolute radiometers carried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle,"

I would say it is fairly much accepted that the Sun goes through and eleven year cycle of activity to dormancy. But if your theory is correct then the Earth should heat up and then cool down over eleven years. So why is it that the Earth is gradually heating up and NOT cooling down by the same rate? Why is it that particularly since the advent of peak oil and mass exploitation of fossil fuels that this warming trend is taking place? Is it just a co incidence?
We have measured Temperatures since 1850
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Shows average temperature going UP not up and down but a continual UPWARD trend.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.
Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen.
Since 1979 the Stratospheric sounding units (SSUs) on the NOAA operational satellites provided near global stratospheric temperature data above the lower stratosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric water vapor and greenhouse gases increase.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Shine_etal.pdf

There is a decline in stratospheric temperatures, interspersed by warmings related to volcanic eruptions. Global Warming theory suggests that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms
Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons - Clough - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Libr (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract)

The long term cooling in the lower stratosphere occurred in two downward steps in temperature both after the transient warming related to explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo, this behavior of the global stratospheric temperature has been attributed to global ozone concentration variation in the two years following volcanic eruptions.
here (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1)


Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html

The above would take you five minutes to find on wikipedia
As would this: Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)

It is my suspicion that you are posting this because of a particular neoconservative American political/economic position and not because of science.
Care to prove me wrong?

baylee
03-10-2013, 08:44 PM
For several years I have volunteered one of my computers to assist Oxford University in conjunction with BOINC projects in researching global warming. There have been some problems when it was discovered that some data collection points are not in correct places. Denver for one was placed next to an incinerator. Talk about screwing up results. There were several others examples but the researchers were going to correct the improper collection points but after several years I cut off my support of them. If they erver correct the data collection points I might be convinced to help them agaim but for now, I disbelieve everything they have came out with.

On a different note, Bonic Projects have many other research projects with many different causes. For now I still devote one computer, divided among three projects, SETI, with University of California, Berkley, Einstein with Univ. of Wisconsin, and Milkway with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Here is a link if any or interested in helping with many different projects and all it takes is allowing a computer to run with what is sent to it.

Choosing BOINC projects (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php)

And by the way if anyone signs up with a project, they have access to interface ( website and they will answer back) with some of the project managers and
Scientists working on the project.

After assisting Oxford University for about 4 years now and with the problems of data collection points, I believe the findings are bogus and it is nothing more than scare tactics until they correct the mistakes.

If they ( Oxford University ) go and correct the mistakes (Data collection points ) that have been made up to this point, I have a open mind, which could be changed.

Edmund129
03-29-2013, 11:39 AM
Could you supply a link to your data and show how it supports you contention?
Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.
The Sun and the Earth's Climate (http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/)
"The absolute radiometers carried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle,"

I would say it is fairly much accepted that the Sun goes through and eleven year cycle of activity to dormancy. But if your theory is correct then the Earth should heat up and then cool down over eleven years. So why is it that the Earth is gradually heating up and NOT cooling down by the same rate? Why is it that particularly since the advent of peak oil and mass exploitation of fossil fuels that this warming trend is taking place? Is it just a co incidence?
We have measured Temperatures since 1850
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Shows average temperature going UP not up and down but a continual UPWARD trend.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.
Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen.
Since 1979 the Stratospheric sounding units (SSUs) on the NOAA operational satellites provided near global stratospheric temperature data above the lower stratosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric water vapor and greenhouse gases increase.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Shine_etal.pdf

There is a decline in stratospheric temperatures, interspersed by warmings related to volcanic eruptions. Global Warming theory suggests that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms
Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons - Clough - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Libr (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract)

The long term cooling in the lower stratosphere occurred in two downward steps in temperature both after the transient warming related to explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo, this behavior of the global stratospheric temperature has been attributed to global ozone concentration variation in the two years following volcanic eruptions.
here (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1)


Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html

The above would take you five minutes to find on wikipedia
As would this: Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)

It is my suspicion that you are posting this because of a particular neoconservative American political/economic position and not because of science.
Care to prove me wrong?

Watch the Video in the original Posting. The Solar / CO2 / Temperature graph was published by NASA and the IPCC over 10 years ago.

It had been first discovered in 1893 by Edward W. Maunder that solar cycles that had been observed for century's, since the days of Gallelao, to have a very close correlation with Earth's average Temperature and Climate. And all of NASA's data has supported that fact for most of its existance, until Government grant money was waved in their faces to change their minds.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum)

Edmund129
03-29-2013, 12:01 PM
You keep attacking the messenger and never confront the message itself. This is a typical Stalinist tactic taught in todays colleges and universities. Which is absolutely pethidict. The facts speak for themselves:

1) Greenhouse gases resist temperature change and therefor resist climate change. (Source: Dr. Richard Lindzen Senior Fellow Climatologist at MIT and lead scientific reviewer at the IPCC)

2) The moon has no greenhouse gases and there is a 500 degree F temperature swing between daytime and night time. +250 Degrees F in the day time and -250 Degrees F at night. Because of the greenhouse gas effect on the Earth, there is normally only a few degrees difference between night and day with greenhouse gases. A reduction in greenhouse gases can cause there to be 10's of degrees difference between night and day time temperatures. Again the scientific proof is irrefutably clear, greenhouse gases resist temperature changes and climate changes, they don't amplify them.

3) My facts are coming directly from the IPCC scientist themselves that are actually doing the work, but get ignored by the State controlled Media. (Like: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc., ...)

4) Patric Moore (Co-Founder of Greenpeace) and other Greenpeace founders have all been claiming since the 1990's that the Marxist Style Communists have fled the soviet union and moved into the environmental extremist movements around the world and have very cleverly learned to use green languages to push agendas that have more to do with Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Industrialization and Anti-Globalization than any thing to do with real environmentalism.

5) Today's Environmentalists are the greatest threat to the environment, when they intentionally mismanage man made dams to create flooding that destroys millions of acres of fertile farmland and turn once prosperous agricultural land into desolate wasteland. While also killing off vital wildlife and forests on purpose to intentional bring about poverty that will be more excepting of Marxist Style Communism.

6) In America and in most other countries Environmental extremism is a required course in colleges and universities for getting ones diploma and degree into any field. And the acceptance of the destruction of the environment and the economy under the false disguise of protecting the environment; is considered mandatory education everywhere.

Edmund129
03-29-2013, 01:46 PM
You know what else comes from humans besides CO2? Try sewage on for size, that's right poopy and pee pee. And do you know what countries have found from 100s of years of observation and dare I say "science"? That if you don't treat it and dispose of it properly it makes people sick. Does that mean that everyone who lives in an area with raw sewage gets sick? Of course not, but you are essentially telling your audience that because you found a few scientists who said something you happen to agree with that some conspiracy is going on. That is as silly as saying smoking is safe because your grandma smoked until she was 105 and you found a Dr that disagrees with the medical community.

So where does this fit in with "climate change" you might ask. The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that polluting the atmosphere has consequences, the only question is to what degree. I am not a scientist, nor do I want to take the time to cut and paste their work, so I will say this. There is a consequence to every action. If we pump a bunch of crap into the sky, the water, or the land it will eventually do damage. Damage to the point of human extinction? Well with water certainly, clean air maybe, and usable land almost without question. Many of us are not going back to the dark ages, so the less pollution the better is where I come down.



Here are the flaws in your arguments:

1) Humans only produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, the Earth's atmosphere is 6.93 Quadrillion tons, if you divide 6.5 billion tons by 6.93 Quadrillion tons you get less than 1 part per million (ppm). That is right, humans only contribute less than 1 part per million of the 380ppm already in the Earth's atmosphere per year. Humans are the single smallest source of CO2 on the Earth. And CO2 is food for plants. If CO2 levels double, Earth's plants only need 1/4th as much water to live. Which hugely improves agriculture and nature as well.

2) Nature produces more poope and pee pee by many orders of magnitude than humans do, how come you aren't complaining about that. You act as if only human poop is bad for the environment, when in a matter off act it too is food for plants. Or did you nap during your science biology class too?

3) In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth he said there were 12,000 scientific articles published on global warming over a 10 year period, and that 938 believed that humans were suspected of causing it. If you divide 938 by 12,000 you get about 7.7% of those papers suspecting humans. Since when does 7.7% constitute a landslide majority... News Journalists interviews and reviewed those papers and found that 53% of those 938 concluded that humans were not responsible for global warming. Now we are down to 3.3% of those 12,000 scientific papers on global warming blaming humans. Since when does 3.3% constitute a landslide majority of scientists. Obviously not only did you nap in science class, but you must of napped through math class too.

4) Because of fossil fuels we no longer have to kill plants and animals like Whales, Whalresses, Seals, Orcas, elephants, rinos or trees for our raw materials anymore. Which means because of fossil fuels we are doing far less damage to the environment than in century's past.

Here are some figures that show that 95% to 99% of all greenhouse gases is actually water vapor, and how puny a contribution to CO2 humans really make, also notice how puny CO2's contribution really is:

3485

How come the Global Warming Alarmists aren't wanting to reduce water vapor from the atmosphere, it clearly is the most dominate greenhouse gas.

ribshaw
03-29-2013, 03:36 PM
Here are the flaws in your arguments:

1) Humans only produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, the Earth's atmosphere is 6.93 Quadrillion tons, if you divide 6.5 billion tons by 6.93 Quadrillion tons you get less than 1 part per million (ppm). That is right, humans only contribute less than 1 part per million of the 380ppm already in the Earth's atmosphere per year. Humans are the single smallest source of CO2 on the Earth. And CO2 is food for plants. If CO2 levels double, Earth's plants only need 1/4th as much water to live. Which hugely improves agriculture and nature as well.

2) Nature produces more poope and pee pee by many orders of magnitude than humans do, how come you aren't complaining about that. You act as if only human poop is bad for the environment, when in a matter off act it too is food for plants. Or did you nap during your science biology class too?

3) In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth he said there were 12,000 scientific articles published on global warming over a 10 year period, and that 938 believed that humans were suspected of causing it. If you divide 938 by 12,000 you get about 7.7% of those papers suspecting humans. Since when does 7.7% constitute a landslide majority... News Journalists interviews and reviewed those papers and found that 53% of those 938 concluded that humans were not responsible for global warming. Now we are down to 3.3% of those 12,000 scientific papers on global warming blaming humans. Since when does 3.3% constitute a landslide majority of scientists. Obviously not only did you nap in science class, but you must of napped through math class too.

4) Because of fossil fuels we no longer have to kill plants and animals like Whales, Whalresses, Seals, Orcas, elephants, rinos or trees for our raw materials anymore. Which means because of fossil fuels we are doing far less damage to the environment than in century's past.

Here are some figures that show that 95% to 99% of all greenhouse gases is actually water vapor, and how puny a contribution to CO2 humans really make, also notice how puny CO2's contribution really is:

How come the Global Warming Alarmists aren't wanting to reduce water vapor from the atmosphere, it clearly is the most dominate greenhouse gas.

I don't see how any of that points out any "flaws" in my "argument", when in fact I didn't make an "argument" but several observations about pollution in general. I used ONE example, of human waste and it was not a "complaint" but a fact. I am not writing a Phd dissertation on the ecosystem to satisfy your every whim.

And to quote myself:

"The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that polluting the atmosphere has consequences, the only question is to what degree." and

"There is a consequence to every action. If we pump a bunch of crap into the sky, the water, or the land it will eventually do damage."

As I said previous times, I could care less about your cut and paste science class. I have ONE choice in my area for powering my house, electric, my guess is it is derived from coal, but since I don't have a choice I just pay my bill. I have ONE choice for Heat and that is natural gas, again I just pay my bill. It seems like natural gas is a huge boon for America, as long as companies don't F' up our water supply. And it is probably better for the environment. But again I have 0 choice so I pay my bill.

I am not really sure what your "hang up" is with Global Warming that you would be all over the internet cutting and pasting. Maybe if you want to engage people in an actual discussion rather than setting up a strawman and then arguing against it you would get a little further.

Edmund129
03-31-2013, 10:15 AM
I don't see how any of that points out any "flaws" in my "argument", when in fact I didn't make an "argument" but several observations about pollution in general. I used ONE example, of human waste and it was not a "complaint" but a fact. I am not writing a Phd dissertation on the ecosystem to satisfy your every whim.

And to quote myself:

"The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that polluting the atmosphere has consequences, the only question is to what degree." and

"There is a consequence to every action. If we pump a bunch of crap into the sky, the water, or the land it will eventually do damage."

As I said previous times, I could care less about your cut and paste science class. I have ONE choice in my area for powering my house, electric, my guess is it is derived from coal, but since I don't have a choice I just pay my bill. I have ONE choice for Heat and that is natural gas, again I just pay my bill. It seems like natural gas is a huge boon for America, as long as companies don't F' up our water supply. And it is probably better for the environment. But again I have 0 choice so I pay my bill.

I am not really sure what your "hang up" is with Global Warming that you would be all over the internet cutting and pasting. Maybe if you want to engage people in an actual discussion rather than setting up a strawman and then arguing against it you would get a little further.

Amazing How when I post concrete facts to back up my arguments you call it cut and paste, just like a typical Stalinist Marxist Style Communist propagandist makes their arguments; attack the messenger and not the message. Because you are incapable of backing up any of your scientifically illiterate claims with any facts based on empirical measured data or experiments.

You seem to believe that only human poop polutes but deer poop, fish poop, whale poop, krill poop, Buffelo poop and Elk Poop doesn't. Krill makes up more than 2.5 times the biomass than what 7 billion humans do and produce many orders of magnitude more poop than humans do. Amazing how you clearly biased hatred of humans parallels Marxist Style Communist propagandist do to justify the irradiation of 7 billion people.

Here is a illustration published by the IPCC that demonstrates how very little contribution that humans really have to the CO2 build up in the Earth's atmosphere.

Plant Photosynthesis on the land alone absorbs more than 10 times the amount of CO2 that what humans produce each and every year. In this illistration it also shows the oceans are more than capable of absorbing more than 3 times as much CO2 than what humans can produce. Other research on this has shown as much as 200 times the CO2 absorption than what humans produce.

Also notice how plants and decaying plant life and animal life produces more than 20 times the CO2 compared to what humans produce.

And also remember that Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas of all, with more than 100 times the concentration in our atmosphere compared to what CO2 has in it. Water Vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas is compared to what CO2 is.


3531

Edmund129
03-31-2013, 10:32 AM
Here is the full spectrum of all greenhouse gases and their electromagnetic wavelength absorption bands in our atmosphere.

1) CO2 only has 3 absorption bands in the infrared spectrum and 2.5 of them are being overrun by Water Vapor absorption bands, which means CO2's only contribution to Global Warming is 1/2 of one absorption band. This is why Water Vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2. Water vapor makes up 40,000ppm (4%) while CO2 only makes up 380ppm (0.038%).

2) Also notice how Methane (CH4) only has 2 paper thin absorption bands in the infrared spectrum, even less of a contribution to greenhouse gas warming than CO2 does. Not only that, but if you look at the bottom sumation of all the absorption bands, water vapor again over runs both of Methanes (CH4) absorption bands, leaving Metane with Zero contribution to greenhouse gas warming. But yet we are lied to again by the Global Warming Propogandist that say Methane is between 23 to 30 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is. Methane only makes up 1.5ppm in our atmosphere compared to CO2 at 380ppm. Clearly we are being lied to again by Global Warming Propagandists which have all of their arguments based on pure junk science.

3) Water Vapor has 7 absorption bands in the infrared spectrum while completely drowning out Methane and all but 1/2 of one abosrption band of CO2. Clearly Water vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is. How come Global Warming Alarmists are not advocating the removal of Water Vapor instead?

4) Oxygen has at least one full absorption band of greenhouse gas warming than what CO2 is contributing, and Oxygen makes up 220,000ppm (22%) of the Earth's atmosphere. Even more than water vapor. Why isn't there a war on Oxygen removal from our atmosphere?

Instead of attacking the biggest greenhouse gas sources, Environmental NAZI's attack the smallest greenhouse gas sources CO2 and Methane. This has never been about controlling greenhouse gases, this is about controlling us and controlling our lives and controlling the economy by an elite group of Environmental Fascists trying to grab for more power and control over the rest of us. Global Warming Alarmists are not Environmentalists, they are Anti-Environmentalists, Anti-Human, Anti-Capitalists, Anti-Industrialists and Anti-Globalizationists masquerading as Environmentalists. (Source: All the original Founders of Greenpeace)



3532

Edmund129
03-31-2013, 11:01 AM
A perfect example of how Man Made Global Warming is really more to do with a Political Power Grab than to do with real science. The World Bank is requiring America to triple its tax on gasoline to help fight greenhouse gas emissions, thus tripling the price of gasoline from $4 a gallon to $12 a gallon. Clearly a premeditated attempt to destroy the American and World Economy; so that the World wide Marxist Style Communist propaganda machine can prove that Free Market Capitalism doesn't work. When it is really Command and Control Marxist Style Communism and its cronyism that doesn't work.

This Video clearly shows how real science based on observations are being replaced with Junk Science based on cooked up computer models:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3MYNVZ497E

ribshaw
03-31-2013, 11:01 AM
Did Al Gore show up at your house and force you to wear a sweater and turn down your thermostat? Engaging you in a discussion is a bit like trying to talk to a 3 year old that is tugging on my pant leg when they have to go pee pee. Good luck with your crusade to drive whatever kind of vehicle you want and to keep your house as warm or cool as you like. Someday my friend I hope you win those freedoms back for us.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:: crazy:

Edmund129
03-31-2013, 11:23 AM
A perfect example of how Man Made Global Warming is really more to do with a Political Power Grab than to do with real science. The World Bank is requiring America to triple its tax on gasoline to help fight greenhouse gas emissions, thus tripling the price of gasoline from $4 a gallon to $12 a gallon. Clearly a premeditated attempt to destroy the American and World Economy; so that the World wide Marxist Style Communist propaganda machine can prove that Free Market Capitalism doesn't work. When it is really Command and Control Marxist Style Communism and its cronyism that doesn't work.

This Video clearly shows how real science based on observations are being replaced with Junk Science based on cooked up computer models:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3MYNVZ497E

Edmund129
03-31-2013, 11:30 AM
More proof of how Man Made Global Warming is being used as a Marxist Style Communist Propaganda tool in our schools and universities to brainwash students into being dumbed down so that crooked and dishonest politicians can take advantage of the next generation of masses with higher taxes, fewer freedoms and liberties. In direct Violations of a 2000 Law in Both American and Great Britain that strictly prohibits using schools, colleges and universities from being used as Political Propaganda brainwashing institutes to indoctrinate students into the Communist party.

Richard Lindzen has said that all of science is funded by Governments; and as soon as a scientific conclusion is found that disagrees with Government policies and political belief's the scientific funding is cut off. Today's Science is being forced to ignore the facts and comply with Government policies even if they are based on junk science and pure fiction. Richard Lindzen goes on to say that we need to find a way of funding science so that Governments are not involved and therefore not forcing scientific conclusions before the research is even done.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=keDtanExdrc

ribshaw
03-31-2013, 11:33 AM
Oh, look everyone, the cut and past function works on my computer too.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

When Al Gore knocks on your door, please do as instructed.:crying_2: Al Gore showed up today and took my Escalade and now I have to drive a smart car. And instead of heat I have to wear and itchy wool sweater and type with pencils because it is so cold in my house that I have to wear mittens.

Edmund129
04-07-2013, 06:24 AM
Did Al Gore show up at your house and force you to wear a sweater and turn down your thermostat? Engaging you in a discussion is a bit like trying to talk to a 3 year old that is tugging on my pant leg when they have to go pee pee. Good luck with your crusade to drive whatever kind of vehicle you want and to keep your house as warm or cool as you like. Someday my friend I hope you win those freedoms back for us.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:: crazy:

Al Gore did far worse, he invented a lie to seduce our Scientifically illiterate government and millions of scientifically illiterate gullible Americans into convicting themselves of a crime that is actually a none crime.

Al Gore testified before the House Committee that Cap-N-Trade policies are recommended cure for greenhouse gas build up. He even went on to recommend carbon credits and a carbon tax on fissile fuel company's. Al Gore founded all the Carbon Credit company's and stands to make $7 Trillion per year if all the world's country's purchase his carbon credits. A clear cut case of Criminal Grand Larceny!

Thanks to the lies spewed by Al Gore's man made global warming propaganda machine there are now over 300 coal burning power generators that have filed for bankruptcy and gone out of business. Causing energy prices to skyrocket out of control and driving more people out of their jobs and living in the streets. Along with rolling brown outs and blackouts spreading across America like a plague. The average coal fired power plant has to spend at least $500 million to do CO2 sequestering before they can continue their operations. Which makes it impossible for any coal fired power plant to stay in business. This has not only destroyed the coal industry, but has destroyed peoples jobs, retirement pensions, 401K Plans, IRA's, etc., ....

There are now 90 Million Americans unemployed (67%) and living on Welfare and food stamps thanks to the policies recommended by Al Gore, there are only 39 million Americans left with jobs to pay the bills and the taxes. Al Gore's man made global warming lie has turned America and the world into a 3rd world banana Republic (Except with out Republic part).

Human Poverty is the worse form of human pollution; just at places like Bangladesh, Etheopea, India, etc., you can see with your own eyes how poverty destroys the environment. Yet, today's environmental-nazi's number one recommendation is poverty. This generation of environmentalists are actually anti-environmentalists!!!

Edmund129
04-07-2013, 06:36 AM
Oh, look everyone, the cut and past function works on my computer too.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

When Al Gore knocks on your door, please do as instructed.:crying_2: Al Gore showed up today and took my Escalade and now I have to drive a smart car. And instead of heat I have to wear and itchy wool sweater and type with pencils because it is so cold in my house that I have to wear mittens.



Spoken like a true Environmental fascists.

Out of the 2600 so called scientists at the IPCC, only 53 of the Administrative head believes that humans are responsible for man made global warming, and none of them are scientists. Out of the 2600 that are scientists, none of them believe humans are the root cause of man made global warming. (Watch the original Video of this thread to get the details)

Most of the warming during the 20th Century occurred between 1922 and 1940, long before there were any interstate highways criss crossing any country. And when the Post World War II economic book took off after 1946 and human CO2 production skyrocketed; the Earth's climate changed and temperatures fell, not for one or two years, but for 4 decades. In the 1970's, the same retards that preach global warming today, were preaching global cooling then because of the 4 decades long decline in global temperatures. And telling us that global cooling was going to cause sea level rises, more violent weather, flooding, drought, famine, pestilence, etc., ... and some 30 years later they tell us that global warming is going to do the same thing. Man Made Global warming doesn't even pass the laugh test!!!

Edmund129
04-07-2013, 06:47 AM
Even if the Earth's average temperature increases by 10 degrees the temperature in Antartica will still be colder than -100 degrees F and would only increase the Antartic Ice sheet, not decrease it. Today's observations who an increasing Antarctic Ice sheets, not a shrinking one.

Climate models still cannot simulate precipitation.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw&playnext=1&list=PL6C2641BB1E0ADC48&feature=results_main

Edmund129
04-07-2013, 06:53 AM
Man Made Global Warming has more to do with Global Governance than anything to do with real science:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u81qXOYfKg

Compare the real observed facts to the arguments made by Man Made Global Warming Propaganda and you can easily see why environmental NAZI lawsuits have not won a single court case to date based on man made global warming arguements.

ribshaw
04-07-2013, 11:33 AM
Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread (http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077)you started ?

Reference above link. My cut and paste skills are as strong if not stronger than yours grasshopper.

I can not even come to a conclusion whether I should take a multivitamin because my body needs it, or not because I am just fertilizing the toilet water. Should I drink coffee because it reduces plaque on my brain, or not drink it because it raises my blood pressure? But you seem to have this whole thing figured out because of a few Utube clips that run contrary to what the majority of Climate Scientists currently agree on. OK go with that, bring it up on dates, I bet the ladies really love climate talk!!!

Edward, rather than waste anymore time with you, I just quoted the above thread where all of your distortions were thoroughly challenged. The ironic thing is you seem to be drawing conclusions the people you are quoting don't come to, including folks who work for the Koch's and Big Oil!

More to the point are so obsessed with this subject that it is making you mental, so much so that you can't even have a discussion with a casual observer. If you read my posts you would notice I took a rather practical stance from an economic, personal, and business standpoint. The US uses roughly 25% of the world's energy and represents 5% of the world's population. Most is used out of necessity and some out of sheer wastefulness. I see no reason that we would not with a cost benefit analysis keep moving toward the cleanest most efficient forms of energy. For instance, I would rather not see some family in Kentucky or West Virgina grow up with breathing problems or develop Black Lung just because I like to wear shorts in my house 24/7 365. I would rather not see rivers of oil running down the streets of Arkansas just because I enjoy driving an SUV. You seem to not be challenged to think about anything beyond your preconceived conspiracy dujour.

The only conclusion you have reinforced for me is a select group of people are making themselves millions of dollars a year ginning up these thoughts. But you carry on, its your life to live as you see fit.

Edmund129
04-26-2013, 07:45 PM
Oh, look everyone, the cut and past function works on my computer too.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

When Al Gore knocks on your door, please do as instructed.:crying_2: Al Gore showed up today and took my Escalade and now I have to drive a smart car. And instead of heat I have to wear and itchy wool sweater and type with pencils because it is so cold in my house that I have to wear mittens.

I haven't cut and paste anything, all I've done is produce the actual measured data and the facts themselves as they have been measured by the IPCC, NASA and many other scientists around the world.

Out of the so called 2600 Scientists a the IPCC, none of them agree with any of the scientific illiterate claims made by Global Warming Alarmists. Only the 53 Administrative heads of the IPCC believe in and preach "Man Made Global Warming". And none of those 53 are scientists, they are all instead political Marxist card carrying hacks.

Edmund129
04-26-2013, 07:58 PM
Rivers of Oil never flow on purpose, accidents in the oil company's are very rare now and are not a requirement of drilling for oil, refining oil or using any of the products that it makes. Unlike what we were doing before the discovery of all the cool things we can make from crude oil, it doesn't require us to kill a single plant, animal or human to drill, refine or use the byproducts of crude oil.

Environmental NAZI's never discuss the ramifications of not using crude oil, and here are those ramifications of not using crude oil:

1) We would have to resort to killing many millions of Whales, Whalreses, Seals, elephants, rinos and trees for our raw materials. And that does require us to kill many animals.

2) Global economic collapse and poverty. Human Poverty is the worse form of environmental pollution and destruction. Just look at Bangladeshi, Etheopea, Samalia, etc., ... one can see with their own eyes that human poverty is the most environmental form pollution caused by humans, not prosperity.

3) Returning back to the stone age where the average life expectancy of humans was 12 years of age.

4) Lost jobs.

5) Lost retirement pensions.

6) No transportation means mass starvation. Before the invention of the gasoline fueled automobile; humans could only on average travel 25 miles per day. Which means without high speed transportation there is no more 911 rescue, no more firefighting, no more paramedics, no more hospitals (because no one could get to one quick enough), millions more dying every year from heart attacks and strokes because of no transportation.

7) Global Starvation for most of the world's 7 billion humans, because without crude oil there is no more pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, transportation, cultivating, planting and harvesting.

8) 7 Billion humans would starve to death without fossil fuels.

..

Edmund129
04-26-2013, 08:08 PM
Could you supply a link to your data and show how it supports you contention?
Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.
The Sun and the Earth's Climate (http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/)
"The absolute radiometers carried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle,"

I would say it is fairly much accepted that the Sun goes through and eleven year cycle of activity to dormancy. But if your theory is correct then the Earth should heat up and then cool down over eleven years. So why is it that the Earth is gradually heating up and NOT cooling down by the same rate? Why is it that particularly since the advent of peak oil and mass exploitation of fossil fuels that this warming trend is taking place? Is it just a co incidence?
We have measured Temperatures since 1850
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Shows average temperature going UP not up and down but a continual UPWARD trend.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.
Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen.
Since 1979 the Stratospheric sounding units (SSUs) on the NOAA operational satellites provided near global stratospheric temperature data above the lower stratosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric water vapor and greenhouse gases increase.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Shine_etal.pdf

There is a decline in stratospheric temperatures, interspersed by warmings related to volcanic eruptions. Global Warming theory suggests that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms
Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons - Clough - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Libr (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract)

The long term cooling in the lower stratosphere occurred in two downward steps in temperature both after the transient warming related to explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo, this behavior of the global stratospheric temperature has been attributed to global ozone concentration variation in the two years following volcanic eruptions.
here (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1)


Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html

The above would take you five minutes to find on wikipedia
As would this: Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)

It is my suspicion that you are posting this because of a particular neoconservative American political/economic position and not because of science.
Care to prove me wrong?

This CO2 / Solar cycle plot comes from NASA and the IPCC. This Video Documentary the "Great Global Warming Swindle" discusses these two plots.

3705



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-1iL9g8nU

The sun has more than just the well known 11 year sunspot cycle, There is also a 22 year Magnetic flip cycle and about another half dozen other cycles that effect the peaks of the 11 year sunspot cycle peaks.

...

Edmund129
04-27-2013, 11:20 AM
The longest recorded aspect of solar variations are changes in sunspots. The first record of sunspots dates to around 800 BC in China and the oldest surviving drawing of a sunspot dates to 1128. In 1610, astronomers began using the telescope to make observations of sunspots and their motions. Initial study was focused on their nature and behavior.[12] Although the physical aspects of sunspots were not identified until the 20th century, observations continued. Study was hampered during the 17th century due to the low number of sunspots during what is now recognized as an extended period of low solar activity, known as the Maunder Minimum. By the 19th century, there was a long enough record of sunspot numbers to infer periodic cycles in sunspot activity. In 1845, Princeton University professors Joseph Henry and Stephen Alexander observed the Sun with a thermopile and determined that sunspots emitted less radiation than surrounding areas of the Sun. The emission of higher than average amounts of radiation later were observed from the solar faculae.[13]

Around 1900, researchers began to explore connections between solar variations and weather on Earth. Of particular note is the work of Charles Greeley Abbot. Abbot was assigned by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) to detect changes in the radiation of the Sun. His team had to begin by inventing instruments to measure solar radiation. Later, when Abbot was head of the SAO, it established a solar station at Calama, Chile to complement its data from Mount Wilson Observatory. He detected 27 harmonic periods within the 273-month Hale cycles, including 7, 13, and 39-month patterns. He looked for connections to weather by means such as matching opposing solar trends during a month to opposing temperature and precipitation trends in cities. With the advent of dendrochronology, scientists such as Waldo S. Glock attempted to connect variation in tree growth to periodic solar variations in the extant record and infer long-term secular variability in the solar constant from similar variations in millennial-scale chronologies.[14]

Statistical studies that correlate weather and climate with solar activity have been popular for centuries, dating back at least to 1801, when William Herschel noted an apparent connection between wheat prices and sunspot records.[15] They now often involve high-density global datasets compiled from surface networks and weather satellite observations and/or the forcing of climate models with synthetic or observed solar variability to investigate the detailed processes by which the effects of solar variations propagate through the Earth's climate system.[16]

3707

Edmund129
04-27-2013, 11:31 AM
The Temperature records going back 1000 years using Ice Core data from Greenland and the Antartic show a 500 year long Mideval Warm Period and a 700 year long Little Ice Age that we are still in.

There was clearly a 500 year long Medieval Warm Period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today and lasted between 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.; In addition to that there was clearly a 700 year long Little Ice age that we are still in and have not yet completely come out of.

3708

This graph was produced by the IPCC.

Spector567
04-27-2013, 09:13 PM
The Temperature records going back 1000 years using Ice Core data from Greenland and the Antartic show a 500 year long Mideval Warm Period and a 700 year long Little Ice Age that we are still in.

There was clearly a 500 year long Medieval Warm Period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today and lasted between 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.; In addition to that there was clearly a 700 year long Little Ice age that we are still in and have not yet completely come out of.

3708

This graph was produced by the IPCC.

ED.... This has already been debunked 20+ times on the scams.com forum. As someone has already pointed out. It is very dishonest to move from forum to forum making the same long debunked claim.

I'd also like to point out that this new group of people and they also question your motives, and your competence.

Edmund129
05-03-2013, 06:50 AM
ED.... This has already been debunked 20+ times on the scams.com forum. As someone has already pointed out. It is very dishonest to move from forum to forum making the same long debunked claim.

I'd also like to point out that this new group of people and they also question your motives, and your competence.

You have debunked absolutely nothing!!!, This Temperature plot has been reproduced by literally hundreds of Climate research centers around the world, except on the sick twisted Marxist Michael Mann at Penn State University's hockey stick graph, that was clearly proven to be a complete fraud and the laughing stock of the scientific community since 2001, disagrees with this graph.

100% of all other Climate Research centers have confirmed the existence of the 500 year long Medieval Warming period and the 700 year long Little Ice Age. And is widely excepted by all Climatologists. Only Michael Mann's Hockey stick graph has been 100% rejected by all Climatologists.

Edmund129
05-03-2013, 06:51 AM
How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

Edmund129
05-03-2013, 06:56 AM
Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

Edmund129
05-03-2013, 06:59 AM
The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed onFox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, The Population Bomb, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well-intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill.”

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.
Categories

ribshaw
05-03-2013, 08:17 AM
Al Gore founded all the Carbon Credit company's and stands to make $7 Trillion per year if all the world's country's purchase his carbon credits.

Edmund I think you are making stuff up for attention. I would even go so far as to peg you as a granola eating liberal sitting in a pair of hemp shorts watching MSNBC 24/7 barely able to type because you are laughing so hard. For reference $7 Trillion dollars is the GDP of China and about 1/2 the GDP of the USA. So your above statement is so outlandish it has to be a joke.

Then there is this from that other scam thread that has been referenced so many times. http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077&page=6

3766

The Art Institute of Dallas is a private school, leads me to believe both you and your daughter laughed about this tale of Al Gore's overreaching control of Netflix. Nevertheless it was quickly proven to be, er shall we say not so accurate.

3767

And finally since my second pot of coffee is done and I have some scam research to do, I will do this:

"Edmund's Cut and paste, Paste and Cut. Shift Print Screen, Ctrl V, Ctrl V, Ctrl V!!!!"

My cut and paste skillz once again on proud display. Has to be true, I read it somewhere.

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)


I have never watched "An Inconvenient Truth", but I think I will this weekend. Then maybe we can spam the internet with cut and paste pretending to be outraged together.:RpS_wink:

Spector567
05-03-2013, 11:16 AM
You have debunked absolutely nothing!!!, This Temperature plot has been reproduced by literally hundreds of Climate research centers around the world, except on the sick twisted Marxist Michael Mann at Penn State University's hockey stick graph, that was clearly proven to be a complete fraud and the laughing stock of the scientific community since 2001, disagrees with this graph.

100% of all other Climate Research centers have confirmed the existence of the 500 year long Medieval Warming period and the 700 year long Little Ice Age. And is widely excepted by all Climatologists. Only Michael Mann's Hockey stick graph has been 100% rejected by all Climatologists.



Ed.. No one is disputing the little ice age or the MEP. You just continue to ignore the fact that these changes took 700 years to happen vs. the 40 that it has taken the current warming. This has already been explained to you several times and you had NO RESPONSE except to rant.

Also Mcmanns graph has been updated 100 times by other climate research facilities and they all look the same.
Even the B.E.S.T study funded by the koch brothers backs up the current warming.

Obviously 100% of climate facilities disagree with your conclusions since they still say climate change is occuring. Also I seriously have to ask. Why do you continue to post blurry screen shots of a movie and avoid posting the actual source material? Is it because the source material doesn't agree with the movies altered graphs? Or just that the graph doesn't say what you want it to say.

P.S. How many forums do you spam on a daily basis? I know you are currently spamming 2.

For those that are interested. Ed called me a scietific illiterate and listed 6 arguments. I dismentalled all 6. Ed rebutted 2 of 6 and than rebutted 0 of 6.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077
Starts on post 6.

Do I really need to inform these people on your views on espestos?

Spector567
05-03-2013, 07:30 PM
You have debunked absolutely nothing!!!, This Temperature plot has been reproduced by literally hundreds of Climate research centers around the world, except on the sick twisted Marxist Michael Mann at Penn State University's hockey stick graph, that was clearly proven to be a complete fraud and the laughing stock of the scientific community since 2001, disagrees with this graph.

100% of all other Climate Research centers have confirmed the existence of the 500 year long Medieval Warming period and the 700 year long Little Ice Age. And is widely excepted by all Climatologists. Only Michael Mann's Hockey stick graph has been 100% rejected by all Climatologists.



ED.....What do you call Posts 6-14 (6 points, you rebutted 2 of 6, than 0 of 6)
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077

For instance why do you keep using screen shots from the Swindle movie instead of the actual source graphs. Is that because the graphs from the movie have been doctored?
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

Also as we previously discussed the fact that earth warms and cools is not the problem. It's the fact that it's happening 10-100 times faster than any natural event.

Then there is also the B.E.S.T. Study funded by the conservative Koch brothers.
Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/)
Gee that graph looks similar. As do the hundreds of other data sets from across the globe.

Also Kelderek and I would like to know if you have the source for that 17,500PHD Petition yet. I've been waiting since October for that. However, I suspect that's because it's the same as the 31,000 study from the Oregon Institute study. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine)

Edmund129
05-04-2013, 10:47 AM
I have not made anything up, I've have backed up all of my arguments with the naked facts, but when I back them up with the documented facts you accuse me of cut and paste. You are clearly one pethedic lying propagandist for sure!! You have yet to post a single fact, piece of measured data or observation to refute anything I've posted on this blog. Where is your proof?

Proof is not quoting arguments from authority, proof is in the measured data and observations, not dumbed down cooked up computer models which have never worked, because none of them are capable of simulating water vapor or precipitation. All the computer models do is simulate CO2 and CO2 only while ignoring solar cycles, ocean currents and water vapor.


Edmund I think you are making stuff up for attention. I would even go so far as to peg you as a granola eating liberal sitting in a pair of hemp shorts watching MSNBC 24/7 barely able to type because you are laughing so hard. For reference $7 Trillion dollars is the GDP of China and about 1/2 the GDP of the USA. So your above statement is so outlandish it has to be a joke.

Then there is this from that other scam thread that has been referenced so many times. http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077&page=6

3766

The Art Institute of Dallas is a private school, leads me to believe both you and your daughter laughed about this tale of Al Gore's overreaching control of Netflix. Nevertheless it was quickly proven to be, er shall we say not so accurate.


Because the Art Institute of Dallas takes Government Grants, Tuitions, Loans, etc., ... The Art Institute of Dallas must also abide by Government Regulations and force their students to watch, be examined on and agree with the Propaganda film "The Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. The same Al Gore that was a "D" Student in Earth Science, a "C--" in Math and made an "F" in everything else. Based on Al Gore's academic record he isn't even qualified to operate flush toilets without parental supervision.




3767

And finally since my second pot of coffee is done and I have some scam research to do, I will do this:

"Edmund's Cut and paste, Paste and Cut. Shift Print Screen, Ctrl V, Ctrl V, Ctrl V!!!!"

My cut and paste skillz once again on proud display. Has to be true, I read it somewhere.

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)


I have never watched "An Inconvenient Truth", but I think I will this weekend. Then maybe we can spam the internet with cut and paste pretending to be outraged together.:RpS_wink:

In Al Gore's "Inconvenience Truth" he spends most of his time riding around in shofer driven limousine and flying around in his Leer Jet lecturing the rest of us on how we need to learn to live on less; while we watch him live on more. He is the Quint essetial definition of a Fascist driven Leftist style Marxist control freak, just like other Global Warming Alarmists are. They aren't interested in the environment, they are only interested in the control over others.

If you really want to get the real facts watch the real Documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" There are more facts, more IPCC Scientists, environmental Scientists, NASA Scientists than in Al Gore's Proporanda Piece "Inconvenient Truth" which only has him and ZERO scientists to back up any of his claims.

...

...

Edmund129
05-04-2013, 11:00 AM
Ed.. No one is disputing the little ice age or the MEP. You just continue to ignore the fact that these changes took 700 years to happen vs. the 40 that it has taken the current warming. This has already been explained to you several times and you had NO RESPONSE except to rant.

Also Mcmanns graph has been updated 100 times by other climate research facilities and they all look the same.
Even the B.E.S.T study funded by the koch brothers backs up the current warming.

Obviously 100% of climate facilities disagree with your conclusions since they still say climate change is occuring. Also I seriously have to ask. Why do you continue to post blurry screen shots of a movie and avoid posting the actual source material? Is it because the source material doesn't agree with the movies altered graphs? Or just that the graph doesn't say what you want it to say.

P.S. How many forums do you spam on a daily basis? I know you are currently spamming 2.

For those that are interested. Ed called me a scietific illiterate and listed 6 arguments. I dismentalled all 6. Ed rebutted 2 of 6 and than rebutted 0 of 6.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077
Starts on post 6.

Do I really need to inform these people on your views on espestos?


That is because you are a Scientific Illiterate retard driven by your Left Leaning Fascist Style Marxist beliefs. You aren't interested in real Environmental issues, you are more interested in using the iron fist of the government to squeeze more money, jobs, time and resources out of innocent people which have done nothing wrong but simply be normal human beings. But in your sick twisted mind all humans are an evil corrupt influence on the Environment, like humans were some sort of space aliens that landed here a couple of years ago and don't belong here.

You keep ignoring the real scientific facts:

1) Water vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to what CO2 is, and is more than 100 times the concentration in the Earths' atmosphere than what CO2 is, and has more than twice as many absorption bands in the infrared spectrum than what CO2 has.

2) While water vapor makes up 40,000 ppm (Parts Per Million) in our atmosphere, CO2 only makes up 380 ppm. That means that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. Why aren't you trying to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere instead of CO2?

3) You claim that greenhouse gases cause a greater temperature swing than no greenhouse gases. When the facts say exactly the opposite. The moon is just as far away from the sun as the Earth, but because it doesn't have any greenhouse gases there is a 500 degree swing between day time temperatures and night time temperatures. The largest swing on The earth ever measured was in a desert (free of most greenhouse gases like water vapor) with about a 100 degree swing. Most of the time there are only a few degrees swing in temperature between day time temperatures and night time temperatures on the Earth. Clearly proving that greenhouse gases bring temperature and climate stability; not instability.

4) As proven by the climate record the current temperature swings are the smallest ever recorded in the climate record. (Source: Dr. Richard Lindzen Senior Fellow Climatologist at MIT and Leed Scientific Reviewer at the IPCC)

5) The solar cycles more closely resemble earth's temperature cycle than does greenhouse changes. Clearly proving that most of the earth's climate is driven by the sun, not greenhouse gases.

....

Spector567
05-04-2013, 01:29 PM
That is because you are a Scientific Illiterate retard driven by your Left Leaning Fascist Style Marxist beliefs. You aren't interested in real Environmental issues, you are more interested in using the iron fist of the government to squeeze more money, jobs, time and resources out of innocent people which have done nothing wrong but simply be normal human beings. But in your sick twisted mind all humans are an evil corrupt influence on the Environment, like humans were some sort of space aliens that landed here a couple of years ago and don't belong here.

You keep ignoring the real scientific facts: So in short you have no rebuttal to any of the other facts you got wrong.


1) Water vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to what CO2 is, and is more than 100 times the concentration in the Earths' atmosphere than what CO2 is, and has more than twice as many absorption bands in the infrared spectrum than what CO2 has.
I'll let richard Linzen respond to you.

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."


2) While water vapor makes up 40,000 ppm (Parts Per Million) in our atmosphere, CO2 only makes up 380 ppm. That means that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. Why aren't you trying to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere instead of CO2? They have different absorption ranges and chemical properties. So your density comparison is stupid.

Also yes Water vapor is the greater green house gas. No-one disputes this. It's already factored into the current models.
Just because Co2 isn't number 1 does not mean that it doesn't' have an effect. In fact increasing Co2 raises the temperature and thus increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. In short it's a feed back effect.


3) You claim that greenhouse gases cause a greater temperature swing than no greenhouse gases. When the facts say exactly the opposite. The moon is just as far away from the sun as the Earth, but because it doesn't have any greenhouse gases there is a 500 degree swing between day time temperatures and night time temperatures. The largest swing on The earth ever measured was in a desert (free of most greenhouse gases like water vapor) with about a 100 degree swing. Most of the time there are only a few degrees swing in temperature between day time temperatures and night time temperatures on the Earth. Clearly proving that greenhouse gases bring temperature and climate stability; not instability. Actually I never claimed that it caused greater temperature swing. I actually believe it causes less. Hence why most of the temperature records have been set at night.

However, I'd love for you tell me where you got that claim from. Because it's pure stupidity. However, I understand how you like to create straw man arguments.


4) As proven by the climate record the current temperature swings are the smallest ever recorded in the climate record. (Source: Dr. Richard Lindzen Senior Fellow Climatologist at MIT and Leed Scientific Reviewer at the IPCC) We've already been over this. He's not the lead reviewer of anything. He wrote a portion of a single section. After I and others rebutted you ignored our responses and than spammed the board.

However once again lets Listen to richard
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."


5) The solar cycles more closely resemble earth's temperature cycle than does greenhouse changes. Clearly proving that most of the earth's climate is driven by the sun, not greenhouse gases.

....


Oops did you miss my previous link to you.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)
http://youtu.be/_Sf_UIQYc20



Yep you'll notice that the global warming swindle movie LIED about the graph and doctored the solar cycle for the last 40 years.
We have also already been over this.


You cannot continue to ignore peoples rebuttals ED. We've been over every single one of these facts before.
Spamming the board is not an answer. It just proves that you are unable to rebut any of our points and that you were caught misleading people again. Even the people who you think agree with you. don't agree with you. They think your nutty.


Can you or can you nut rebut anything I have said? If you cannot than you have to accept that once again you were wrong or had erroneous arguments.

Beacon
05-12-2013, 06:51 PM
This CO2 / Solar cycle plot comes from NASA and the IPCC. This Video Documentary the "Great Global Warming Swindle" discusses these two plots.

I dont want second hand opinion from WHERE in Nasa does the plot come? wher is the actual original source?
[quote]
This CO2 / Solar cycle plot comes from NASA and the IPCC. This Video Documentary the "Great Global Warming Swindle" discusses these two plots.

Again Im interested in facts and not opinion about them based on second hand information. what is the actual primary source from NBASA or the IPCC? Who is the actual person publishing and what claim are they making or what do they say in their data or paper which you claim?



The sun has more than just the well known 11 year sunspot cycle, There is also a 22 year Magnetic flip cycle and about another half dozen other cycles that effect the peaks of the 11 year sunspot cycle peaks.


Yea. and????
so what?we know the Sun has an eleven year cycle. We know the temperature of the Earth goes up and down during those eleven years.

But the point is that the average base temperature still goes UP while the up and down solar cycle occurs.


Watch the Video in the original Posting. The Solar / CO2 / Temperature graph was published by NASA and the IPCC over 10 years ago.


Tung and Camp derive a value for the earth's climate sensitivity to raised CO2 that is completely independent of the so-called "IPCC's accepted sensitivity".

Their value is (see equation 2 on line 379 of their manuscript):

2.3 oK < DeltaT(2xCO2) < 4.1 oK

In other words according to Tung and Camp, the Earth warms by around 3 oC (plus/minus a bit) for each doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Her is the source:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf


It had been first discovered in 1893 by Edward W. Maunder that solar cycles that had been observed for century's, since the days of Gallelao, to have a very close correlation with Earth's average Temperature and Climate. And all of NASA's data has supported that fact for most of its existance, until Government grant money was waved in their faces to change their minds.

The Tung and Camp research is independent of NASA!
Nobody has suggested that temperature does not go up and down as sloar max/and min occur. we have not been measuring worldwide temperature since Ancient Greece Galileo or even Mauder. But we do have accurate direct measurements for the past century or so. Thiose measurements show a continual INCREASE in global temperatures
i.e. global Warming. Whether this warming is caused by greenhouse gasses is a different issue to whether the warming exists. You are in denial if you dont accept the warming exists! It is a widely accepted scientific supported fact.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html)
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years


The year 2012 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

2012 was substantially warmer—a full degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C)—than any other year since national records began in 1895.

But unlike you I wont continue to cherry pick out certain years and offer no source. Just go here and look at a decades:
Climate at a Glance (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/)

Please don't offer third hand opinion from a movie/video but try to provide sourced data.



Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum)

Which links to
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_activity)
Which says:

Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[94] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. In the three decades since 1978, the combination of solar and volcanic activity probably had a slight cooling influence on the climate

fromthehood
05-16-2013, 11:59 PM
Here, my two cents.

1)Global Warming real? Yes.
2)Is it human made? At least partially.
3)What we can do about it? Almost nothing.
4)Why we can do nothing? Because India/China together put new coal/oil plant online almost on weekly basic. You can not compete at all if you suddenly mandate that all energy is renewable. You crash your economy completely. Without all major players on board, fighting Global Warming is like swimming in a boat full of holes.

Beacon
05-17-2013, 06:51 AM
Fromthehood
Your argument is based on point 4 which isnt supported
India Steps Up Climate Change Efforts | Worldwatch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278)

May 17, 2013
two weeks ago, in a surprising reversal, India agreed to quantify its efforts to mitigate climate change. Ramesh said India would reduce emissions by "a broadly indicative number," although the reductions would still not be bound by international law.

At the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in Italy in July, India joined 16 other countries in declaring that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius. This goal remains somewhat controversial, however, as there is still no clear agreement on how countries will share the burden for reducing global emissions.

I mean put it this way Russia and china have nukes . Should we therefore say "well lets not try to reduce the number of nukes in the world" and not bother encouraging the US China Russia etc. deescalating?

Should we not encourage countries which have public beheadings to stop having them because they already have them and claim it is "traditional" ?

Let me take the same argument into psychology or business and economucs
Ever heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma?
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma)

Economics focus: Playing games with the planet | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/9867020?story_id=9867020)


The paper cites a study on the subject by an American academic, Robert Axelrod, which argues that the most successful strategy when the game is repeated has three elements: first, players should start out by co-operating; second, they should deter betrayals by punishing the transgressor in the next round; and third, they should not bear grudges but instead should start co-operating with treacherous players again after meting out the appropriate punishment. The result of this strategy can be sustained co-operation rather than a cycle of recrimination.

Mr Liebreich believes that all this holds lessons for the world's climate negotiators

So whether ethically based or not, it can be scientifically shown that co operation for mutual interest is a better strategy than self - interest. I think this reasoning is attractive to both the Taoist and Confucian elements of the Chinese society.

Edmund129
05-26-2013, 10:40 PM
Here, my two cents.

1)Global Warming real? Yes.

Global Warming Threat is not real. The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, and was like that for 7000 years (as illustrated in earlier graphs); it started 10,000 years ago and ended 3,000 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today (as illustrated in earlier graphs published by the IPCC) and lasted 500 years; started in 800 A.D. and ended in 1300 A.D.; The Little Ice Age started in 1300 A.D. and we are still in the little Ice Age. We are still 1.5 degrees cooler than the Medieval Warm Period. So we are not entering into a warmer period, we are still in the little ice age and have not yet come out of it.

During the Holocene Maximum humans discovered Agriculture which lead to the bronze age and the iron age and 7000 years of peaceful human civilizations. During the Medieval Warm period Viking discovered Greenland and called it Greenland because of its green graph vines, which they turned into wine and other products that they traded with Europe for 3 century's on. During the Medieval Warm Period Scotland and Norway were able to grow crops of grapes and produce wine which lead to great wealth and prosperity in Europe that lead to the great period of Cathedral and Castle building. Everytime there is a period of warming it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for humans and nature. However during the Little Ice Age that brought us century's of famine, pestilence and plagues. Along with wars and mass migration from Europe to the America's.




2)Is it human made? At least partially.

Not even close. Water Vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is and makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 only makes up 380ppm (0.038%) of the Earth's Atmosphere. Humans only produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 per year and the Earth's atmosphere weighs 6.93 Quadrillion tons. If you bother to do the math and divide 6.5 billion tons by 6.93 Quadrillion tons; humans only produce less than 1ppm (Parts Per Million) or Less than 0.0001% of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Human CO2 causes less than 1 Fempto Degree of temperature change (0.000000000000001 degrees) per year.





3)What we can do about it? Almost nothing.


80% of all Scientists and Climatologists can't even agree on what the ideal temperature of the Earth should be, but that will not stop the environmental fascist from inventing crimes out of none crimes, taxing everyone; especially the poorest of the poor, killing good paying jobs, stealing peoples property and starving millions to death and justifying mass genocide of billions of people around the world in the name of Environmental Fascism.



4)Why we can do nothing? Because India/China together put new coal/oil plant online almost on weekly basic. You can not compete at all if you suddenly mandate that all energy is renewable. You crash your economy completely. Without all major players on board, fighting Global Warming is like swimming in a boat full of holes.

Just Remember that in 1486 the Pope blamed Witches for global cooling and that lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches in Europe, America and around the world for century by torturing, killing and burning at the steak convicted witches for changing the Earth's climate. Man Made Global Warming is even more stupid than global cooling, except this time you and I are the witches that they plan on burning at the steak this time. It is amazing how after 500 years or so, that the same frauds in charge of the world then are still in charge today and making the exact same claims to grab on to power and to hang on to power over the rest of us.

Edmund129
05-26-2013, 11:35 PM
So in short you have no rebuttal to any of the other facts you got wrong.


I'll let Richard Lindzen respond to you.

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."


Again you take Dr. Richard Lindzen's arguements out of context again. He has said in the past and now, that human activity should cause warming, but observations clearly prove that it is not warming because of human activities. For the pat 15 years as CO2 levels have increased, temperatures have been falling. And those are the naked mercylous facts!!!!




They have different absorption ranges and chemical properties. So your density comparison is stupid.



I know you are a scientific illiterate retard, so I will try to explain this in coloring book terms so you can better understand it:

The only way that any greenhouse gas can contribute to greenhouse gas warming is whether or not it resonates electromagnetically to infrared radiation which is what heat is coming from the Earth back out into space. The more absorption bands there are in the infrared spectrum, the more infrared radiation that it can catch and the warmer the atmosphere becomes. However, water vapor has 7 absorption bands while CO2 only has 3. Water vapor clearly has More than twice as many infrared absorption bands than what CO2 has. And after you factor in the fact that water vapor is more than 100 times the concentration in the Earth's atmosphere that what CO2 is, you must also factor in those absorption bands that share the same infrared spectral absorption bands that CO2 has. And if you look closely at the absorption bands as they are summed up, water vapor over rides all but 1/2 of one absorption band for CO2. Thus leaving CO2 with only 1/2 of one infrared absorption band for its greenhouse gas contributions. This is why water vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. But I don't hear any arguments in the Global Warming Fraternity to reduce water vapor? Because if the focus of your concern is to reduce greenhouse gases, then you should start with water vapor and stop wasting everyone's time trying to reduce CO2 levels.





Also yes Water vapor is the greater green house gas. No-one disputes this. It's already factored into the current models.
Just because Co2 isn't number 1 does not mean that it doesn't' have an effect. In fact increasing Co2 raises the temperature and thus increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. In short it's a feed back effect.

Actually I never claimed that it caused greater temperature swing. I actually believe it causes less. Hence why most of the temperature records have been set at night.

However, I'd love for you tell me where you got that claim from. Because it's pure stupidity. However, I understand how you like to create straw man arguments.

We've already been over this. He's not the lead reviewer of anything. He wrote a portion of a single section. After I and others rebutted you ignored our responses and than spammed the board.

However once again lets Listen to richard
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."


Oops did you miss my previous link to you.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar - YouTube (http://youtu.be/_Sf_UIQYc20)




This is just another example of you pathidic Environmental Fascist lies. You lying propaganda graph shows the solar cycles falling lower than previous decades. Which is a complete bald face lie. I've been a Member of the Texas Astronomical Society since 1985 and I've attended every lecture and have done Solar observations and Solar photography for decades myself. And I can tell you based on not just my observations, but observations of world renowned professional Astronomers that spend their lives observing and studying the sun. That the 1990's was the most spectacular decade of solar activity ever recorded in human history.

The top 15 largest solar flares where some were as much as 2 to 3 times the size of the sun itself stretching for millions of miles into space all occurred during the 1990's.

The top 15 largest sunsots were all recorded and observed during the 1990's

The top 15 hotest temperatures recorded coming from the sun > 20 million degrees F were all recorded in the 1990's.

So any time you say the 1990's was a down year for solar activity that makes you one of the greatest lying scientific frauds to ever live!!!

This is clearly another example on how you Global Warming Propagandist cook the books and create lies to base you junk science on. When the Observations don't agree with your junk science you cook the books to make it look like they agree; when they don't agree. This is the Exact Same thing that Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University has done when he deleted over 7000 weather observations from colder climates at higher elevations and polar regions without removing them from the baseline to create an artificial rise in temperature when there was actually a fall in temperature for the past 15 years.





Yep you'll notice that the global warming swindle movie LIED about the graph and doctored the solar cycle for the last 40 years.
We have also already been over this.


You cannot continue to ignore peoples rebuttals ED. We've been over every single one of these facts before.
Spamming the board is not an answer. It just proves that you are unable to rebut any of our points and that you were caught misleading people again. Even the people who you think agree with you. don't agree with you. They think your nutty.



I have rebutteled all of your arguments with the naked scientific facts and observations, all you cling to are your cooked up models that can't even symulate a drop of water, much less forcast the weather 1 day in advance.





Can you or can you nut rebut anything I have said? If you cannot than you have to accept that once again you were wrong or had erroneous arguments.



All of my arguments have come from actual Climatologists from the IPCC and NASA that actually do the research, and do not rely on flawed climate models that can't even simulate a single drop of water:

Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT and lead scientific reviewer at the IPCC.

Dr. John Christie at NASA and lead scientific aurthor at the IPCC. Has led the research on Weather balloon and satellite observations at NASA.

Dr. Tim Ball retired Climatologist from Wenapeg University.

Dr. Roy Spencer from Alabama State University and NASA and a contributing member of the IPCC.

and along many many others....

Edmund129
05-26-2013, 11:46 PM
Fromthehood
Your argument is based on point 4 which isnt supported
India Steps Up Climate Change Efforts | Worldwatch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278)


At the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in Italy in July, India joined 16 other countries in declaring that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius. This goal remains somewhat controversial, however, as there is still no clear agreement on how countries will share the burden for reducing global emissions.

I mean put it this way Russia and china have nukes . Should we therefore say "well lets not try to reduce the number of nukes in the world" and not bother encouraging the US China Russia etc. deescalating?

Should we not encourage countries which have public beheadings to stop having them because they already have them and claim it is "traditional" ?

Let me take the same argument into psychology or business and economucs
Ever heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma?
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma)

Economics focus: Playing games with the planet | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/9867020?story_id=9867020)


So whether ethically based or not, it can be scientifically shown that co operation for mutual interest is a better strategy than self - interest. I think this reasoning is attractive to both the Taoist and Confucian elements of the Chinese society.




80% of today's Climatologist can't even agree on what the ideal temperature of the Earth should be.

At the beginning of the Little Ice age in 1300 A.D. the winters started getting longer as the summers become shorter, causing wide spread crop failures. Which lead to famine, pestilence and plagues. By 1486 the Pope Blamed witches for global cooling, and for century's 10's of thousands of witches were tortured, killed and burned at the stake. And 500 years later our leaders come up with something even more stupid, Man Made Global Warming, except this time you and I are the witches, and it is you and I they will torture, kill and burn at the steak. So what are you going to do, let them torture, kill and burn you and your family at the stake in the name of co-operation, or are you going to defend yourself?

Amazing after 500 years the same frauds in charge of the world then are still in charge today. And as the masses become more dumbed down with the Junk Science of Man Made Global Warming, when the mass genocide of 7 billion people begin, no one will lift a finger to stop it; all in the name of co-operation.

Edmund129
05-26-2013, 11:54 PM
[QUOTE=Edmund129;52884]This CO2 / Solar cycle plot comes from NASA and the IPCC. This Video Documentary the "Great Global Warming Swindle" discusses these two plots.

I dont want second hand opinion from WHERE in Nasa does the plot come? wher is the actual original source?

Again Im interested in facts and not opinion about them based on second hand information. what is the actual primary source from NBASA or the IPCC? Who is the actual person publishing and what claim are they making or what do they say in their data or paper which you claim?


Yea. and????
so what?we know the Sun has an eleven year cycle. We know the temperature of the Earth goes up and down during those eleven years.

But the point is that the average base temperature still goes UP while the up and down solar cycle occurs.



Tung and Camp derive a value for the earth's climate sensitivity to raised CO2 that is completely independent of the so-called "IPCC's accepted sensitivity".

Their value is (see equation 2 on line 379 of their manuscript):

2.3 oK < DeltaT(2xCO2) < 4.1 oK

In other words according to Tung and Camp, the Earth warms by around 3 oC (plus/minus a bit) for each doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Her is the source:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

The Tung and Camp research is independent of NASA!
Nobody has suggested that temperature does not go up and down as sloar max/and min occur. we have not been measuring worldwide temperature since Ancient Greece Galileo or even Mauder. But we do have accurate direct measurements for the past century or so. Thiose measurements show a continual INCREASE in global temperatures
i.e. global Warming. Whether this warming is caused by greenhouse gasses is a different issue to whether the warming exists. You are in denial if you dont accept the warming exists! It is a widely accepted scientific supported fact.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html)
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years


2012 was substantially warmer—a full degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C)—than any other year since national records began in 1895.

But unlike you I wont continue to cherry pick out certain years and offer no source. Just go here and look at a decades:
Climate at a Glance (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/)



Talk about cherry picking, the temperature trend has been trending downward for the past 15 years, 2012 had some of the coldest blizzards in history around the world 2012 wasn't warmer, it was cooler.





Please don't offer third hand opinion from a movie/video but try to provide sourced data.



The videos don't lie; At least in the videos I've produced you can actually see face to face the actual Climatologists and other scientists at the IPCC and the work they have done and the conclusions they have reached, unlike your fraudulent links which could of easily been cooked up by anyone in their parents basement. The videos are more accurate because the actuall scientists can tell you face to face what the real facts really are, unlike printed documents which can easily be faked like Professor Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.




Which links to
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_activity)
Which says:

Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[94] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. In the three decades since 1978, the combination of solar and volcanic activity probably had a slight cooling influence on the climate


That is a complete bald face lie. I've been a member of the Texas Astronomical Society since 1985, and I've done Solar observing, Solar Photography through Hydrogen Alpha filters and yellow light filters. I've attended lectures by leading Astronomers, especially those that specialize in Solar Research, and during the 1990's we had the most spectacular period of solar observations in human history.

The top 15 largest solar flares were recorded and observed during the 1990's

The top 15 largest sunspots ever recorded and observed during the 1990's

The top 15 hottest solar temperatures recorded and observed during the 1990's

We say Aurora Boriallises (Northern Lights) as far south as Texas, Florida and Mexico. We experienced many outages of earl cell phone networks and power grids by massive solar storms during the 1990's.

So for anyone to publish solar activity was being down during the 1990's is a premeditated bald face LIE!!! Because obeservations don't agree with the cooked up numbers that are in your link and published by Professor Michael Mann from Penn State University. Who also created the fradulant Hockey stick graph in 2001 that has been the laughing stock of the scientific community ever since.








Watch my original Post on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and the sources for this information is made very clear. Watch the credentials of the Scientists of the IPCC and other IPCC Climatologist have to say.

All of my information is coming from NASA and the published IPCC reports themselves.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-1iL9g8nU

ribshaw
05-27-2013, 08:53 AM
The videos don't lie; At least in the videos I've produced you can actually see face to face the actual Climatologists and other scientists at the IPCC and the work they have done and the conclusions they have reached, unlike your fraudulent links which could of easily been cooked up by anyone in their parents basement. The videos are more accurate because the actuall scientists can tell you face to face what the real facts really are, unlike printed documents which can easily be faked like Professor Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

Edmund, all you do here, at Scam and who knows where else is show up and cut and paste the same thing over and over again. People have repeatedly rebutted every one one of your points, so you post them again, and again. Then throw in nonsense like the above. Scientific studies are "Peer Reviewed" and are not cooked up in anyone's basement, save perhaps what you are tossing around. 95% of the scientific community DISAGREES with you and what you are putting forth. It is sad that you are ruining your life lugging water for big energy, trust me they can fight their own fight and will still be able to pollute all they want if you put down your sword. And at the rate you are going, I fear you are at risk of losing whatever meager internet privileges you have.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
4083

And anything you do say that would make me think you have an inkling of credibility is dismissed by nonsense like this:

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077&page=7

4084
4085


Because the Art Institute of Dallas takes Government Grants, Tuitions, Loans, etc., ... The Art Institute of Dallas must also abide by Government Regulations and force their students to watch, be examined on and agree with the Propaganda film "The Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. The same Al Gore that was a "D" Student in Earth Science, a "C--" in Math and made an "F" in everything else. Based on Al Gore's academic record he isn't even qualified to operate flush toilets without parental supervision.


Al Gore founded all the Carbon Credit company's and stands to make $7 Trillion per year if all the world's country's purchase his carbon credits.

Again, $7 trillion is the GDP of CHINA your fear mongering is just ridiculous. The US uses 25% of the worlds energy, natural gas is quickly surpassing coal as an energy source due to both cost and efficiency. It's America, you can be just as wasteful as you want, the rest of the world be damned. Go slip on your Birkenstocks, have a big bowel of granola, pop some Bieber in the music box and relax no one is going to come and make you drive a Prius.

Spector567
05-27-2013, 06:53 PM
I hope you realize Ed that you didn't actually respond to everything I said. You actually changed the topic several times and avoided several rebuttals and replaced the arguments with completely new ones. This is a great propaganda tactic but doesn't really help your position. When I probably should categorize your claims so you can see just how many arguments you abandoned.

Like that 17,500 PHD petition you can't find.

Again you take Dr. Richard Lindzen's arguements out of context again. He has said in the past and now, that human activity should cause warming, but observations clearly prove that it is not warming because of human activities. For the pat 15 years as CO2 levels have increased, temperatures have been falling. And those are the naked mercylous facts!!!!
Can you please explain how I took linden out of context? The quote is pretty damn clear and doesn't lend it self to any confusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The article is also very clear on his other views. How was this out of context?

His ENTIRE iris theory is based on the fact that Co2 is increasing temperature. He just believes that the increase in Temp and subsequent increase in water vapour ( will create more clouds thus causing a negative feed back.
Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis)
In short you COMPLETLY disagree with Lindzen's theory since you don't believe in any part of it. Including water vapor feed back.

As to the increase. I know if you draw a straight line from 1998 the hottest year on record in 200+ years to any other year the trend is downward. Yet when you draw a line between almost ANY OTHER YEAR. The trend is upward. Along with an overall upward trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif


So in short Lindzen and everyone else thinks your "Nutty"



I know you are a scientific illiterate retard, so I will try to explain this in coloring book terms so you can better understand it:

The only way that any greenhouse gas can contribute to greenhouse gas warming is whether or not it resonates electromagnetically to infrared radiation which is what heat is coming from the Earth back out into space. The more absorption bands there are in the infrared spectrum, the more infrared radiation that it can catch and the warmer the atmosphere becomes. However, water vapor has 7 absorption bands while CO2 only has 3. Water vapor clearly has More than twice as many infrared absorption bands than what CO2 has. And after you factor in the fact that water vapor is more than 100 times the concentration in the Earth's atmosphere that what CO2 is, you must also factor in those absorption bands that share the same infrared spectral absorption bands that CO2 has. And if you look closely at the absorption bands as they are summed up, water vapor over rides all but 1/2 of one absorption band for CO2. Thus leaving CO2 with only 1/2 of one infrared absorption band for its greenhouse gas contributions. This is why water vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. But I don't hear any arguments in the Global Warming Fraternity to reduce water vapor? Because if the focus of your concern is to reduce greenhouse gases, then you should start with water vapor and stop wasting everyone's time trying to reduce CO2 levels.



Let me highlight the relevant portion of your statement. Co2 has absorption bands. It absorbs heat. Yes Water is a greater absorber. I believe I said that in the next line that you separated from my quote (why did you do that?). In short a 2% increase is still a 2% increase, and compared to the energy of the sun that adds up.

The amount of water vapor in that atmosphere is also directly proportional to the temperature.

Relevant papers and a better explanation below.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Water Vapour as a positive feedback

As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm




This is just another example of you pathidic Environmental Fascist lies. You lying propaganda graph shows the solar cycles falling lower than previous decades. Which is a complete bald face lie. I've been a Member of the Texas Astronomical Society since 1985 and I've attended every lecture and have done Solar observations and Solar photography for decades myself. And I can tell you based on not just my observations, but observations of world renowned professional Astronomers that spend their lives observing and studying the sun. That the 1990's was the most spectacular decade of solar activity ever recorded in human history.

The top 15 largest solar flares where some were as much as 2 to 3 times the size of the sun itself stretching for millions of miles into space all occurred during the 1990's.

The top 15 largest sunsots were all recorded and observed during the 1990's

The top 15 hotest temperatures recorded coming from the sun > 20 million degrees F were all recorded in the 1990's.

So any time you say the 1990's was a down year for solar activity that makes you one of the greatest lying scientific frauds to ever live!!!

This is clearly another example on how you Global Warming Propagandist cook the books and create lies to base you junk science on. When the Observations don't agree with your junk science you cook the books to make it look like they agree; when they don't agree. This is the Exact Same thing that Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University has done when he deleted over 7000 weather observations from colder climates at higher elevations and polar regions without removing them from the baseline to create an artificial rise in temperature when there was actually a fall in temperature for the past 15 years.


Sun Spots:.....
Nope. You can't just cherry pick a decade.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg







I have rebutteled all of your arguments with the naked scientific facts and observations, all you cling to are your cooked up models that can't even symulate a drop of water, much less forcast the weather 1 day in advance.
Yet you can't tell the difference between climate and weather. Models do global averages.





All of my arguments have come from actual Climatologists from the IPCC and NASA that actually do the research, and do not rely on flawed climate models that can't even simulate a single drop of water:

Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT and lead scientific reviewer at the IPCC.

Dr. John Christie at NASA and lead scientific aurthor at the IPCC. Has led the research on Weather balloon and satellite observations at NASA.

Dr. Tim Ball retired Climatologist from Wenapeg University.

Dr. Roy Spencer from Alabama State University and NASA and a contributing member of the IPCC.

and along many many others....



Lindzen as I've shown you doesn't agree with you one bit.

Most of the others are employed by the heartland institute. The same people who said smoking wasn't responsible for cancer.

Also notice that your list has changed since last time.
Tim Ball: Was a professor of Geography (Winnipeg doesn't have a science department) He currently in the employ of oil companies.

He filed a defamation suit over criticism on his record. (he withdrew it)

Patrick Micheal: Again works for the oil company and is paid by the Cato Institute. Again agrees with most findings he just argues that it could be a good thing. He doesn't do any research and spends his time writing op-ed articls and books.

Christy: Changed his mind and now accepts that human human causes are responsible for a significant amount of the change. He just doesn't agree with the level of effect.

The rest of them are just as well paid for.

Now do you want to see my list?
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia

......

and about another 180 more.

Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations (http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php)



Long story short if I am scientifically illiterate along with Richard Lindzen and all there other scientific organizations from across the globe. . What does that make you?

Blue Wolf
05-28-2013, 01:31 PM
There are now 90 Million Americans unemployed (67%) and living on Welfare and food stamps thanks to the policies recommended by Al Gore, there are only 39 million Americans left with jobs to pay the bills and the taxes. Al Gore's man made global warming lie has turned America and the world into a 3rd world banana Republic (Except with out Republic part).



Where did you get that figure from?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), the unemployment rate is 7.5%.

_________________________________

"The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January."

_________________________________

Also, calling the U.S. a "3rd world banana Republic" doesn't make a lot of sense.


Human Poverty is the worse form of human pollution; just at places like Bangladesh, Etheopea, India, etc., you can see with your own eyes how poverty destroys the environment. Yet, today's environmental-nazi's number one recommendation is poverty. This generation of environmentalists are actually anti-environmentalists!!!



What does poverty have to do with global warming?

Edmund129
05-30-2013, 08:54 AM
Where did you get that figure from?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), the unemployment rate is 7.5%.

_________________________________

"The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January."



The department of Labor and statistics only counts those Americans that are still collecting their 99 weeks of unemployment checks as being unemployed. When their 99 weeks are expired and still unemployed they are classified as no longer being unemployed. Americans that are either homeless, living on food stamps, government housing or on Welfare are also not considered as being unemployed. If you count all of the unemployed Americans that are between the ages of 18 to 65 and are not handicapped, there are now 90 million Americans out of work, thus making the real unemployment number 67%, not 7.5%. We are currently loosing 3.5 million American jobs per month now and rising. Just to keep unemployment the same, there has to be 160,000 more jobs created than lost, just to keep up with the number of Americans graduating from college and high school.

Which means there are only 39 million Americans that still have jobs and paying the bills and the taxes. The Democrats in the White house, Senate and Congress are using the loss in tax revenues from the remaining 33% Americans currently employed as not being enough, so they want higher tax increases and higher carbon taxes on fuels and energy.

There is already a scheduled 50% Carbon tax increase for June energy and fuel bills that will cause fuel and energy prices to sky rocket.

So the Obama Administration is cooking the employment books to make it look like unemployment is slowly falling when it is actually skyrocketing every single month. 80% of college graduates can't even find jobs in today's economy.




_________________________________

Also, calling the U.S. a "3rd world banana Republic" doesn't make a lot of sense.



What does poverty have to do with global warming?

Poverty is the worse form of human pollution!!! Just open your eyes and look at poverty where it exists like in Bangladesh, India, Etheopea, Samlia, etc., ... you can see with your own eyes maggot infested seaus pools of pollution and mass death. When people live in poverty they don't care if the eagle is an endangered species, their only concern is where their next sip of water or next morsel of food is coming from. When their is poverty there are no resources to clean the water when it gets fouled up, when their is poverty there is no way to plant trees after they get chopped down for fuel wood. Poverty is the worse form of human pollution there is.

But today's Environmental Fascist number one solution to every single environmental problem, starting with the myth of Man Made Global Warming is create more poverty by raising the cost of living, kill jobs through Government enforced Cap-N-Trade laws, higher taxes on fossil fuels, higher carbon taxes on fossile fuels, higher tolls on highways, bridges and tunnels, prevent the exploration of oil and natural gas wells, etc., ...

Today's Environmentalists are really anti-Environmentalists masquerading as environmentalists to push agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism, anti-industrialization and anti-globalization (Source: Patrick Moore Co-founder of Greenpeace and former President of Greenpeace)

Edmund129
05-30-2013, 09:05 AM
Where did you get that figure from?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), the unemployment rate is 7.5%.

_________________________________

"The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January."

_________________________________

Also, calling the U.S. a "3rd world banana Republic" doesn't make a lot of sense.



What does poverty have to do with global warming?

President Obama has turned America into a 3rd world banana republic by skyrocketing taxes, government confiscation of Private property using Obamacare to confiscate Privately owned Hospitals and clinics. Under Obamacare private companys and private doctors are not permitted to own hospitals and (or) clinics, only the government can. (Can you Spell Marxism? Can you spell Communism?)

President Obama used the EPA to shut down all of the America Oil Riggs in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; which instantly put 9.8 Million Americans out of work permanently. Even under court order that judged that President Obama had no authority to do so, he did it anyway in contempt of court. While destroying the lives and jobs of 9.8 Million Americans.

President Obama also shut down over 300 coal fired power plants and the coal mines that supplied them with coal, that put many 10's of millions of Americans out of work and has caused skyrocketing energy prices across the country. With states like California seeing their electric bills skyrocketing above $10,000 per month regularly with rolling blackouts and brown outs everywhere across America. This has completely destroy silicon valley in California and many other industrial communities.

President Obama's green energy plan has spent countless billions of dollars on worthless solar panel companys that have gone bankrupt and lost 10's of billions of American tax dollars as well. With no accounting. President Obama is the single biggest bank robbery in history!!!!

....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

ribshaw
05-30-2013, 09:13 AM
President Obama has turned America into a 3rd world banana republic by skyrocketing taxes, government confiscation of Private property using Obamacare to confiscate Privately owned Hospitals and clinics. Under Obamacare private companys and private doctors are not permitted to own hospitals and (or) clinics, only the government can. (Can you Spell Marxism? Can you spell Communism?)

Edmund this is 100% FALSE. I don't know who is feeding you this nonsense, but you need to expand your sources of information.


President Obama used the EPA to shut down all of the America Oil Riggs in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; which instantly put 9.8 Million Americans out of work permanently. Even under court order that judged that President Obama had no authority to do so, he did it anyway in contempt of court. While destroying the lives and jobs of 9.8 Million Americans.

Please cite three credible news sources for this rather large story. I don't want blogs coming from some nutjobs basement.


President Obama also shut down over 300 coal fired power plants and the coal mines that supplied them with coal, that put many 10's of millions of Americans out of work and has caused skyrocketing energy prices across the country. With states like California seeing their electric bills skyrocketing above $10,000 per month regularly with rolling blackouts and brown outs everywhere across America. This has completely destroy silicon valley in California and many other industrial communities.....

Edmund, again this is complete propaganda. All of the coal plants that were closed that I am aware of were well beyond their expected life of 40 years. Some where closed because retrofitting them with modern pollution controls was more expensive than building new. Many more were closed because natural gas is much more efficient.

As they say Edmund, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own "facts".

Edmund129
05-30-2013, 09:55 AM
Edmund this is 100% FALSE. I don't know who is feeding you this nonsense, but you need to expand your sources of information.



Please cite three credible news sources for this rather large story. I don't want blogs coming from some nutjobs basement.



Edmund, again this is complete propaganda. All of the coal plants that were closed that I am aware of were well beyond their expected life of 40 years. Some where closed because retrofitting them with modern pollution controls was more expensive than building new. Many more were closed because natural gas is much more efficient.

As they say Edmund, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own "facts".


That is pure lying propaganda. I've talked to many of the people that lost their jobs at these coal fired power plants, and they were shut down because the Federal EPA required them to install at least $500 million dollars of CO2 sequestering construction and equipment for each and every single plant. None of which could afford the $500 million in addition to the 98% Federal and State Taxes they were already paying for, plus the carbon tax on top of that. This is already causing rolling brown outs and black outs across many parts of America right now. And putting 10's of millions of Americans out of work...

...

ribshaw
05-30-2013, 10:07 AM
That is pure lying propaganda. I've talked to many of the people that lost their jobs at these coal fired power plants, and they were shut down because the Federal EPA required them to install at least $500 million dollars of CO2 sequestering construction and equipment for each and every single plant. None of which could afford the $500 million in addition to the 98% Federal and State Taxes they were already paying for, plus the carbon tax on top of that. This is already causing rolling brown outs and black outs across many parts of America right now. And putting 10's of millions of Americans out of work......

Actually, no Edmund what you have done is read a few blogs and listened to a few loons on the radio who have fed your head with this junk. Not because they are great Americans, or even because they believe what they say, but because it is an easy path to millions pandering to people who fall for it hook line and sinker.

Lets start with Lie number one, please back up your claim with CREDIBLE sources.

4141

Then please back this up with CREDIBLE sources.

4142

This is not AM radio where you get to create a straw man and then spend three hours arguing against him to an audience that bobs their heads in compliance. I am asking for FACTS Edmund, not HYPERBOLE. Surely you know the difference.

nomaxim
05-30-2013, 04:26 PM
Spector567,

Welcome to RS.

Just curious, but have you heard anything from the FBI as yet.

Its been almost 2 years now.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Oolam/edmund13_zps99e87ca9.png (http://s192.photobucket.com/user/Oolam/media/edmund13_zps99e87ca9.png.html)




And anything you do say that would make me think you have an inkling of credibility is dismissed by nonsense like this:

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077&page=7I take it you haven't seen this one yet?

http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=206275, Post #8;

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Oolam/edmund12_zpse715f169.png (http://s192.photobucket.com/user/Oolam/media/edmund12_zpse715f169.png.html)

ribshaw
05-30-2013, 05:01 PM
I take it you haven't seen this one yet? http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=206275, Post #8;

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Oolam/edmund12_zpse715f169.png (http://s192.photobucket.com/user/Oolam/media/edmund12_zpse715f169.png.html)

LOL, no I had missed that one. There was a thread I followed a while back on Jehovah Witness's that had a few dandies http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=153227

This being one of the lighter ones.

4146

If Edmund would come on and say OK guys I have been kidding around I would breathe a sigh of relief, I can really just see him sitting at his computer laughing so hard he is unable to type.

nomaxim
05-30-2013, 05:48 PM
LOL, no I had missed that one. There was a thread I followed a while back on Jehovah Witness's that had a few dandies http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=153227

This being one of the lighter ones.

4146Ah, yes.
Edmund seems unaware that LCD's use the same amount of electricity to produce black as well as white, or any other color for that matter.

He's likely still using a CRT monitor. LoL.

And a 19" CRT monitor uses more electricity then my 46" LED-LCD does.

Spector567
05-30-2013, 06:07 PM
Spector567,

Welcome to RS.

Just curious, but have you heard anything from the FBI as yet.

Its been almost 2 years now.


You should see the private message portion of that conversation.

and no the FBI hasn't contacted me.

Beacon
05-30-2013, 07:31 PM
Global Warming Threat is not real.

Global warming IS real. The temperature has been going up over the last century! You are in denial
the issue you have to accept is that temperature is increasing. If you don't accept that then we can't discuss whether this warming is caused by humans or whether warming is something to worry about.



The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, and was like that for 7000 years (as illustrated in earlier graphs); it started 10,000 years ago and ended 3,000 years ago.


The Holocene maximum happened at different periods depending wher on the planet you might have been. the main increases were neat the poles ~ increases of up to 4 °C. At Mid latitudes it was almost zero
In one study
Koshkarova, V.L.; Koshkarov, A.D. (2004). "Regional signatures of changing landscape and climate of northern central Siberia in the Holocene". Russian Geology and Geophysics 45 (6): 672–685.

In Siberia regions it was from 3 to 9 degrees in winter and 2 to 6 in Summer. That is only that study and in that region.

Also it followed the Last ICE AGE so you might expect things to be a bit warmer. Now if we are going into another Ice Age and you don't think that is a threat then you have a problem. Ironically global warming can cause localised cooling e.g. shift the gulf Stream and cause Mid Latitude Europe to freeze.

While there do not appear to have been significant Holocene temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia and Japan, and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America show temperature increases and drier conditions.
Francis E. Mayle, David J. Beerling, William D. Gosling, Mark B. Bush (2004). "Responses of Amazonian ecosystems to climatic and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes since the Last Glacial Maximum". Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 359 (1443): 499–514.

Bioth sources cited in Wikipedia article on Holocence Maximum Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum)



The Medieval Warm Period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today (as illustrated in earlier graphs published by the IPCC) and lasted 500 years; started in 800 A.D. and ended in 1300 A.D.;


More like 950-1250
More like 300 not 500 years long as you claim.
Again relates to the North Atlantic not the entire globe.
Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980 ~
Solomon, Susan Snell; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "6.6 The Last 2,000 Years". Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)

globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures

Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Rutherford, S.; Bradley, R. S.; Hughes, M. K.; Shindell, D.; Ammann, C.; Faluvegi, G. et al. (2009). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly". Science 326 (5957): 1256–60.



The Little Ice Age started in 1300 A.D. and we are still in the little Ice Age. We are still 1.5 degrees cooler than the Medieval Warm Period. So we are not entering into a warmer period, we are still in the little ice age and have not yet come out of it.


Not true see above we are warmer than the Medieval warming period
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.
"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal.



During the Holocene Maximum humans discovered Agriculture which lead to the bronze age and the iron age and 7000 years of peaceful human civilizations. During the Medieval Warm period Viking discovered Greenland and called it Greenland because of its green graph vines, which they turned into wine and other products that they traded with Europe for 3 century's on. During the Medieval Warm Period Scotland and Norway were able to grow crops of grapes and produce wine which lead to great wealth and prosperity in Europe that lead to the great period of Cathedral and Castle building. Everytime there is a period of warming it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for humans and nature. However during the Little Ice Age that brought us century's of famine, pestilence and plagues. Along with wars and mass migration from Europe to the America's.


It is nonsense to contend that war, famine , disease, and in particular mass migration was caused by climate change. Quite clearly cultural religious and political changes in Europe had a much more significant effect. People did not go to the Americas just because it was warmer there ( which by the way it wasn't).



Not even close. Water Vapor is 270 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is and makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 only makes up 380ppm (0.038%) of the Earth's Atmosphere. Humans only produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 per year and the Earth's atmosphere weighs 6.93 Quadrillion tons. If you bother to do the math and divide 6.5 billion tons by 6.93 Quadrillion tons; humans only produce less than 1ppm (Parts Per Million) or Less than 0.0001% of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.


Your percentage is out by a factor of at least a million! It is at least tens of percents.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html)

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.


Human CO2 causes less than 1 Fempto Degree of temperature change (0.000000000000001 degrees) per year.


Source?



80% of all Scientists and Climatologists can't even agree on what the ideal temperature of the Earth should be, but that will not stop the environmental fascist from inventing crimes out of none crimes, taxing everyone; especially the poorest of the poor, killing good paying jobs, stealing peoples property and starving millions to death and justifying mass genocide of billions of people around the world in the name of Environmental Fascism.

Red herring.
We are not discussing the "ideal" temperature. the issues are
1. Is the Earth getting warmer @~ the evidence says it is
2. do humans contribute to this ~ evidence suggests yes
3. Can or should humans try to change their effect ~ evidence suggests they can and ethics suggests they should if they can
4. Nobody who wants to prevent global warming has suggested mass genocide as a solution!



Just Remember that in 1486 the Pope blamed Witches for global cooling


Which pope? You are just making this up as you go along! The wholw Witchcraft thing was a Central and eastern european thing and more Protestant in nature than Roman Catholic. It was Protestants who transported Witchfinding to the americas. It was German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who pushed Pope Innocent VIII to write a Bull in order for Kramer to prosecute Witches in Germany. The Pope did not claim witches were responsible for bad weather. Kramer himself claimed it in a later publication, Malleus Maleficarum



and that lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches in Europe, America and around the world for century by torturing, killing and burning at the steak convicted witches for changing the Earth's climate.


This is also untrue! Over about 500 years of the Inquisitions ( the main ones being the Spanish and Portuguese which had little Papal input and were like Kramer's more related to local Kings) ther were about 20-30,000 executions. Most of these on the Iberian Peninsula and most were Jews not witches.

Witch-hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt)
However, there was the beginnings of a witch-hunt as early as the 14th century but this tended to be in areas that later became Protestant, like Switzerland, Northern Germany and the South of France.

The manuals of the Roman Catholic Inquisition remained highly sceptical of the witch craze and of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly-formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Manichaean Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings had an admixture of witchcraft and magic, and who had embarked upon campaigns of murder against their fellow citizens in France, not excluding prelates and ambassadors and whose ally, the Cathar King Pedro II of Aragon, later invaded Southern France with an army of 50,000.


Man Made Global Warming is even more stupid than global cooling, except this time you and I are the witches that they plan on burning at the steak this time. It is amazing how after 500 years or so, that the same frauds in charge of the world then are still in charge today and making the exact same claims to grab on to power and to hang on to power over the rest of us.


In fact the people in charge of the US have been almost entirely ( with the exception of one black and on catholic) White Anglo Saxon Protestants. Indeed this group are fairly much the same as those in the US who oppose the concept of global warming. The "gun rights" Tea Party Libertarians and fundamentalist Christians have more in common with Witch finders than any modern pope. The Pope does not make laws for the world. Although it is true the Vatican has encouraged countries not to have abortion it is miles away from the Authoritarianism of the Right wing in America for example.

So both your mathematics and your social analysis are misinformed.

Beacon
05-31-2013, 04:26 AM
[B]President Obama has turned America into a 3rd world banana republic by skyrocketing taxes, government confiscation of Private property using Obamacare to confiscate Privately owned Hospitals and clinics. Under Obamacare private companys and private doctors are not permitted to own hospitals and (or) clinics, only the government can. (Can you Spell Marxism? Can you spell Communism?)

Obama has replaced Clinton as the latest scapegoat for right wing Liberatarians.
The fact that Bushes "war" on Terror racked up huge debt and gave out huge contracts to pals of the Military Industrial complex seems to be entirely ignored.

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/)
“If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.”

As you can see Obama's spending is extravagant but comparable to Bush.
Four Charts Illustrating the Spending and Revenue Records of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama | the augmented trader (http://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/four-charts-illustrating-the-spending-and-revenue-records-of-presidents-clinton-bush-and-obama/)

In terms of private sector jobs Clinton leads the pack followed by Regan. Obamsa is again comparable to Bush
Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/05/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html)

It makes no sense to say "the real rate of unemploymnet is 50% not 15% " since the unemployment rate is as defined.
If you want to you a "real rate" by selecting all people legally entitled to work in the country of working age then you will find that if you use the same method for others such as Bush the rate will be 70% or 80%. The point is for the fiorst time ever in the US memory unemployment is double digit. This double digit rate happened in the Bush Presidency not in the Obama Presidency.

So save us the conspiracy theory about Obama overspending being a liberal position when Bush set the trend in the first place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/Parfait-using-debt-gdp-2001-2019-5-12-11-FINAL.jpg

Bush era tax cuts and the War will account for half the debt by 2019!

So please don't try to link that issue to global warming.

Beacon
06-01-2013, 06:04 AM
http://www.realscam.com/f13/global-warming-1878/#post43016

Some more sources on global Warming from another thread in this forum

Poyol
06-02-2013, 04:29 AM
Climate change is just something that happens.
It's inevitable and nothing we could have done to stop it.
The government don't want us to stop using petrol ... it's one of their biggest earners (especially in the UK with around 70% of the cost being tax!)

Jason

Edmund129
06-06-2013, 09:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg

More of the Frauds created by Al Gore exposed. More on the biggest mass fraud known as man made global warming.

Just like Al Gore, "Man Made Global Warming" is pure lying propaganda.

Edmund129
06-06-2013, 09:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElEwhE7B-8o

The inconvenient lies of Al Gore and his man made global warming fraud vs. the logic and the facts behind Lord Monckton.

Edmund129
06-06-2013, 10:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNvV1eqTppI

Lord Christopher Monckton presents "Fallacies about Global Warming".

Edmund129
06-06-2013, 10:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veLJSKXZJbw

Exposes the naked truth that man made global warming is just a scam to get the masses to commit economic suicide by extorting the masses into paying higher taxes.

Edmund129
06-06-2013, 10:13 AM
Climate change is just something that happens.
It's inevitable and nothing we could have done to stop it.
The government don't want us to stop using petrol ... it's one of their biggest earners (especially in the UK with around 70% of the cost being tax!)

Jason

That is the basic point, the environmental Nazi fascist exploit perfectly normal environmental events and portray them as abnormal and blame human beings, free market capitalism and industrialization in order to steal peoples money through higher taxes, steal their jobs, drive the cost of fuel and energy through the roof under the fantasy that man made global warming will bring about the end of the world.
...

Spector567
06-06-2013, 11:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veLJSKXZJbw

Exposes the naked truth that man made global warming is just a scam to get the masses to commit economic suicide by extorting the masses into paying higher taxes.
Trying to push the rebuttles off the page again I see.

I hate to tell you Ed. While it may help you to forget just how many things you got wrong, the rest of us remember. We remember how you disappeared for a week and yet again failed to respond when almost all your facts were proven to be BS, Misinformation or outright lies.

ribshaw
06-06-2013, 11:29 AM
That is the basic point, the environmental Nazi fascist exploit perfectly normal environmental events and portray them as abnormal and blame human beings, free market capitalism and industrialization in order to steal peoples money through higher taxes, steal their jobs, drive the cost of fuel and energy through the roof under the fantasy that man made global warming will bring about the end of the world.
...

4241
4242

Edmund, your blogging alone is causing too much global warming.

4244

nomaxim
06-06-2013, 03:29 PM
The inconvenient lies of Al Gore and his man made global warming fraud vs. the logic and the facts behind Lord Monckton.
Lord Christopher Monckton presents "Fallacies about Global Warming".


parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/);
A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments
18 July 2011

Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

Spector567
06-06-2013, 07:07 PM
parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/);

Monkton runs from a written debate with Portholer54 THAT monkton started himself.
http://youtu.be/yeTGBwr_6rU

Monkton Bumkim part 1 of 6
http://youtu.be/lpMZ4EpCseM
There is only so often someone can lie.

Edmund129
06-07-2013, 10:59 AM
4241
4242

Edmund, your blogging alone is causing too much global warming.

4244

Spoken like the true Marxist liberal retard that you are!!!

Here the world sits with skyrocketing energy and fuel prices driven by the mass fraud of man made global warming, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts, while the Man Made Global Warming lying propognadists (Like yourself) invent one lie after another to justify the mass genocide of billions of people and their lives.

The source of my information comes directly from the climatologists that are actually doing the research into climate change. Which make up about 97% of all climatologists. The exact same climatologists that are not only silenced by Man Made Global Warming propagandists, but have also had attempts on their lives made to keep them silent.

Edmund129
06-07-2013, 11:05 AM
parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/);

Electricity is the instant exchange of a significant number electrons between a significant number of atoms in the same direction at the exact same instant of time. And this can get accomplished many different ways. Through chemistry like in Batteries, or by smacking a conductor with a magnetic field like what is done in electric Generators. However when you smack a conductor with a magnetic field not only will their be a voltage and current generated, but based on the amount of current flowing into the load, a counter magnetic field is created that opposes the original magnetic field that produced the voltage and current in the first place.

So electricity is another way of converting other sources of energy from motion, light, heat, etc, ... into a form of work that can be transported to another location to produce a different kind off work.

...

Edmund129
06-07-2013, 11:19 AM
Global warming IS real. The temperature has been going up over the last century! You are in denial
the issue you have to accept is that temperature is increasing. If you don't accept that then we can't discuss whether this warming is caused by humans or whether warming is something to worry about.



The Holocene maximum happened at different periods depending wher on the planet you might have been. the main increases were neat the poles ~ increases of up to 4 °C. At Mid latitudes it was almost zero
In one study
Koshkarova, V.L.; Koshkarov, A.D. (2004). "Regional signatures of changing landscape and climate of northern central Siberia in the Holocene". Russian Geology and Geophysics 45 (6): 672–685.

In Siberia regions it was from 3 to 9 degrees in winter and 2 to 6 in Summer. That is only that study and in that region.

Also it followed the Last ICE AGE so you might expect things to be a bit warmer. Now if we are going into another Ice Age and you don't think that is a threat then you have a problem. Ironically global warming can cause localised cooling e.g. shift the gulf Stream and cause Mid Latitude Europe to freeze.

While there do not appear to have been significant Holocene temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia and Japan, and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America show temperature increases and drier conditions.
Francis E. Mayle, David J. Beerling, William D. Gosling, Mark B. Bush (2004). "Responses of Amazonian ecosystems to climatic and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes since the Last Glacial Maximum". Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 359 (1443): 499–514.

Bioth sources cited in Wikipedia article on Holocence Maximum Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum)



More like 950-1250
More like 300 not 500 years long as you claim.
Again relates to the North Atlantic not the entire globe.
Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980 ~
Solomon, Susan Snell; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "6.6 The Last 2,000 Years". Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)

globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures

Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Rutherford, S.; Bradley, R. S.; Hughes, M. K.; Shindell, D.; Ammann, C.; Faluvegi, G. et al. (2009). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly". Science 326 (5957): 1256–60.



Not true see above we are warmer than the Medieval warming period
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.
"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal.



It is nonsense to contend that war, famine , disease, and in particular mass migration was caused by climate change. Quite clearly cultural religious and political changes in Europe had a much more significant effect. People did not go to the Americas just because it was warmer there ( which by the way it wasn't).



Your percentage is out by a factor of at least a million! It is at least tens of percents.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html)

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.


Source?


Red herring.
We are not discussing the "ideal" temperature. the issues are
1. Is the Earth getting warmer @~ the evidence says it is
2. do humans contribute to this ~ evidence suggests yes
3. Can or should humans try to change their effect ~ evidence suggests they can and ethics suggests they should if they can
4. Nobody who wants to prevent global warming has suggested mass genocide as a solution!



Which pope? You are just making this up as you go along! The wholw Witchcraft thing was a Central and eastern european thing and more Protestant in nature than Roman Catholic. It was Protestants who transported Witchfinding to the americas. It was German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who pushed Pope Innocent VIII to write a Bull in order for Kramer to prosecute Witches in Germany. The Pope did not claim witches were responsible for bad weather. Kramer himself claimed it in a later publication, Malleus Maleficarum



This is also untrue! Over about 500 years of the Inquisitions ( the main ones being the Spanish and Portuguese which had little Papal input and were like Kramer's more related to local Kings) ther were about 20-30,000 executions. Most of these on the Iberian Peninsula and most were Jews not witches.

Witch-hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt)
However, there was the beginnings of a witch-hunt as early as the 14th century but this tended to be in areas that later became Protestant, like Switzerland, Northern Germany and the South of France.

The manuals of the Roman Catholic Inquisition remained highly sceptical of the witch craze and of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly-formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Manichaean Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings had an admixture of witchcraft and magic, and who had embarked upon campaigns of murder against their fellow citizens in France, not excluding prelates and ambassadors and whose ally, the Cathar King Pedro II of Aragon, later invaded Southern France with an army of 50,000.


In fact the people in charge of the US have been almost entirely ( with the exception of one black and on catholic) White Anglo Saxon Protestants. Indeed this group are fairly much the same as those in the US who oppose the concept of global warming. The "gun rights" Tea Party Libertarians and fundamentalist Christians have more in common with Witch finders than any modern pope. The Pope does not make laws for the world. Although it is true the Vatican has encouraged countries not to have abortion it is miles away from the Authoritarianism of the Right wing in America for example.

So both your mathematics and your social analysis are misinformed.

You are dead wrong again, listen to the these climatologist talk about the Medieval warm period, it was not only confirmed in the Greenland ice sheet, but also in the Antartic Ice sheet as well, clearly proving that the medieval warm period was indeed global, because it also shows up in all the tree ring data. Only the corrupted research of one single Marxist committed lying Michael Mann's hocky stick graph even suggests there was no medieval warm period, but even in his graph the margin for error shows a 500 year long medieval warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw&feature=player_embedded

The Antarctic Ice core data taken from different locations in Antarctica clearly shows a 7000 year long Holocene maximum and another warm period that was 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene maximum that lasted for 36,000 years; that ended about 98,000 years ago.

4266

ribshaw
06-07-2013, 11:42 AM
Spoken like the true Marxist liberal retard that you are!!!

Here the world sits with skyrocketing energy and fuel prices driven by the mass fraud of man made global warming, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts, while the Man Made Global Warming lying propognadists (Like yourself) invent one lie after another to justify the mass genocide of billions of people and their lives.

The source of my information comes directly from the climatologists that are actually doing the research into climate change. Which make up about 97% of all climatologists. The exact same climatologists that are not only silenced by Man Made Global Warming propagandists, but have also had attempts on their lives made to keep them silent.


Nope, you are repeating the same debunked likes over and over as if that changes the fact that you have been duped to lobby for free for big energy.

Edmund129
06-07-2013, 12:07 PM
Here is the proof of the scientists that Man Made Global Warming propagandists say don't exist, who have had attempts on their lives to keep them silent. These are the scientists that refuse to become silent, while many many more are being silent because of the threats on their lives by the Marxist style terrorists that make up the crowd know as Man Made Global Warming Alarmists:



Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]


Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]

...

ribshaw
06-07-2013, 01:41 PM
Repetând aceeași minciună de peste si peste din nou, nu-l face un fapt.

nomaxim
06-07-2013, 02:40 PM
, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts,
dictionary.com/mach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mach);

mach ;[mahk]
noun
a number indicating the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of sound in the medium through which the object is moving.
Did you perhaps mean:
dictionary.com/mock (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mock?s=t);

mock ;[mok]
verb (used with object)
1.
to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2.
to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3.
to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4.
to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention.
5.
to deceive, delude, or disappoint.
verb (used without object)
6.
to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer (often followed by at ).

Spector567
06-07-2013, 05:38 PM
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus[/COemeritusLOR] of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, [COLOR="#0000FF"]retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]


Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]

...
Actually ED I don't believe anyone said that these people do not exist.

Interestedly NONE of them said that Co2 wasn't a green house gas.

I also a very large list of RETIRED (emeritus = retired), Politicians, and astrophysicists. and one that studies science of dousing. Pretty short on climatologists. Even retired ones.

Now do you want to see my list.... AGAIN?
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia

and 180+ more. and these are country wide organizations of actual practicing scientists.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 07:03 PM
Hi All. I was invited over to this site from Yahoo where I was in a debate with "Kevin" about AGW. I use AGW because that is the real issue here. Global warming, cooling or climate change is not the issue. The issue is AGW and to waht extent man is contributing to any changes. My primary focus is on the computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their catastrophic warming over the next 100 years.

This is a very complex argument that has many parts to it. If it was just limited to a scientific curiosity, i.e. if there is a multiverse, then we could stop early on. But the debate goes much further as its supporters (whom I sometimes refer to as priests) what to force fiscal policy to be involved. And that part of the debate covers areas such as global advantages and disadvantages, costs, benefits and alternative uses for scarce resources.

Now I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered from many people. While the argument can get very heated, I I don't shy away from the heat, I do try to stick with real science and facts. But be forwarned that what you may THINK is science is most likely not real science. Dogma is not science. Polling is not science. And just because someone is in academia doesn't make them right. I can and will bring up historical people that upset the apple cart and were later proved to be right.

ribshaw
06-07-2013, 07:27 PM
Hi All. I was invited over to this site from Yahoo where I was in a debate with "Kevin" about AGW. I use AGW because that is the real issue here. Global warming, cooling or climate change is not the issue. The issue is AGW and to waht extent man is contributing to any changes. My primary focus is on the computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their catastrophic warming over the next 100 years.

This is a very complex argument that has many parts to it. If it was just limited to a scientific curiosity, i.e. if there is a multiverse, then we could stop early on. But the debate goes much further as its supporters (whom I sometimes refer to as priests) what to force fiscal policy to be involved. And that part of the debate covers areas such as global advantages and disadvantages, costs, benefits and alternative uses for scarce resources.

Now I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered from many people. While the argument can get very heated, I I don't shy away from the heat, I do try to stick with real science and facts. But be forwarned that what you may THINK is science is most likely not real science. Dogma is not science. Polling is not science. And just because someone is in academia doesn't make them right. I can and will bring up historical people that upset the apple cart and were later proved to be right.

Mongo, rather than looking for new folks to debate, how about an analysis of the information as it has already been presented. Personally I fall on the side of the less crap we put into the air, water and land the better. I also recognize there is a cost benefit analysis that must be done.

Personally I don't think the socialization of the losses from things like pollution, excess healthcare costs from things like Black Lung and Ashma, oil spills or Superfund sites should be in any way covered by the taxpayer as they are now. Nor do I believe our government should be occupying 100 + countries with our military, in some places for the sole purpose protecting big oil. If they need military protection they should pay for it directly. And finally, flood insurance should not be socialized as it is now. The insurance companies have chosen to abandon the risk, the taxpayer should not be forced to step in.

If the above came to pass, I think you would see a dramatic shift in people's belief structures as the people who consume energy would be paying close to the free market price. At the same time, I am not a scientist so maybe type slowly.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 07:56 PM
I'm a very strong believer in clean water and air. But CO2 is not a pollutant to me. I think resources spent to fight malaria, obtain clean drinking water, cleaning up real air polution, immunizations would yield much more for the dollars spent. But that doesn't mean tax confiscation either.

I'm still reading up on the other posts and will probably comment on some of them.

As for insurance the idea behind it is spreading the risk and cost. In it's truest form all payers share the same chance at loss but the loss hits randomly. So all the individuals get together and basically pay for a future damage. It is not a free lunch nor was it ever meant to be.

Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature. So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.

Spector567
06-07-2013, 08:15 PM
Hi All. I was invited over to this site from Yahoo where I was in a debate with "Kevin" about AGW. I use AGW because that is the real issue here. Global warming, cooling or climate change is not the issue. The issue is AGW and to waht extent man is contributing to any changes. My primary focus is on the computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their catastrophic warming over the next 100 years.

This is a very complex argument that has many parts to it. If it was just limited to a scientific curiosity, i.e. if there is a multiverse, then we could stop early on. But the debate goes much further as its supporters (whom I sometimes refer to as priests) what to force fiscal policy to be involved. And that part of the debate covers areas such as global advantages and disadvantages, costs, benefits and alternative uses for scarce resources.

Now I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered from many people. While the argument can get very heated, I I don't shy away from the heat, I do try to stick with real science and facts. But be forwarned that what you may THINK is science is most likely not real science. Dogma is not science. Polling is not science. And just because someone is in academia doesn't make them right. I can and will bring up historical people that upset the apple cart and were later proved to be right.
Hi Mongo. I'm known as Spector567 here.

I'll think you find that some of the topics we discussed in our thread can be already found here. A poster named ED already made some of the claims but in a less elegant fashion. Including the cosmic ray theory and a few others. Please forgive my tone with him. As I said he people who respond unkind receive unkind responses.

For now I'll leave you with the article I promised you about economists and global warming.
Economists Concur on Threat of Warming - NYTimes.com (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/economists-concur-on-threat-of-warming/)
http://policyintegrity.org/files/media/11.4.09_Economists_Survey_TWO_PAGER.pdf

ribshaw
06-07-2013, 08:18 PM
I'm a very strong believer in clean water and air. But CO2 is not a pollutant to me. I think resources spent to fight malaria, obtain clean drinking water, cleaning up real air polution, immunizations would yield much more for the dollars spent. But that doesn't mean tax confiscation either.

Well that is the whole debate so you can do an analysis of the pro and con of what has been posted. As for "tax confiscation" that is just silly AM radio talk. It is taxes, we all pay them and some of us more than others.


As for insurance the idea behind it is spreading the risk and cost. In it's truest form all payers share the same chance at loss but the loss hits randomly. So all the individuals get together and basically pay for a future damage. It is not a free lunch nor was it ever meant to be.

The insurance companies have walked away from the risk, but not the profits and the taxpayer is subsidizing the full cost of flood insurance. Again, the free market principle is for the people who chose to live in areas that are at high risk for flooding, to pay the full fare. Not the taxpayer, weren't you just saying something about "tax confiscation"?


Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature. So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.

Throughout history countries that expanded their military and occupied more and more countries eventually collapsed. To think otherwise is naive. And talk about "tax confiscation" the Pentagon is the biggest tax rat hole we have. Trillions in unaccounted for waste. But again, you sidestepped the issue of allowing free market forces to work. If big oil needs protection, then they need to pay for it directly.

I had so much hope in reading your first post Mongo that you could do a full cost benefit analysis, but it seems that you don't understand the costs and are just going to use buzzwords like "tax confiscation" and "priests" without having anything new to add.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 08:45 PM
Throughout history countries that expanded their military and occupied more and more countries eventually collapsed. To think otherwise is naive.
All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history. Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.



I had so much hope in reading your first post Mongo that you could do a full cost benefit analysis, but it seems that you don't understand the costs and are just going to use buzzwords like "tax confiscation" and "priests" without having anything new to add.

Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.

Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.

Mongo
06-07-2013, 09:31 PM
First off some basic ground rules and observations.

1) Climate has changed, will change and is changing.
2) Man as part of the Earth does have an impact.
3) Nature (defined to mean other sources outside direct control of humans I.E. space, volcanoes, oceans etc) also have an impact on climate.

So the question is HOW MUCH impact does man have. IPCC thinks it is over 90%. People like me think it is much much lower and no more then 1-5% per others. Bit since I was asked to comment on previous posts here goes.

Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.


1) All the Proxie Measured data clearly shows the Temperature rising first and CO2 rises 800 years to 4000 years later.

2) We are told that it is warmer than it has ever been in 640,000 years, yet the Midieval warm period 1000 years ago was 1.5 degrees warmer than now.

3) The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than now, and was like that for 7,000 years. Yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct.

4) The previous interglacial warm period about 100,000 years was many 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene Maximum and it was like that for 36,000 years. And yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct then; any more than now. (See Warm Period # 4)

5) We are told that Man Made Global Warming will bring about global environmental destruction. Yet when anyone looks at these warm periods, it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for both humans and nature.

6) The greates greenhouse gas is Water Vapor, it is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2. H2O makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is only 380ppm (0.038%). And human contribution is less than 1ppm per year.



And here is how it is addressed:


Here is what I would say Ed. If you want people who have not already formed an opinion to take you seriously have the respect for them to write original ideas extrapolated from what you have read. Your whole argument is cut and paste followed by the above quote. Tell you what, I will cut and paste all the points made from the thread already linked and we will call it a day. You have no way of verifying anything you're repeating is true. Where are your personal studies?

"The Greenhouse gas propaganda machine is more to do with covering up the Environmentalists extremist destruction of the environment on the rest of us, while avoiding blame for themselves. They create the problem, then they blame everyone else for it."

What on earth does that even mean?

Second, and this comes to my follow the money statement. Who is feeding you this information? Is it someone on AM radio who wants you to buy Andy Willougby's 3 step plan and some gold coins at 20% over spot? Are they making a living ginning up this big conspiracy, or are they doing it from the goodness of their hearts? Or maybe it is research from one of the companies that pollutes and wants to do so on the cheap? Nah that could not be it.

You know what else comes from humans besides CO2? Try sewage on for size, that's right poopy and pee pee. And do you know what countries have found from 100s of years of observation and dare I say "science"? That if you don't treat it and dispose of it properly it makes people sick. Does that mean that everyone who lives in an area with raw sewage gets sick? Of course not, but you are essentially telling your audience that because you found a few scientists who said something you happen to agree with that some conspiracy is going on. That is as silly as saying smoking is safe because your grandma smoked until she was 105 and you found a Dr that disagrees with the medical community.

So where does this fit in with "climate change" you might ask. The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that polluting the atmosphere has consequences, the only question is to what degree. I am not a scientist, nor do I want to take the time to cut and paste their work, so I will say this. There is a consequence to every action. If we pump a bunch of crap into the sky, the water, or the land it will eventually do damage. Damage to the point of human extinction? Well with water certainly, clean air maybe, and usable land almost without question. Many of us are not going back to the dark ages, so the less pollution the better is where I come down.

My position is very simple and free market, the users and consumers of energy should pay the cost of what they consume. The taxpayer should not backstop what should be a free market function. So if climate change is a hoax as you say, let's let people that live in coastal areas buy coverage in the free market and pay a free market rate. No more taxpayer subsidized coverage. This means no more military intervention for oil companies, and no more taxpayer funds to treat the effects of pollution. When people have to dip into their own pockets they will make different choices and stop head bobbing to everything they hear.

Most importantly though, in your cut and paste argument you glossed over the biggest fact about climate change related risks so I will repeat it. The insurance companies are running away in droves from almost all risks related to climate change. You can insure anything and everything Ed, from a tennis player's hands to a singers vocal cords. And the actuaries can calculate fairly accurately almost any risk. The model then becomes to weigh the probability and price of the risk against the premium they can collect. If there is a profit to be made they will take it every day, all day. That is what capitalism is all about, the effective allocation of resources. What they have said with respect to climate change is that it is a very real threat because they have no interest in taking the other side of the risk. If it was a hoax, they would be lining up around the block to collect your premiums. And that is all the proof I need that something real is afoot.

This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.
5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.

Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.

Could you supply a link to your data and show how it supports you contention?
Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.
The Sun and the Earth's Climate (http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/)
"The absolute radiometers carried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle,"

I would say it is fairly much accepted that the Sun goes through and eleven year cycle of activity to dormancy. But if your theory is correct then the Earth should heat up and then cool down over eleven years. So why is it that the Earth is gradually heating up and NOT cooling down by the same rate? Why is it that particularly since the advent of peak oil and mass exploitation of fossil fuels that this warming trend is taking place? Is it just a co incidence?
We have measured Temperatures since 1850
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Shows average temperature going UP not up and down but a continual UPWARD trend.

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.
Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen.
Since 1979 the Stratospheric sounding units (SSUs) on the NOAA operational satellites provided near global stratospheric temperature data above the lower stratosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling is mainly caused by the effects of ozone depletion with a possible contribution from increased stratospheric water vapor and greenhouse gases increase.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Shine_etal.pdf

There is a decline in stratospheric temperatures, interspersed by warmings related to volcanic eruptions. Global Warming theory suggests that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms
Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons - Clough - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Libr (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract)

The long term cooling in the lower stratosphere occurred in two downward steps in temperature both after the transient warming related to explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo, this behavior of the global stratospheric temperature has been attributed to global ozone concentration variation in the two years following volcanic eruptions.
here (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1)


Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html

The above would take you five minutes to find on wikipedia
As would this: Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)

It is my suspicion that you are posting this because of a particular neoconservative American political/economic position and not because of science.
Care to prove me wrong?

1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.
2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else. What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.

I'm now off to page 2 and 3.

Spector567
06-07-2013, 10:22 PM
This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
Before you go to far off base with these 2 there is some back ground you are missing. Ed is currently spamming more than just this forum. He has being doing this for the past 4 years.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077
The threads were over 2000 posts long and filled with the same cut and past stuff and claims (the have been reset when the forum changed ownership). Each of these claims were individually debunked. Ed had no response. He would disappear for a week than return with 4 more posts, and and a new list of stuff. The process would repeat. Within a couple of months he was repeating claims twice. and eventually 20+ times. (we counted)

He does not provide any sources for his information. No links to information just screen shots from his favorite movie. the source he does claim do not say what he says they do. I don't mean that they sightly differ. I mean he claimed something was a NASA graph and latter admitted it was a doctored graph that he made up.

This coupled with his weird theories on Asbestos, computer monitors and paranoid rantings over an internet widget in someones signature.

You can check out his other threads to see the quality of the information.

So yes Ed does agree with you. But his reasoning. Attitude, private message threats he's made to me and others over the past 4+ years. Are the reason he is mocked and attacked, and dismissed. Not his willingness to question climate change.


If you can make honest arguments than people will treat you honestly. Ed has not done this over the past 4 years hence peoples mocking tone and comments.

littleroundman
06-07-2013, 10:44 PM
Hiya Mongo and welcome to REALSCAM.com (http://www.realscam.com)

Maybe it's just me, but in my experience, rational discourse is hardly likely when faced with this sort of Edmund "logic"


Spoken like the true Marxist liberal retard that you are!!!

Here the world sits with skyrocketing energy and fuel prices driven by the mass fraud of man made global warming, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts, while the Man Made Global Warming lying propognadists (Like yourself) invent one lie after another to justify the mass genocide of billions of people and their lives.

The source of my information comes directly from the climatologists that are actually doing the research into climate change. Which make up about 97% of all climatologists. The exact same climatologists that are not only silenced by Man Made Global Warming propagandists, but have also had attempts on their lives made to keep them silent.

As for myself, I can't be bothered to search for evidence of "the mass genocide of billions of people" and tend to therefore leave Edmund to his rantings.

Edmund129
06-07-2013, 11:50 PM
Hiya Mongo and welcome to REALSCAM.com (http://www.realscam.com)

Maybe it's just me, but in my experience, rational discourse is hardly likely when faced with this sort of Edmund "logic"



As for myself, I can't be bothered to search for evidence of "the mass genocide of billions of people" and tend to therefore leave Edmund to his rantings.

Do you still believe that there is no attempt to use man made global warming as an excuse to justify the eradication of 7 billion people? In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth propaganda film he blames the over population of humans as one of the contributing causes of climate change. Completely ignoring the fact that for every human there are 22 billion ants and 2.5 times the human biomass in krill living in the worlds oceans. Nature produces 99.75% of all the world's CO2, and humans overpopulation is being blamed for the irrational claims and irrational junk science behind man made global warming.

Here is a Video produced in England by environmentalists to promote the mass genocide of Climate Change Deniers (skeptics).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFO0ayOz9FY

Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers' (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_chan ge_deniers.html)

December 31, 2012
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
By Timothy Birdnow


It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power, suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree.

There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of the Benthamite vision of "the greatest good for the most people" -- which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism. You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.

Parncutt has issued -- and later retracted after it the public outcry -- a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent "Climate Change Deniers". What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International's efforts to end it.

This would be a shocking thing for a college professor to do were it an isolated incident, but this call has been made a number of times in the past. For instance, an anonymous poster at the liberal website Talking Points Memo called for similar action, as did Climate Progress editor Joe Romm, who called for "deniers" to be strangled in their beds. Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg trials for "deniers" and NASA's James Hansen has likewise called for similar trials.

The violent rhetoric has been ongoing -- and disturbing. Liberals in the United States have repeatedly tried to blame mass shootings on talk radio for inflaming the public, yet they are strangely silent about actual calls to violence on the part of environmentalists.

Parncutt's argument is predicated on the notion that we know for a fact that human industrial emissions are causing Global Warming, err, Climate Change, err, Climate Disruption, err, whatever they are calling it today, and that this will lead to millions of deaths, so the public good would be served by murdering those who exercise their free speech and oppose the fundamental reorganization of the international order. (He also calls for the murder of the Pope for the Catholic Church's stand on contraception.) He claims that scientists have no interest in promoting AGW (ignoring the Climategate e-mails and the fact that money flows from governments into research in direct proportion to the apocalyptic nature of said research) and that they would get caught if they fudged data (ignoring Michael Mann who was caught on a number of occasions and still indulges in government funded scientific malpractice). He claims that millions will die from climate change, ignoring the possibility that a warmer, wetter world may actually increase agricultural output and make a better world. He ignores the fact that draconian "sustainable" environmental laws will drastically increase the price of everything, which will guarantee the deaths of millions of people in Third World countries.

Perhaps Dr. Parncutt should volunteer for the first of these executions.

What is ignored here is that it is the radical environmentalists who engage in murder and mayhem. It was Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who killed innocent people in his war against industrial civilization. We've had Daniel Andreas San Diego. We've had Chaim Nissim, Tre Arrow, Daniel McGowan, James Lee, Jeff Luers, Eric McDavid, Marie Mason and John Wade We've had organizations like the Earth Liberation Front. We have the proponents of Deep Ecology.

In the past we had the Nazis, as Mark Musser has so eloquently illustrated here at American Thinker. Today we have the return of Nazi thinking through Climate Reductionism.

And the first instinct of those on the Progressive Left is to murder their enemies. Parncutt is showing what is in his heart. Granted, he did apologize (no doubt to keep his position) but do we have any reason to fear him or his compatriots less? Especially now; they are in great anger because they know their time is short; Global Warming theory just didn't pan out the way they planned.

Progressives have absolute faith in their intellectual powers, and will not allow facts to stand in their way. Scientism is the modern secular religion, and as Trevor Thomas points out in his article, scientism is not science, but rather a belief system bejeweled with scientific adornments. That there has been no global warming for over fifteen years (contrary to theory) is immaterial. That we see no acceleration of sea level rise, that Antarctica is not melting (see here and here ), that there is no tropical troposphere hot spot, and no major warming in the oceans, the theory is largely falsified. But there is far too much money in it, and too much power and prestige to let it go, so scientists continue to ignore the facts, as do the entire Progressive Left. It has become an article of faith, not a matter for reason. And it is a most useful article of faith, as it justifies world government and Progressive intervention in every aspect of life.

So now the call for executions of "deniers" is becoming more public, and this will only metastasize as the situation grows more desperate for the Gang Green. They are reverting to type.


Read more: Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers' (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_chan ge_deniers.html#ixzz2Vb67crNZ)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

ProfHenryHiggins
06-08-2013, 12:08 AM
More than the past 4 years, Spector. I saw vomit spew from him in 2000, looking back over USENET records.

Edmund129
06-08-2013, 12:09 AM
Before you go to far off base with these 2 there is some back ground you are missing. Ed is currently spamming more than just this forum. He has being doing this for the past 4 years.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077
The threads were over 2000 posts long and filled with the same cut and past stuff and claims (the have been reset when the forum changed ownership). Each of these claims were individually debunked. Ed had no response. He would disappear for a week than return with 4 more posts, and and a new list of stuff. The process would repeat. Within a couple of months he was repeating claims twice. and eventually 20+ times. (we counted)

He does not provide any sources for his information. No links to information just screen shots from his favorite movie. the source he does claim do not say what he says they do. I don't mean that they sightly differ. I mean he claimed something was a NASA graph and latter admitted it was a doctored graph that he made up.

This coupled with his weird theories on Asbestos, computer monitors and paranoid rantings over an internet widget in someones signature.

You can check out his other threads to see the quality of the information.

So yes Ed does agree with you. But his reasoning. Attitude, private message threats he's made to me and others over the past 4+ years. Are the reason he is mocked and attacked, and dismissed. Not his willingness to question climate change.


If you can make honest arguments than people will treat you honestly. Ed has not done this over the past 4 years hence peoples mocking tone and comments.

I have successfully rebutted all of your scientifically illiterate claims on every blog that you bring your crayons to.

But you are too much of a scientific illiterate retard to understand anything I have published using the actual observable facts. You can't read graphs, you can't understand the spectral absorption bands of electromagnetic resonance, you don't understand the concept of what a greenhouse gas is, you don't understand agriculture, you don't understand the importance of fossil fuels for modern life.

1) You keep using cooked up computer models. Computer models that can't even simulate water vapor, precipitation, snow, rain, fog, solar cycles, solar storms, etc., ... Your computer models are as worthless as a screen door on a submarine.

2) you keep producing cooked up graphs that show lower solar activity in the 1990's when all solar observations show the exact opposite. The 15 largest sunspots, The 15 hottest temperatures, the 15 largest solar flares all occurred in the 1990's.

3) You keep claiming there are polar bears drowning in the artic circle, but to date no one has ever produced a picture of a drowning polar bear. More proof that man made global warming is built on a foundation of lies.

4) All of the proxy measured data clearly shows temperature levels rising centuries and in some cases thousands of years before CO2 levels rise. Clearly proving that co2 has never effected climate, but instead it is temperature that drives Co2 levels. Every single book on climatology says this glaring fact, there isn't one shred of evidence anywhere that even suggests that co2 effects temperature in any way.

5) You think that greenhouse gases cause greater temperature fluctuations than no greenhouse gases, but yet you can't explain why the moon has a 500 degree swing between day time temperatures and night time temperatures because there are no greenhouse gases on the moon. But on the Earth there are greenhouse gases and there are only a few degrees difference between day time temperatures and night time temperatures because of greenhouse gases.

6) You keep claiming that greenhouse gases will cause more violent hurricanes and tornadoes, however every climatologist and every meteorologist knows that fact that is greater temperature differences that cause these storms to be more violent, all while it is well known amongst all scientists not smoking weed that greenhouse gases resist temperature changes and temperature swings.

...

Mongo
06-08-2013, 06:54 AM
Ok then instead of trying to rehash what Ed posted let me do this in a logical step by step process. But before we get to the big parts we need to see if there is any agreement on the start. I would like for those that support and believe in AGW to answer two questions.

1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

These are two very important baseline questions. I think we will all agree that if for example there was only going to be .1 degree C in additional warming then we would all yawn and say so what. And the second question is important because if man didn't contribute it or can't control it then the who debate is also moot. Now I could have easily answered these questions by going to the last IPCC assessment but I want to see if those I disagree with reven agree with themselves. So kindly bear with me and let me know what answers you believe in.

BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 08:38 AM
Ed.. No one is disputing the little ice age or the MEP. You just continue to ignore the fact that these changes took 700 years to happen vs. the 40 that it has taken the current warming.

Actually I do have to respond to this one. You make a common error that almost all the AGW proponents make. First off the statement that it took 700 years to HAPPEN is misleading. It LASTED (or it's DURATION) for 700 years is the scientifically correct answer. A bull market in the stock market happens at a POINT in time. It lasts for a DURATION. Same thing here. Now what can be argured is the acceleration or slope of a trend line. But your comment is scientifically inaccurate.

All trend lines have a starting point, a duration, a slope and finally an end point.

ribshaw
06-08-2013, 09:18 AM
All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history. Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.

You have been busy as I slept away the night. Before I went to bed I researched what you said on a few threads dedicated to history, seems some heated discussion there as well. Iceland rose to the top of the list, along with Israel, China, and Rome. The last being one of the longer, but then you also must subscribe to the tenant of a military for anything other than protection and not occupation. I won't distract from your issue other than what I comment on below.




Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.

Actually, confiscation does NOT accurately describe it, it is a bill for services. If I eat a meal in a restaurant, when I am finished I get a bill, that is not confiscation. Now you may not like the services that are provided, but that is a different issue. At no time did I support the invasion of Iraq, but got a bill for it anyway. That is the result of living in a society as opposed to owning your own island.

Now to my concern, which you would likely call a "distraction" I consider very relevant to people's decision making process. There is a "subsidy" from the taxpayer that big energy and consumers get in the form of military protection of oil interests. This is socialized, and estimates can be put from $5 billion to $150 billion yearly depending on what you consider. In a "free market" the companies would pay for those services directly and either lower their profits or pass the costs on to the final consumer. In either case people would make better decisions as they would bear the cost of their own use.

And, I would say the same thing for resulting pollution caused as a byproduct of energy use. I don't know about where you live, but I pay to dispose of 100% of my waste, I don't get to throw half of it in my neighbors pond, or bury in the woods behind my house. Yet for some reason we hold energy companies to an entirely different standard. And as to my comment about sewage, this proper disposal keeps people from getting sick. The same as Asthma and breathing problems are higher in areas with large industrial activity. Quite a bit of the cost of treatment is "socialized", hence very relevant to the discussion. Again it is not a "distraction", but a key component of the cost benefit analysis.



Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.

"Priests" is a silly way to win people over to your side of an argument, unless you just want to argue. It tells me right from the onset that you listen to Fox, AM Radio, read Drudge or some combination there of. I roll my eyes and think here we go again, same ole same ole. Now I don't know about other readers, but I am guessing if they watch Fox they think right on brother, if they watch any other major news network they sigh.

For years you would have heard the same arguments about smoking as you now hear about climate change. (distraction) sorry I know. Even Ayn Rand, called the "anti smoking movement" a big liberal conspiracy and that ended well for her. After years and years of observation we can be pretty certain smoking is not good. I could probably find one or two researchers that claim it is perfectly fine, and there is possibility no matter how remote that they are right.

But as for climate change, 90-95% of the "scientific" community falls on one side and a few on the other. As I said in one of my first posts, I am not a scientist and unless you are a peer reviewed (whatever) then all you/any of us are doing is cutting and pasting research done by others. In Edmund's case he cuts and pastes the SAME things over and over, I don't need to see a video four times that I saw four other times over at SCAM.

Finally, I say this a bit tongue and cheek, but the medical community can not even convince me if coffee and multivitamins are good or bad. So as with that, along with pumping crap into our environment I take a common sense approach.

Don't allow me to distract from you main points in posting, but in my world the issue does not exist in the vacuum.

ribshaw
06-08-2013, 09:45 AM
BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.1)

Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

Ribshaw likes to see his name :RpS_thumbsup:, without trying to pick apart everything you said I tried to give you a baseline of where I am coming from as a "casual observer". And most people have no idea, sans Edmund, You, Beacon, Spector, and NoMaxim and one or two others of 1 or 2. As I said rather sarcastically, although not too far off the mark if they watch Fox it is a hoax and if they watch MSNBC it is the biggest threat to mankind.

I would like to see a complete analysis of the subject that is "new", from your perspective.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 09:57 AM
Actually, confiscation does NOT accurately describe it, it is a bill for services. If I eat a meal in a restaurant, when I am finished I get a bill, that is not confiscation. Now you may not like the services that are provided, but that is a different issue. At no time did I support the invasion of Iraq, but got a bill for it anyway. That is the result of living in a society as opposed to owning your own island.

I willingly go into a restaurant. You had no choice about Iraq. Confiscation is the taking of money without your approval by "authority". Paying a bill for service implies that first off I actually received the service and secondly that I wanted the service. And of course I can extend this to if I received a 'good' service. Fees are a charge for a service that governments also use, but taxes are applied and usually in an arbitrary manner, not to mention that there is no free will in paying the taxes. Confiscation is also associated to authority and since governments levy taxes it fits. Not to mention that both taxes and confiscation use two common words in their defintion "demand" and "authority".



Now to my concern, which you would likely call a "distraction" I consider very relevant to people's decision making process. There is a "subsidy" from the taxpayer that big energy and consumers get in the form of military protection of oil interests. This is socialized, and estimates can be put from $5 billion to $150 billion depending on what you consider. In a "free market" the companies would pay for those services directly and either lower their profits or pass the costs on to the final consumer. In either case people would make better decisions as they would bear the cost of their own use.

Energy is one of the most highly taxed sectors in the economy. Consumers pay a myrid of taxes on energy including fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, delivery service taxes to name a few. Oil companies pay hugh taxes to governments. So the 'subsidy' as you define it has to take into account the amount of taxes paid vs. the services provided strictly for their benefit. After all the military exists not just for protection of oil but for other reasons. This whole line should be in another thread as it will branch off very far from just oil/energy.



And, I would say the same thing for resulting pollution caused as a byproduct of energy use. I don't know about where you live, but I pay to dispose of 100% of my waste, I don't get to throw half of it in my neighbors pond, or bury in the woods behind my house. And as to my comment about sewage, this proper disposal keeps people from getting sick. Again it is not a "distraction", but a very key component of the cost benefit analysis.


You need to define "resulting pollution" in great detail. In fact the word pollution will need to be defined to get to a logical debate. Your comment makes a number of assumtions that may or may not be true or even apply. The biggest assumption is that any pollution created is not being taken care of since you tie this to you taking care of your waste.



"Priests" is a silly way to win people over to your side of an argument, unless you just want to argue.

The application of the term depends on the actions of others. If their responses are based on faith then the tag fits. I will either win people over based on the logic and facts supporting my arguements or not. If someone decides to support one side because they are 'nicer' then that is just a follower and not someone who has done critical thinking.



But as for climate change, 90-95% of the scientific community falls on one side and a few on the other. As I said in one of my first posts, I am not a scientist and unless you are a peer reviewed (whatever) then all you/any of us are doing is cutting and pasting research done by others.

This is an "Appeal to popular opinion" falacy. Polling is not science and even if 99.999999% believe something that does not make it so. History has too often shown us that dogma and the currently accpeted 'scientific' version were flat out wrong. Only the facts and logical connections of said facts through experimentation and real world observations can tell us if it is right or wrong. While not a climate scientist I have worked on climate computer models and you do not have to be a scientist to comment on or invlaidate other's work. History has also shown that many non-scientists have come up with many profound theories that the 'scientists' of their day thought were wrong.



Finally, I say this a bit tongue and cheek, but the medical community can not even convince me if coffee and multivitamins are good or bad. So as with that, along with pumping crap into our environment I take a common sense approach.

Don't allow me to distract from you main points in posting, but in my world the issue does not exist in the vacuum as it does on the radio, Fox or the web.

It is always great to take a common sense approach. Common sense lends skepticism to question dogma. Don't take something someone says as gospel if your common sense raises a question about it. In fact I think applying common sense will go a very long way to showing you how AGW as defined and proposed by the IPCC is wrong and inaccurate. I plan to layout a nice long logical step by step trip through the issues and weeds and we'll all see where we end up at.

ribshaw
06-08-2013, 10:08 AM
I plan to layout a nice long logical step by step trip through the issues and weeds and we'll all see where we end up at.

Excellent I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Blue Wolf
06-08-2013, 01:55 PM
I willingly go into a restaurant. You had no choice about Iraq. Confiscation is the taking of money without your approval by "authority". Paying a bill for service implies that first off I actually received the service and secondly that I wanted the service. And of course I can extend this to if I received a 'good' service. Fees are a charge for a service that governments also use, but taxes are applied and usually in an arbitrary manner, not to mention that there is no free will in paying the taxes. Confiscation is also associated to authority and since governments levy taxes it fits. Not to mention that both taxes and confiscation use two common words in their defintion "demand" and "authority".



Excuse me for interrupting, but I want to point out that nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S. and pay all of these taxes.

If you want to live here and pay taxes, that's your choice.

Anyway, you're better off just talking about the science of global warming. Your opinions about taxes aren't going to help you in this thread.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 03:07 PM
Excuse me for interrupting, but I want to point out that nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S. and pay all of these taxes.

If you want to live here and pay taxes, that's your choice.

Anyway, you're better off just talking about the science of global warming. Your opinions about taxes aren't going to help you in this thread.

I was born in the US, not in a restraunt. Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread. And for the record I'm not completely against taxes. Government needs funds and there are certain things that only the government should handle.

Blue Wolf, woul like to provide an answer to my two "questions"?

Spector567
06-08-2013, 04:28 PM
Ok then instead of trying to rehash what Ed posted let me do this in a logical step by step process. But before we get to the big parts we need to see if there is any agreement on the start. I would like for those that support and believe in AGW to answer two questions.

1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

These are two very important baseline questions. I think we will all agree that if for example there was only going to be .1 degree C in additional warming then we would all yawn and say so what. And the second question is important because if man didn't contribute it or can't control it then the who debate is also moot. Now I could have easily answered these questions by going to the last IPCC assessment but I want to see if those I disagree with reven agree with themselves. So kindly bear with me and let me know what answers you believe in.

BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.

+
1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

a)A fair question.
Let me preface this a touch. The there is a large amount of misunderstanding on this topic.
The media likes to sensationalize and hype things searching for the largest and number.
Some less than honest political think tanks also like to make there own projections based on short term information.
Also as I've said before this is a constantly changing world. People taking action agasint the problem has already reduced the amount from earlier projections.

It would also be foolish to believe that there is only one answer to this. You cannot predict the future. You can only make projections based on various scenarios based on the appearance of world events like eruptions, the increase or decrease of Co2 from various countries and projections based on our action or inaction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/sm_monc_2100_eq.jpg

2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

a) This is a hard question to answer. The simple answer would be most of it. However, in reality this is more complex question and could mean any number of things. There are feed backs, and other forcing both natural and man made that can take over.

For instance melting of the ice caps releases trapped Co2. Is this considered natural? or is this Man made because our origenal temp increase is what caused it to melt in the first place.

Is global reductions of forest AGW? or would you consider it something else. Removing the natural carbon scrubbers can and does have an effect.

The answer is all in the definition and how many dominoes you consider being pushed down by the original cause.

tot that end i'll provide you a graph of relitive forcing. You can of course argue with the specifics but not the overall trends. This also several other factors into account.

4271

Blue Wolf
06-08-2013, 04:59 PM
I was born in the US, not in a restraunt.

I never thought you were born in a restaurant.

But thank you for letting me know. Lol.


Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread. And for the record I'm not completely against taxes. Government needs funds and there are certain things that only the government should handle.

You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.


Blue Wolf, woul like to provide an answer to my two "questions"?

Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 05:07 PM
+
1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

a)A fair question.
Let me preface this a touch. The there is a large amount of misunderstanding on this topic.
The media likes to sensationalize and hype things searching for the largest and number.
Some less than honest political think tanks also like to make there own projections based on short term information.
Also as I've said before this is a constantly changing world. People taking action agasint the problem has already reduced the amount from earlier projections.

It would also be foolish to believe that there is only one answer to this. You cannot predict the future. You can only make projections based on various scenarios based on the appearance of world events like eruptions, the increase or decrease of Co2 from various countries and projections based on our action or inaction.


I appreciate your honest with this question. I also know that it changes over time. Would you say that based on the graph you provided additional warming of 3 degrees C can be expected by 2100? I'm really not looking to lock you into a number here. My goal is really to just get an idea of what you think the science is reporting and then have others give me their thoughts.


+
2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

a) This is a hard question to answer. The simple answer would be most of it. However, in reality this is more complex question and could mean any number of things. There are feed backs, and other forcing both natural and man made that can take over.

For instance melting of the ice caps releases trapped Co2. Is this considered natural? or is this Man made because our origenal temp increase is what caused it to melt in the first place.

Is global reductions of forest AGW? or would you consider it something else. Removing the natural carbon scrubbers can and does have an effect.

The answer is all in the definition and how many dominoes you consider being pushed down by the original cause.

tot that end i'll provide you a graph of relitive forcing. You can of course argue with the specifics but not the overall trends. This also several other factors into account.

4271

First off I can't see the graph you posted. But to answer your question I would define AGW pretty broadly. In other words is chopping down a forest decreases CO2 reduction then this is AGW as mankind did the cutting. And while forcing and feedbacks will be dealt with in great detail I say if the IPCC classifies the forcing as being dependent upon man's action then count it.

Again I'm not trying to play tricks or lock you into a number here. I'm honestly asking what you think is a correct number.

Edmund129
06-08-2013, 05:14 PM
In 1486 the Pope blamed witches for Global Cooling which lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches for centuries. Man Made Global Warming is even more stupid and more destructive, at least in a warmer world agriculture thrives, while during periods of cooling agriculture fails leading to mass starvation. So people in positions of power blame a sector of the population to pretend they can control climate, when they can't.

Obama's Science Czar is advocating mass genocide and government mandated abortions to control population to protect us against the mass fraudulent threat of Man Made Global Warming. Just watch this video to see the proof. These facts have already been reported on every news channel, only Fox News Journalists have complained about it, and Glenn Beck is pissed off about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcWI4stctj0

Global Warming propogandists believe that a bad economy gives us a better carbon footprint.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 05:17 PM
You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.

So are you saying that citizens have no power to detemine the taxes they are saddled with? We just have to shut up and take it? Accept whatever our lords and masters decide for us? You do know that this country was basically founded on issues of taxes and not wanting to pay them because they felt they weren't fair.



Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.

BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.

Edmund129
06-08-2013, 05:25 PM
I never thought you were born in a restaurant.

But thank you for letting me know. Lol.



You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.



Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.

Based on measured observations CO2 doesn't even effect the global temperature by even one fempto degree (0.000000000000001 C). Only 1/2 of one absorption band even contributes to greenhouse gas effect, while water vapor has 7 absorption bands in the infrared spectrum.... Making water vapor 270 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is. CO2 is nothing in the big picture, but I don't hear any of you Man Made Global Warming Propagandist complaining about water vapor (Not water droplets).

There are 40,000ppm of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere, while CO2 only has 380ppm. Water vapor is clearly the most dominate greenhouse gas by many orders of magnitude. But still the Enviornmental Fascist and Man Made Global Warming Propogandists ignore these glaring facts and never even mention water vapor, they never simulate water vapor in the computer models, yet they are the masters of the junk science of man made global warming.

...

4272

Spector567
06-08-2013, 05:56 PM
I appreciate your honest with this question. I also know that it changes over time. Would you say that based on the graph you provided additional warming of 3 degrees C can be expected by 2100? I'm really not looking to lock you into a number here. My goal is really to just get an idea of what you think the science is reporting and then have others give me their thoughts.
I'd say 3.5 would probably be a fair number. I know higher numbers have been reported. As you can see by the graph I posted "Lord" Mockton and some other denier groups have reported that number as 6 or greater and have said it was the IPCC when it wasn't. They did this by taking a short term projection for a certain time period and than projecting it 100 years into the future while not taking into account Co2 saturation and other doubling factors.




First off I can't see the graph you posted. But to answer your question I would define AGW pretty broadly. In other words is chopping down a forest decreases CO2 reduction then this is AGW as mankind did the cutting. And while forcing and feedbacks will be dealt with in great detail I say if the IPCC classifies the forcing as being dependent upon man's action then count it.

Again I'm not trying to play tricks or lock you into a number here. I'm honestly asking what you think is a correct number.
Sorry about the faulty graph. It shows up fine on my screen. However, please find linked the original source. (sorry I should have provided this in the first place.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

If you want to define it very broadly than you could probably say 90-100% of the additional non-natural state. Keeping in mind that we are pumping Aersols into the atmosphere that are lowering the amount of warming that we are actually causing.

I'd also say that number is considerably less if you were to limit to just human produced Co2's direct effect. It's the indirects that will arguably produce the most forcing of the next century.

Blue Wolf
06-08-2013, 07:21 PM
So are you saying that citizens have no power to detemine the taxes they are saddled with? We just have to shut up and take it? Accept whatever our lords and masters decide for us? You do know that this country was basically founded on issues of taxes and not wanting to pay them because they felt they weren't fair.

No, that's not what I said. People have the right to choose and to vote for the politicians that they like. Those politicians can change, lower, or eliminate certain taxes. Sadly, a large percentage of Americans don't exercise their right to vote.



BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.

When I was going to college, my major was Business Administration. However, I did take a course on the science of global warming, and a course in Botany with an emphasis on environmental appreciation. Obviously, those 2 courses don't make me an expert on climate change, but I can tell you what I did learn:

*The IPCC considers it "very likely" that if the atmospheric CO2 level stabilizes at double the current level, global temperatures will rise by more than 1.5 C. during the 21st century.

*The predicted increase in global average temperature will increase anywhere from 1 - 6.5 C. by 2100 depending on various emissions scenarios.

I never chose which scenario was most likely to come true, but I do think that the global average temperature will continue to rise during the 21st century.

I also recall my professor saying that even if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels, global warming would continue for decades after that. Interesting.

I'm not very worried, however. I don't think fossil fuels will be a major source of energy by the year 2100.

ribshaw
06-08-2013, 09:39 PM
Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread.

Taxes came up again in a later post, but I feel this is actually a more appropriate quote to build on my thought. This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

If I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on why a stone will fall to the ground if dropped, I would expect nearly 100% would say gravity. At the same time I would expect very few including myself to be able to explain F=Gm1m2/d2. That is how a "scientific" debate should conclude. Now granted climate change is more complex in many ways than gravity.

But if I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on climate change it would be split closer to 50/50. Now why is that? I would submit it has less to do with the science and more to do with money.

As I mentioned to Edmund, and to you Mongo property insurers have walked and I would even say ran away from the risks associated with climate change. This is largely evidenced by the fact that flood insurance is now completely socialized. I would submit if this was a HOAX, the people who have only a financial interest would be running toward taking the risk as they would stand to clean up. In fact reinsurers have also run the other direction, again I ask why walk away from what could only be considered risk free profits? This leads me to one conclusion, the one group that stands to profit from this "hoax" is betting the other way. But is it man made?

The second tell, again from the market is what liability carriers are starting to do with directors coverage and/or coverage for companies that are at risk for being sued from issues relating to climate change. Again, they are either raising the premiums or discontinuing coverage. Now is either of these things perfect, certainly not, but I know where the financial interest lies, and what they are showing via their actions.

The second group of people with an interest are the companies that pollute, now why on earth would they want people to think they are benign? The equation is very simple, they don't care about anything but the bottom line. Scrubbers cost money, cap and trade costs money, and frankly it is an easy sell. Americans love cheap energy, and the less companies have to do, the more for them. So getting people upset about confiscation or $300 a barrel oil is an easy sell, just tell people it is a hoax and blame big government. Easy Peasy

To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.

Mongo
06-08-2013, 11:26 PM
I'd say 3.5 would probably be a fair number. I know higher numbers have been reported.

If you want to define it very broadly than you could probably say 90-100% of the additional non-natural state. Keeping in mind that we are pumping Aersols into the atmosphere that are lowering the amount of warming that we are actually causing.

I'd also say that number is considerably less if you were to limit to just human produced Co2's direct effect. It's the indirects that will arguably produce the most forcing of the next century.

These are just fine and pretty much fit right where the IPCC in it's last assessment siad they were. I think most people that support AGW will come up with numbers very close to this. So let's go with 3.5 and 90%. Simple math says that man will be responsible for 3.15 degrees C warming through 2100.

Now let me ask a harder question that the supporters of AGW won't necessariry agree upon. What is the lowest temperature increase between now and 2100 that we should be concerned about. For example I doubt if anyone would care much if the increase was .0001 degrees. Another way to look at it is what number do we need for us to want to do something about it?

My motive in asking this is some AGW supporters are really just fosil fuel opponents and even if there was no increase they would still demand money spent on 'green' and place a punishment on fossil fuels. These people can't be reasoned with as their fight is not AGW but something else.


To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.

This reminds me of a circus. They will say or do anything to make a buck. This is a hugh logical fallacy being made on your part. Companies are in it to make a buck Just because appearing green makes them more money doesn't mean they actually believe it. And flood insurance, or lack has nothing to do with climate change. Here is a direct quote from wiki on flood insurance:

"Most private insurers do not insure against the peril of flood due to the prevalence of adverse selection, which is the purchase of insurance by persons most affected by the specific peril of flood. In traditional insurance, insurers use the economic law of large numbers to charge a relatively small fee to large numbers of people in order to pay the claims of the small numbers of claimants who have suffered a loss. Unfortunately, in flood insurance, the numbers of claimants is larger than the available number of persons interested in protecting their property from the peril, which means that most private insurers view the probability of generating a profit from providing flood insurance as being remote."

You will need to provide proof of companies motive and stance in relation to AGW otherwise it is just an assumption being made by you. The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.

littleroundman
06-08-2013, 11:38 PM
The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.

No, we in fact, DON'T know that "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells"

We know that SOME "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells" but we certainly don't know that ALL "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells"

How about Mongo holds him/her self to the same standards of debate that he/she demands of others ??

ribshaw
06-09-2013, 10:30 AM
Mongo, I really thought you were going to add and expand on the conversation with some consistent principles. Instead you quote everything that would appear to contradict your belief structure as a "fallacy", did you just finish a class in logic at the local college? If so, perhaps you can humor an old hillbilly and go to the chapter on deductive reasoning because you just proved my point.


This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.

To which you replied, I will bold the important parts.


This reminds me of a circus. They will say or do anything to make a buck. This is a hugh logical fallacy being made on your part. Companies are in it to make a buck Just because appearing green makes them more money doesn't mean they actually believe it. You will need to provide proof of companies motive and stance in relation to AGW otherwise it is just an assumption being made by you. The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.

Part 1.

So you Mongo have just said that companies will say and do anything to make a buck. However, your implication is that only companies that are "green" are lying. What you fail to draw from your very astute comment is that maybe "big energy" are the ones that are lying to make a buck. Maybe they are the ones funding "research" and a "PR" campaign to call climate change a "hoax". Now what other reason could there be that a "scientific" issue is being decided based on what news channel people watch or what radio station they listen to?

To wit, for big energy to maintain its current profit structure it must convince the public that climate change is a hoax. Therefore, from my perspective Mongo, anything "scientific" that you quote from here on out must be sourced back to the organization that FUNDED the study to be even close to credible.

Unfortunately that is ONE data point of how the "free market" works where lobbying and misinformation campaigns sway public opinion. Anyone with the smallest degree of business understanding gets why "big energy" wants the public to think climate change is a hoax. But what about companies that stand to PROFIT from climate change being a hoax?

ribshaw
06-09-2013, 11:28 AM
Companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market.


And flood insurance, or lack has nothing to do with climate change.

Mongo, flood damage is the single largest financial risk of climate change to property insurers and they have said as much in their actions. The national flood insurance program is socialized, meaning property insurers largely refuse to underwrite the risks of flood damage. The taxpayers are now assuming almost all of the risk! Now adverse selection is one issue, but that is true with all insurance so they factor it in. Although, as an aside I do find your defense of Socialism sort of touching when juxtaposed with your previous comments about taxes being confiscated.

A primer on how flood insurance works. People buy essentially two policies, a homeowners policy and a flood policy. A storm like Katrina hits and the insurance company says "flood damage", go see the taxpayer. They are at virtually no risk of loss to flooding, so you would think they would have nothing to say about climate change. One would guess that they have fired all their actuaries, climate people, turned on the news and realized it was all a big scam. Now they can rake in all the premiums they can from this HOAX. In fact Mongo, you alluded to them being complicit in the hoax in an effort to make more money by raising premiums. Unfortunately, in many cases they are saying the risks of climate change are real and too great for us to bear. Again, for me to put much stock in what you say it must be well sourced as by your very own words companies are acting in their own best interests and are giving us two very different stories. The market has spoken.

But please, don't believe me, I have sourced 10 articles on the subject. So it would also be nice when you are giving us all more information on thinking about climate change if you could include a few studies funded not just by Big Energy, but Big Insurance as well.

Allstate, for instance, has said that climate change has prompted it to cancel or not renew policies in many Gulf Coast states, with recent hurricanes wiping out all of the profits it had garnered in 75 years of selling homeowners insurance

Insurance in a Climate of Change: Availability & Affordability (http://insurance.lbl.gov/availability-affordability.html)

The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

StopGlobalWarming.org » For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/news/for-insurers-no-doubts-on-climate-change/)

Growing evidence suggests that climate change is worsening through droughts and other severe weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. These natural disasters can destroy homes, cars, businesses and crops, leading to more and larger insurance claims.
As a result, insurers in some parts of the country have stopped offering coverage, and those that do offer coverage often limit what they cover. It’s also meant higher insurance premiums that many people cannot afford, leaving them uninsured or underinsured.

Climate Change and your insurance (http://www.insurance.wa.gov/current-issues-reform/climate-change/)

Private insurers also point fingers at a changing climate, citing a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year that concluded global warming is to blame for a doubling over the past five years of natural disasters—and that the situation will worsen if nothing is done to stop it.

Insurers Claim Global Warming Makes Some Regions Too Hot to Handle: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insurers-claim-global-warming-makes-some-uninsurable)

Given that accurate and unbiased weather forecasts are key to property insurers’ business, the fact that the industry broadly accepts that climate change is real and likely to be a problem should be taken seriously by anyone who believes in the power of markets to aggregate information.

Insurers and Climate Change: The Truth is More Complicated than the Sound Bytes (http://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/right-street/2013/05/24/293288.htm)

Insurance companies are actively looking for more detailed weather and climate data to help make decisions, said Kyle Beatty, senior vice president for business solutions at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER). Property and casualty insurance companies have asked AER and 11 other companies to conduct research on tornado and hail frequency in Canada and the United States, Beatty said.

Billion-Dollar Decisions Held up by Poor Use of Climate Data, Insurers Say - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/billion-dollar-decisions-held-up-by-poor-use-of-climate-data-insurers-say.html)

There are few industries more exposed to financial risk from climate change than insurance. Every time the ocean creeps into neighborhoods or hurricanes shatter windows or drought kills a planting, it costs insurers money. Unsurprisingly, the industry at large is trying to figure out how to limit its losses from extreme weather events. Individual insurers are a little slower to act.

Insurers Aren't So Worried About Climate Change That They're Preparing for It - Philip Bump - The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/climate-change-insurance/65259/)

But what may be surprising to E2 members is that more and more, it's the federal government – and not the insurance industry – that pays for cleanup efforts in the aftermath of the kinds of extreme weather events associated with climate change.

Insurance companies seeing increasing risk from climate change &mdash; Climate Solutions (http://climatesolutions.org/press-room/press-clips/insurance-companies-seeing-increasing-risk-from-climate-change)

If climate change raises the probability of horrible outcomes where the insurance companies must payout a fortune, then doesn’t this industry have an incentive to root for carbon mitigation?

The Economics of Insurance in the Face of Climate Change | Legal Planet: Environmental Law and Policy (http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/the-economics-of-insurance-in-the-face-of-climate-change/)

The biggest weather concern is about hurricanes. There also was some concern about wildfires and convective storms that produce tornadoes, thunderstorms and other undesirable weather events.

Is the Insurance Industry Clueless about the Risks Posed by Climate Change? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2013/03/15/does-the-insurance-industry-understand-the-risks-posed-by-climate-change/)

Spector567
06-11-2013, 11:33 AM
Ribshaw. I think you may have just blown Mongo out of the water. Thank you for expanding on the insurence argument in more depth. I'm going to have to use your links in the future.

As with most problems in life solutions are about risk management. People can argue uncertanty, they can argue that the affects won't be as bad as people claim. However, in reality it is impossible for an intelligent person to argue that we should do nothing. Any intelligent person would put considerations in place incase they were wrong. You bring an umbrella when it looks like rain, you buy travelers insurence when you are taking a long trip.

Considering what we do know about the affects, what the insurence companies know, and what the economists predict. The cost of doing nothing about runaway climate change. Exceed the costs of doing something about climate change.


ED I hope you noticed that everyone was ignoring you. Your ponts are repetative and thus uninteresting. People in this thread have already debunked most of them and you have FAILED to respond to them. People would be more likely to take you seriously if you actually responded to there rebuttles or came up with some new arguments when you origenal arguments fail. Instead of repeating the sames ones over and over.

Edmund129
06-14-2013, 01:57 PM
Taxes came up again in a later post, but I feel this is actually a more appropriate quote to build on my thought. This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

If I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on why a stone will fall to the ground if dropped, I would expect nearly 100% would say gravity. At the same time I would expect very few including myself to be able to explain F=Gm1m2/d2. That is how a "scientific" debate should conclude. Now granted climate change is more complex in many ways than gravity.

But if I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on climate change it would be split closer to 50/50. Now why is that? I would submit it has less to do with the science and more to do with money.

As I mentioned to Edmund, and to you Mongo property insurers have walked and I would even say ran away from the risks associated with climate change. This is largely evidenced by the fact that flood insurance is now completely socialized. I would submit if this was a HOAX, the people who have only a financial interest would be running toward taking the risk as they would stand to clean up. In fact reinsurers have also run the other direction, again I ask why walk away from what could only be considered risk free profits? This leads me to one conclusion, the one group that stands to profit from this "hoax" is betting the other way. But is it man made?



Fox News has the largest Cable and Network Audience in the Country, while MSNBC has the lowest viewer ship in all of Cable. That proves that MSNBC's news quality is so poor you couldn't find 50 viewers; even the cartoon channel beats not only MSNBC but also CNN + MSNBC combined. Americans are sick and tired of the Anti-American, Anti-Capitalists, Anti-Industrialist propaganda the pukes out from MSNBC. That is why it comes in dead last in the ratings. Fox News even beats the worthless CBS networks as well. That is why about 10 years ago 100% of all the CBS affliates got bought up by Fox leaving CBS with ZERO affiliates. Which forced CBS to seek out more affiliates very quickly. Because CBS had the same loosing formula that MSNBC now has. Blame America First attitude.




The second tell, again from the market is what liability carriers are starting to do with directors coverage and/or coverage for companies that are at risk for being sued from issues relating to climate change. Again, they are either raising the premiums or discontinuing coverage. Now is either of these things perfect, certainly not, but I know where the financial interest lies, and what they are showing via their actions.


That is another pathetic lie propagated by the Communist propaganda machine known as the Apollo alliance. Every single Global Warming case brought to court can't even pass the laugh test and has been summarily thrown out of court on its worthless ass.




The second group of people with an interest are the companies that pollute, now why on earth would they want people to think they are benign? The equation is very simple, they don't care about anything but the bottom line. Scrubbers cost money, cap and trade costs money, and frankly it is an easy sell. Americans love cheap energy, and the less companies have to do, the more for them. So getting people upset about confiscation or $300 a barrel oil is an easy sell, just tell people it is a hoax and blame big government. Easy Peasy



Because of the mass fraud of "Man Made Global Warming"; 95% of all the oil industries of the world have been confiscated by world governments, literally stealing peoples jobs, investments, retirement funds, IRA's, Pension plans, etc., ... All in the name of saving us from the fictitious threats of "Man Made Global Warming".

Crude oil and other fossil fuels have done more to protect and save the environment by diverting humans from using plants and animals toward using harmless crude oil, natural gas and coal. Which doesn't require us to kill a single plant or animal to use.




To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.



Any one that thinks that a 0.6 degree rise in the last 154 years is a sign that global warming is going to destroy us all and thus justifies the mass destruction of Free Market Capitalism, 7 billion human lives, privately owned property, retirement pensions, IRA's; is one sick twisted scientifically illiterate retard.

Edmund129
06-14-2013, 02:11 PM
4374

As one can clearly see from this chart published by the IPCC; There is a very clear correlation between Earth's average temperature but clearly no correlation between human activity involving fossil fuels.

Notice how when humans started to really use fossile fuels after 1940, that the temperatures fell, not for one or two years, but for 4 decades before they started to rise again, in direct synchronized harmony with solar activities.

So why are we implementing Cap-N-Trade Laws, it is nothing more than Government mandated unemployment quota's to force a larger and growing welfare state that will force more voters to vote for more unemployment, more welfare, more Democrats, more Marxist, More Communists and More Socialists dictators hell bent on the mass destruction of free market capitalism?

...

Edmund129
06-14-2013, 03:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIk2NzlmmI

The Father of the Weather Channel John Coleman exposes the mass fraud behind Climate-gate and "Man Made Global Warming" and how government grants are being used to manipulate scientific reports to justify the instant take over of the world by Environmental Fascists and Marxists.

..

No America Warming so far this spring
Posted on June 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment

Coolest spring since 1996 — 40 ppm CO2 ago.

“The spring average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 50.5°F, 0.5°F below the 20th century average, making it the 38th coolest spring on record and the coolest spring since 1996.”

Read more at NOAA.

Edmund129
06-14-2013, 03:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-rMeQFofA

The Father of the Weather Channel John Coleman reports on how the Climate-gate Emails exposed confessions by Michael Mann and others on how they tried to hid the decline in global temperatures over the past decade.

....

Edmund129
06-14-2013, 03:31 PM
More bad news for warmism: ‘Hot spot’ predicted by climate models doesn’t exist, new paper reports
Posted on June 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 1 Comment

“The modeled temperature anomaly differences trend is significantly higher than that of the measured ones, confirming that the vertical amplification of warming is exaggerated in models.”

Read more at The Hockey Schtick.

Spector567
06-16-2013, 06:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIk2NzlmmI

The Father of the Weather Channel John Coleman exposes the mass fraud behind Climate-gate and "Man Made Global Warming" and how government grants are being used to manipulate scientific reports to justify the instant take over of the world by Environmental Fascists and Marxists.

..

No America Warming so far this spring
Posted on June 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment

Coolest spring since 1996 — 40 ppm CO2 ago.

“The spring average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 50.5°F, 0.5°F below the 20th century average, making it the 38th coolest spring on record and the coolest spring since 1996.”

Read more at NOAA.

So you say that this year was the coldest spring in 17 years. Hmmm

Well that just disproves everything.

Ah we'll best just ignore the fact that ladst year was the hottest spring since America kept records
2012: Hottest Spring on Record (http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/2012_Hottest_Spring_on_Record_157847245.html?devic e=phone)

Because the hottest spring in over 200 years is meaningless compared to a cool spring this year.

Mongo
06-20-2013, 10:50 AM
Due to family issues, the Stanley Cup and a very bad computer virus I've been away. No one scared me off and some interesting things have come up in the last 10 days or so.

First off there is this article: Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html)

Hans von Storch, 63, is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center Geesthacht for Materials and Coastal Research, near Hamburg. A mathematician and meteorologist, he ranks among the world's leading climate experts. At the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, he had an important role in analyzing the computer models used to simulate future climate changes.

Here are some of the jucier tidbits:
In regarrd to flooding (and the crazy twisted logic you use regarding flood insurance) he said; "But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing."

Or this question and answer:
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another.

Regarding that "all climate scientists agree:
"Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators."

And here is a comment where we can put to rest the argument over if the warming has basically stopped int eh last 15 years:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

Now here is the real meat concerning the models:
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: In under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

I can go on and on but you need to read the article. He admits the models are wrong and that they need to be adjusted. He even says this VERY telling statement in regard the the foundational belief that humans caused the warming: "Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments."

And to make matters even worse there was a huge article in the New Republic of all places. See here: [url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go[/url]

First off more proof and admittance that warming has basically stopped over the last 15 years. Can we put that argument to bed now?

Here is an interesting line fromt he article: "The phenomena that most clearly causes the Earth’s temperature to rise and fall are El Nino and La Nina." Yet we are supposed to believe that man made greenhouse gas is the major cause.

I also loved this line for being so ironic: "Conveniently, the “hiatus” is said to begin in 1998, when a historic El Nino produced the warmest year of the twentieth century. That starting point amounts to cherry-picking."

Same thing many of us have said about 1850 since that was the end of the Little Ice Age. Cherry-picking for everyone!

After trying to create a few "theories" the article hits on what I've been saying for a very long time: "But other scientists think that the heat is missing because it never made into Earth's climate system. The idea that heat might not have made it relates to the concept of “forcing.”" The VALUE used in the models for the forcings were always just a guess and never proved by any experiment. But let's not stop there.

"According to Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, lower levels of solar radiation account for 10 to 15 percent of the hiatus." Yet the very active sun leading up to 1998 could NEVER account for more then a couple of percentage increase in warmings. This sentence proves that solar radiation accounts for 10-15% which means that 95% figure the IPCC used for eyars is WRONG!

There are other great tidbits like how parasol-reflecting particles account for the hiatus yet the IPCC completly dismissed the removal of these particles from the US and Europe in the 70' and 80's due to tough polution laws.

Now for the BIG BIG paragraph in the article:
"Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty mean that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s “sensitivity” to additional greenhouse gas emissions. For Held, the last 10 to 15 years “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.” Held is not alone."

And to put to rest the silly and absurd notion that the science is settled or that there is a "consensus" we have:
"In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity."

I was going to get into a very long and detailed discussion on why the models were wrong. I don't have to now that in the last week these articles basically drive holes int he models that are so big you can fit a semi-truck in them. There were other articles but these came from "skeptic" sites so I decided to focus on the left leaning sites.

Bottom line is as this hiatus continues over the next five years no one will be left to support the models and their predictions for the next 100 years. Let's continue with the science and hold off on the crazy doomsday talk.

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 11:44 AM
Due to family issues, the Stanley Cup and a very bad computer virus I've been away. No one scared me off and some interesting things have come up in the last 10 days or so.

What would be interesting to me is for you to satisfactorily explain why Big Energy is saying one thing and Big Insurance is saying something completely different. They are not even close in their conclusions. Take the studies from Big Energy and compare them with the studies from Big Insurance. Surely they both have access to the same quality of research and same quality of people. I can find an article claiming the world is ruled by lizard people.

12.5-million Americans think lizard people rule the world, plus 19 other conspiracy theories
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/125-million-americans-think-lizard-people-rule-the-world-plus-19-other-conspiracy-theories/article10713868/

Mongo
06-20-2013, 02:01 PM
What would be interesting to me is for you to satisfactorily explain why Big Energy is saying one thing and Big Insurance is saying something completely different. They are not even close in their conclusions.

Really, honestly? Just because big energy and big insurance disagree that is supposed to mean something? As I said before companies work in their own self-interest. Of course you disputed this and I can't debate against illogical things.

Was it a surprise that dems and repubs disagree? Or big tobacco and and big medicine?

I noticed that you basically ignored where I found articles with "climate scientists" that call into dispute the models used.

I come from a background programming these types of models and have done work in the fields of hydro, structural and thermal. What you fail to realize is that the whole issue is based on these computer models.

Here is a simple example. In building a bridge, a computer model is created to test various forces to make sure it is structurally sound. One of these forces is plain old gravity. Now the value of this force is well known and validated by real life experiments.

But in the climate models they take a forceing like the greenhouse gas effect. No one denies that it isn't a real forcing. But the question is in the whole Earth's climate what is the proper sensitivity and feedback values. There are no known real world experiments to substantiate the numbers used in the climate models. Actually, they pick a range and run numerous simulations using all the values in a range and then apply statistical smoothing to arrive at their output.

But having looked at a few of the models over the years, myself and others have questioned why the positive forcings showed greater sensitivity then the negative forcings, and why were some negative forcing even left out. Was the politcal desires driving the results?

And this brings us back to your question on why two institutions looking at the same data arrive at different results. One reason (and a huge one) is because it's to their benefit to do so. Politicians have staked their future and reputations on solving a problem. But what if all of a sudden it was discovered there is no problem? Some companies have bet millions and spent millions to foster an image. But what if that image is no longer important to consumers? Scientists require grant money to be employed but what if their field is no longer important?

You have said you don't want to know the science. Fine, but then don't make up pseudo-sceince to replace it. You can not derive and answer as to if the values used in AGW models are accurate simply based on how the insurance industry perceives it to be. If that was the case then they proved God exists because so much is disallowed to "Acts of God".

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 04:29 PM
You have said you don't want to know the science. Fine, but then don't make up pseudo-sceince to replace it. You can not derive and answer as to if the values used in AGW models are accurate simply based on how the insurance industry perceives it to be. If that was the case then they proved God exists because so much is disallowed to "Acts of God".

First of all Mongo, for the bold and underlined if you are going to quote me then quote me IN FULL and IN CONTEXT. As for the second, I know you are the smartest guy in this or any other room, and I am but a hayseed but can you explain what Pseudoscience I made up? Seems to me I rather astutely contrasted how two different industries with access to the same caliber of researcher and research have interpreted the data.

You seem to be the one who is not up to the challenge of laying the data side by side and doing an analysis for a simpleton like me.




Really, honestly? Just because big energy and big insurance disagree that is supposed to mean something? As I said before companies work in their own self-interest. Of course you disputed this and I can't debate against illogical things.

Again Mongo, I said no such thing. So I am going to ask that you quote me in full and in context as even for someone as slow as I am, I find it extremely annoying that someone as brilliant and worldly as yourself can't even repeat what I said correctly. It is almost like you are having a conversation with someone else, making up things they said, and saying what you want to say anyway.

Two very large industries Big Energy and Big Insurance with access to top notch talent and top notch research have two very different conclusions. Do you Mongo have access to research they do not? Have you conducted studies yourself? Unless you can explain in a side by side comparison why there is this huge difference and the methods you used to derive your conclusions then frankly I have heard it all before.

Mongo
06-20-2013, 06:19 PM
First of all Mongo, for the bold and underlined if you are going to quote me then quote me IN FULL and IN CONTEXT. As for the second, I know you are the smartest guy in this or any other room, and I am but a hayseed but can you explain what Pseudoscience I made up?

Pseudo-science is where you draw a conclusion based on the notion that because two companies disagree it therefore proves something.



Seems to me I rather astutely contrasted how two different industries with access to the same caliber of researcher and research have interpreted the data.

You seem to be the one who is not up to the challenge of laying the data side by side and doing an analysis for a simpleton like me.

Again Mongo, I said no such thing. So I am going to ask that you quote me in full and in context as even for someone as slow as I am, I find it extremely annoying that someone as brilliant and worldly as yourself can't even repeat what I said correctly. It is almost like you are having a conversation with someone else, making up things they said, and saying what you want to say anyway.

Two very large industries Big Energy and Big Insurance with access to top notch talent and top notch research have two very different conclusions. Do you Mongo have access to research they do not? Have you conducted studies yourself? Unless you can explain in a side by side comparison why there is this huge difference and the methods you used to derive your conclusions then frankly I have heard it all before.

What part of "companies and individuals reach different conclusion based on their self-interest" do you not comprehend?

Or here is a simple example. Big Brokerage uses the stock market and data on it to push people to invest in the market. Using the exact same data Big Gold says that it is better to invest in Gold then stocks. Now do I really have to draw you a picture to explain why these two industries using th esame data can arrive at their conclusion that investing in their product is the right one?

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 06:33 PM
What part of "companies and individuals reach different conclusion based on their self-interest" do you not comprehend?

I can't speak for Ribshaw, but, I would guess it's the part where an anonymous internet poster dares to assume a company or an individual is incapable of coming to a conclusion based on anything but self interest.

Mongo
06-20-2013, 06:36 PM
Mongo, flood damage is the single largest financial risk of climate change to property insurers and they have said as much in their actions. The national flood insurance program is socialized, meaning property insurers largely refuse to underwrite the risks of flood damage. The taxpayers are now assuming almost all of the risk! Now adverse selection is one issue, but that is true with all insurance so they factor it in. Although, as an aside I do find your defense of Socialism sort of touching when juxtaposed with your previous comments about taxes being confiscated.
And where did I ever say that I personally agree with how flood insurance is handleled. Now how is calling the kettle black? I just pointed out the reason why and how flood insurance is handeled. I never once said that I support it.



A primer on how flood insurance works. People buy essentially two policies, a homeowners policy and a flood policy.
Gee thank you Mr. Wizard as I would never have known that.



A storm like Katrina hits and the insurance company says "flood damage", go see the taxpayer. They are at virtually no risk of loss to flooding, so you would think they would have nothing to say about climate change. One would guess that they have fired all their actuaries, climate people, turned on the news and realized it was all a big scam. Now they can rake in all the premiums they can from this HOAX. In fact Mongo, you alluded to them being complicit in the hoax in an effort to make more money by raising premiums. Unfortunately, in many cases they are saying the risks of climate change are real and too great for us to bear.
You are my source and proved my point. Since the insurance companies primary goal is to make profits then getting the government and taxpayers to pay for losses resolves this issue. So blame climate change and push any losses onto the taxpayers. But you probably still can't see this as their motive.



But please, don't believe me, I have sourced 10 articles on the subject. So it would also be nice when you are giving us all more information on thinking about climate change if you could include a few studies funded not just by Big Energy, but Big Insurance as well.

Allstate, for instance, has said that climate change has prompted it to cancel or not renew policies in many Gulf Coast states, with recent hurricanes wiping out all of the profits it had garnered in 75 years of selling homeowners insurance

Insurance in a Climate of Change: Availability & Affordability (http://insurance.lbl.gov/availability-affordability.html)

The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

StopGlobalWarming.org » For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/news/for-insurers-no-doubts-on-climate-change/)

Growing evidence suggests that climate change is worsening through droughts and other severe weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. These natural disasters can destroy homes, cars, businesses and crops, leading to more and larger insurance claims.
As a result, insurers in some parts of the country have stopped offering coverage, and those that do offer coverage often limit what they cover. It’s also meant higher insurance premiums that many people cannot afford, leaving them uninsured or underinsured.

Climate Change and your insurance (http://www.insurance.wa.gov/current-issues-reform/climate-change/)

Private insurers also point fingers at a changing climate, citing a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year that concluded global warming is to blame for a doubling over the past five years of natural disasters—and that the situation will worsen if nothing is done to stop it.

Insurers Claim Global Warming Makes Some Regions Too Hot to Handle: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insurers-claim-global-warming-makes-some-uninsurable)

Given that accurate and unbiased weather forecasts are key to property insurers’ business, the fact that the industry broadly accepts that climate change is real and likely to be a problem should be taken seriously by anyone who believes in the power of markets to aggregate information.

Insurers and Climate Change: The Truth is More Complicated than the Sound Bytes (http://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/right-street/2013/05/24/293288.htm)

Insurance companies are actively looking for more detailed weather and climate data to help make decisions, said Kyle Beatty, senior vice president for business solutions at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER). Property and casualty insurance companies have asked AER and 11 other companies to conduct research on tornado and hail frequency in Canada and the United States, Beatty said.

Billion-Dollar Decisions Held up by Poor Use of Climate Data, Insurers Say - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/billion-dollar-decisions-held-up-by-poor-use-of-climate-data-insurers-say.html)

There are few industries more exposed to financial risk from climate change than insurance. Every time the ocean creeps into neighborhoods or hurricanes shatter windows or drought kills a planting, it costs insurers money. Unsurprisingly, the industry at large is trying to figure out how to limit its losses from extreme weather events. Individual insurers are a little slower to act.

Insurers Aren't So Worried About Climate Change That They're Preparing for It - Philip Bump - The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/climate-change-insurance/65259/)

But what may be surprising to E2 members is that more and more, it's the federal government – and not the insurance industry – that pays for cleanup efforts in the aftermath of the kinds of extreme weather events associated with climate change.

Insurance companies seeing increasing risk from climate change — Climate Solutions (http://climatesolutions.org/press-room/press-clips/insurance-companies-seeing-increasing-risk-from-climate-change)

If climate change raises the probability of horrible outcomes where the insurance companies must payout a fortune, then doesn’t this industry have an incentive to root for carbon mitigation?

The Economics of Insurance in the Face of Climate Change | Legal Planet: Environmental Law and Policy (http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/the-economics-of-insurance-in-the-face-of-climate-change/)

The biggest weather concern is about hurricanes. There also was some concern about wildfires and convective storms that produce tornadoes, thunderstorms and other undesirable weather events.

Is the Insurance Industry Clueless about the Risks Posed by Climate Change? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2013/03/15/does-the-insurance-industry-understand-the-risks-posed-by-climate-change/)

I finally read them and LMFAO over and over again. You act like insurance companies are not looking out for their own selfinterest but big energy is. If so you were dupped. If Allstate can exclude the coastal areas and not cover big losses lfriom hurricanes then why wouldn't they? Either get the taxpayer to pay for it or not even cover it. In a previous post I linked to a climate scientist that even said most of the "disater" hyperbole is just that.

Mongo
06-20-2013, 06:42 PM
I can't speak for Ribshaw, but, I would guess it's the part where an anonymous internet poster dares to assume a company or an individual is incapable of coming to a conclusion based on anything but self interest.

Well I'm not sure there is a cure for naivety so I doubt I can help you there. But you keep believing that self-interst is never involved in any company or individuals conclusion. BTW I bet politicians love you.

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 06:53 PM
Pseudo-science is where you draw a conclusion based on the notion that because two companies disagree it therefore proves something.

Again please quote me IN FULL AND IN CONTEXT. We are not talking about 2 companies we are talking about two industries. And again two industries with access to the same data, same talent and two very different conclusion. It is not a "NOTION", it is a "FACT" For which you with and your vast knowledge 1. Did not even know about until I brought it up. 2. Do not have an answer for other than babbling about Pseudosceince."


What part of "companies and individuals reach different conclusion based on their self-interest" do you not comprehend?

I never said anything close to this, again who are you talking to? In fact it validates my point why the comparison of research methodologies between two big industries is such a good one.

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 06:55 PM
Well I'm not sure there is a cure for naivety so I doubt I can help you there. But you keep believing that self-interst is never involved in any company or individuals conclusion. BTW I bet politicians love you.

Again, never said anything close to that. Again the need for you to quote in full and in context. And actually Mongo, you made my very point, and much easier than I would have thought.

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 07:26 PM
And where did I ever say that I personally agree with how flood insurance is handleled. Now how is calling the kettle black? I just pointed out the reason why and how flood insurance is handeled. I never once said that I support it.

Has nothing to do with the CONTEXT of my statement. Hence the need to for you to do a better job of quoting.



Gee thank you Mr. Wizard as I would never have known that.

4516

We can agree on that.



You are my source and proved my point. Since the insurance companies primary goal is to make profits then getting the government and taxpayers to pay for losses resolves this issue. So blame climate change and push any losses onto the taxpayers. But you probably still can't see this as their motive.

Are you 12? Would you please go back and QUOTE ME IN FULL AND IN CONTEXT. In fact AGAIN you proved one of the very first points I made. As for the rest, please go back an REREAD what I said and quote it IN FULL and IN CONTEXT. You are playing small ball in a big ball discussion. It was explained to you.



I finally read them and LMFAO over and over again. You act like insurance companies are not looking out for their own selfinterest but big energy is. If so you were dupped. If Allstate can exclude the coastal areas and not cover big losses lfriom hurricanes then why wouldn't they? Either get the taxpayer to pay for it or not even cover it. In a previous post I linked to a climate scientist that even said most of the "disater" hyperbole is just that.

So let's get this straight all of the research you have that was funded by the Koch's, is touted on the radio, internet, and Fox is the unbiased gospel. There is no "self interest" in a campaign of misinformation from Big Energy? That is what you are selling?

Again, rather than all your chest thumping about what a genius Mongo is, put up the research, show us who funded it, and show it from Big Insurance and Big Energy. Show us why Insurance companies are lying and Energy companies are telling the truth.

littleroundman
06-20-2013, 07:40 PM
But you keep believing that self-interst is never involved in any company or individuals conclusion.

Gee, did I say "never" ??

Here's a tip for ya, Mongo,

"never" is NOT the same as "always"

Self interest CAN be involved but is not ALWAYS involved

Objectivity is possible, you know.

There are people who believe "A" is the only possible answer

There are people who believe "B" is the only possible answer.

There are people who admit they simply cannot form a definite conclusion based on the evidence or lack of available at the current time.

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 08:39 PM
In fact, I find your misquoting of me so troubling I went back and quoted myself for you.

Now, let's examine 2 quotes you made AFTER I made my statements.

4520
4521

Now, let's see what I actually said.

4524

ribshaw
06-20-2013, 08:59 PM
Let's do one more of these so we can all be clear on what I said.

From above:

4525

And from prior to that quote, page 5 I believe. Let's see EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

4526


Doesn't seem you even came within a stones throw of quoting me correctly, and certainly missed the bigger picture in its entirety.

Edmund129
06-20-2013, 09:52 PM
The real harm in the Man Made Global Warming Propaganda Machine has produced these horrific outcomes:

1) President Obama and The EPA is now requiring each American Coal Fired power plant to spend at least $500 million to sequester CO2. This in turn has bankrupt and shut down over 300 coal fired power plants in America and contributed to the destruction of over 90 million American Jobs.

2) President Obama and The EPA is and has shut down all American Oil riggs in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska putting 9.8 million Americans out of work.

3) President Obama and the EPA is now forcing the use of Ethanol that is 9 times more expensive than oil based gasoline, driving the cost of food through the roof around the world causing 100's of millions of people around the world to starve to death every year now. In addition to causing gasoline prices to skyrocket and the cost of everything else to skyrocket.

And all of this to save us from the fictional thread of "Man Made Global Warming". This is a perfect example of how lies can kill people by the millions.

Man Made Global Warming is nothing more than an all out war against free market capitalism by Marxist driven Communists around the world at the cost of millions of lives through mass starvation and mass control over the masses through the propaganda of Man Made Global Warming.

The ramifications of not using fossil fuels is never allowed to be debated at the cost of everyone's lives.

ProfHenryHiggins
06-20-2013, 09:53 PM
The real harm in the Man Made Global Warming Propaganda Machine has produced these horrific outcomes:

1) President Obama and The EPA is now requiring each American Coal Fired power plant to spend at least $500 million to sequester CO2. This in turn has bankrupt and shut down over 300 coal fired power plants in America and contributed to the destruction of over 90 million American Jobs.

2) President Obama and The EPA is and has shut down all American Oil riggs in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska putting 9.8 million Americans out of work.

3) President Obama and the EPA is now forcing the use of Ethanol that is 9 times more expensive than oil based gasoline, driving the cost of food through the roof around the world causing 100's of millions of people around the world to starve to death every year now.

And all of this to save us from the fictional thread of "Man Made Global Warming". This is a perfect example of how lies can kill people by the millions.



Please show your math regarding the highlighted section.

Edmund129
06-21-2013, 01:53 PM
Please show your math regarding the highlighted section.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Power-Plant-Closures-6.7.12.jpg

Institute for Energy Research | Powerplants to be closed as a result of EPA’s regulations (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/epa-powerplant-closures/)

U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants: Update or Close?: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-coal-fired-power-plants-update-close)

Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012 (http://www.naturalnews.com/036672_coal-fired_power_plants_shut_down_EPA.html)

Report: EPA rules to shut down more than 280 coal-fired units | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/report-epa-rules-to-shut-down-more-than-280-coal-fired-units/)

Report: EPA rules to shut down more than 280 coal-fired units

11:15 AM 05/03/2013


Michael Bastasch
See All Articles
Email Michael Bastasch
Subscribe to RSS


New analysis shows that the coal industry is in for some tough years ahead, as more than 280 coal-fired generating units are slated to be shut down in part due to stricter Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a partnership of industry groups, reports that the number of coal plants slated for shutdown is fives times greater than the EPA predicted would be forced to shut down due to its regulations.

Coal-fired electric generating plants will be shut down across 32 states, with the hardest hit states being Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, according to the coalition.



Ads by Google

Do You Hate Republicans?Find out what the republicans don't want you to know. Read this now. OnePoliticalPlaza.com
Golf Swing Tips?Hit Golf Ball Straight Every Time. Free Golf Swing Video Lessons Here! MoeNormanGolf.com


“Regrettably, the number of coal units being forced to close continues to grow,” said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of ACCCE, in a statement. “Yet, EPA continues to downplay the damage its regulations are causing to the U.S. economy and to the many states that depend on coal for jobs and affordable electricity.”

The list of coal plants slated for shutdown has been expanding rapidly since last summer when the Energy Information Administration estimated that 175 coal-fired generators — 8.5 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired capacity — would be retired in the coming years due to declining demand for electricity and stricter environmental regulations.

In September, ACCCE estimated that more than 200 coal-fired generating units — more than 31,000 megawatts of power — would be shut down across 25 states due to EPA regulations and other factors inducing cheap natural gas.

The shale boom has caused cheap natural gas to replace some coal consumption and use for power generation, but new environmental regulations have continually made it less economical to build coal plants.

The EPA’s now-delayed new emissions limits rule for power plants essentially bans the construction of new coal-fired power plants. The rule would limit newly built power plant carbon dioxide emissions to 1,000 pounds-per-megawatt-hour, which only combined-cycle power plants that are powered by natural gas are able to comply with.



Ads by Google



Coal plants can comply by with the new emissions rule by using carbon capture and sequestration technology that is not commercially viable.

Environmentalists have also taken aim at coal plants around the country. The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign has a goal of retiring one-third of the more than 500 U.S. coal plants by 2020 and replacing the majority of them with green energy power from wind, solar, and geothermal.

According to the group, burning coal is a major contributor to global warming and leads to as many as 13,000 premature deaths annually and adds more than $100 billion in annual health costs.

“The coal industry is cracking faster than the ice sheets, but it might not be fast enough,” said Sierra Club attorney Bruce Nilles in an interview.

The Sierra Club reported last month that 142 coal plants have been slated for retirement since 2010 — in part due to litigation by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


Read more: Report: EPA rules to shut down more than 280 coal-fired units | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/report-epa-rules-to-shut-down-more-than-280-coal-fired-units/#ixzz2WsVsfaDI)

THESE COAL FIRED POWER PLANT CLOSINGS HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED!!!

Edmund129
06-21-2013, 02:12 PM
Please show your math regarding the highlighted section.

More proof that there are over 90 million American jobs destroyed by Man Made global Warming:

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/obamanomics-90-million-americans-out-of-work/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/90-million-americans-are-no-longer-looking-for-work/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/05/we_are_living_in_a_dying_country

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le)

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le)

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/05/2013 08:58 -0400

BLSBureau of Labor StatisticsUnemployment


Things just keep getting worse for the American worker, and by implication US economy, where as we have shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work .The best manifestation of this: the number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012, when the BLS did its census recast of the labor numbers. And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to 63.3% - the lowest since 1979! But at least it helped with the now painfully grotesque propaganda that the US unemployment rate is "improving."


People not in labor force:

45474548

Labor participation rate:



Average:
4.816325.
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (49 votes)

Remember that when receiving unemployment benefits you must find at least 5 jobs per week, and you can't repeat the same job again. once one has exhausted the list, they are no longer able to find another job application they are forced to no longer being able to find work. This does not mean they stopped looking for jobs, it just means all available jobs are not hiring, and there are no new jobs to be had. Thus forcing ones job search to be force-ably ended.

Spector567
06-21-2013, 03:13 PM
More proof that there are over 90 million American jobs destroyed by Man Made global Warming:

Obamanomics: 90 Million Americans Out of Work | The Foxhole (http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/obamanomics-90-million-americans-out-of-work/)

90 Million Americans Are No Longer Looking for Work | The Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/90-million-americans-are-no-longer-looking-for-work/)

We Are Living in a Dying Country - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/05/we_are_living_in_a_dying_country)

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le)

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le)

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/05/2013 08:58 -0400

BLSBureau of Labor StatisticsUnemployment


Things just keep getting worse for the American worker, and by implication US economy, where as we have shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work .The best manifestation of this: the number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012, when the BLS did its census recast of the labor numbers. And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to 63.3% - the lowest since 1979! But at least it helped with the now painfully grotesque propaganda that the US unemployment rate is "improving."


People not in labor force:

45474548

Labor participation rate:



Average:
4.816325.
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (49 votes)

Remember that when receiving unemployment benefits you must find at least 5 jobs per week, and you can't repeat the same job again. once one has exhausted the list, they are no longer able to find another job application they are forced to no longer being able to find work. This does not mean they stopped looking for jobs, it just means all available jobs are not hiring, and there are no new jobs to be had. Thus forcing ones job search to be force-ably ended.
So in short the recession is responsible for the job losses not global warming.

And coal plants are shutting down due to a decrease in electricity demand, the low cost of natural gas and some are out date compared to EPA regulations.

Thankyou showing your math.

Blue Wolf
06-22-2013, 01:12 PM
More proof that there are over 90 million American jobs destroyed by Man Made global Warming:

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels

Edmund, the labor force participation rate does not tell us what the unemployment rate is.

Those 90 million people that you mentioned include about 58 million people who are living on Social Security.

In other words, most of those 90 million people are not working because they're either retired or they don't need to work.

There are many reasons why millions of people are not working. In any case, it has nothing to do with global warming.

baylee
06-22-2013, 10:51 PM
I grew up in coal producing states, My father worked and retired in a coal fired power plant. His plant had the very latest scrubbers in place and still they had protesters. It is closed down now and it put hundreds of people out of work from my home town. I volunteered one of my computers to crunch numbers for the scientific research for climate control at USC, Berkey and they acknowledge problems with data collection data points. (google Bonic)

Spector567
06-24-2013, 08:06 PM
I grew up in coal producing states, My father worked and retired in a coal fired power plant. His plant had the very latest scrubbers in place and still they had protesters. It is closed down now and it put hundreds of people out of work from my home town. I volunteered one of my computers to crunch numbers for the scientific research for climate control at USC, Berkey and they acknowledge problems with data collection data points. (google Bonic)
I"m sure there are going to be a lot more coal plants shutting down. However, in truth it has very very little to do with global warming or Carbon in General.

Natural Gas prices have deceased and coal prices have increased. Thus it makes more economic sense to use Natural gas.

Solar and wind power are also quickly catching up to both.

Long story short is that capitalism works. It can be pushed and development can be focused but it's capitalism that's doing it.

baylee
06-25-2013, 07:07 PM
I"m sure there are going to be a lot more coal plants shutting down. However, in truth it has very very little to do with global warming or Carbon in General.

Natural Gas prices have deceased and coal prices have increased. Thus it makes more economic sense to use Natural gas.

Solar and wind power are also quickly catching up to both.

Long story short is that capitalism works. It can be pushed and development can be focused but it's capitalism that's doing it.

Capitalism is the best system in the world bar none, but it can be manipulated and with legislative and or regulations.

Spector567
06-26-2013, 06:51 AM
Capitalism is the best system in the world bar none, but it can be manipulated and with legislative and or regulations.
That's the governments job. Capitalism only works for itself. It cares nothing for the country, the individual or the family.

baylee
06-26-2013, 07:46 PM
That's the governments job. Capitalism only works for itself. It cares nothing for the country, the individual or the family.

You're right and that just why I doubled my donation to Senator Mitch McConnell. Capitalism at it's finest.

Edmund129
06-30-2013, 01:30 PM
I grew up in coal producing states, My father worked and retired in a coal fired power plant. His plant had the very latest scrubbers in place and still they had protesters. It is closed down now and it put hundreds of people out of work from my home town. I volunteered one of my computers to crunch numbers for the scientific research for climate control at USC, Berkey and they acknowledge problems with data collection data points. (google Bonic)

There are now over 300 coal fired power plants shut down by the EPA's renegade CAP-N-TRADE policies that were never approved by the Congress or the Senate, they were simply forced down our throats by president Obama and his lap dogs in the EPA. Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.

Edmund129
06-30-2013, 01:33 PM
So you say that this year was the coldest spring in 17 years. Hmmm

Well that just disproves everything.

Ah we'll best just ignore the fact that ladst year was the hottest spring since America kept records
2012: Hottest Spring on Record (http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/2012_Hottest_Spring_on_Record_157847245.html?devic e=phone)

Because the hottest spring in over 200 years is meaningless compared to a cool spring this year.

John Coleman already knows how the CRU and NOAA work. Michael Mann and his followers have shut down 7,000 weather stations in the coldest climates, while leaving their numbers in the baseline; in order to create and artificial rise in temperatures. But if you remove those 7000 weather stations from the baseline too, temperatures have actually fallen since 1998, not risen. John Coleman and others have reported on this many many times. The fraud at the CUR, NOAA and other Government run institutions are complete institutions of mass propaganda and no real science going on there.

Spector567
06-30-2013, 04:31 PM
There are now over 300 coal fired power plants shut down by the EPA's renegade CAP-N-TRADE policies that were never approved by the Congress or the Senate, they were simply forced down our throats by president Obama and his lap dogs in the EPA. Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.
ED I honestly have to ask. Do you read peoples response to you?

Because this has all already been explained. Including how you are using an unemployment number that includes school aged children and retirees.

While at the same time forgetting that there was a global recession.

As to the power plants closing your OWN ARTICLE clearly says how a drop in power demand, the increase cost of coal and the decrease cost of natural gas has contributed to these plants shutting down.

Natural Gas is just cheaper than coal. It's capitalism.

Spector567
06-30-2013, 04:43 PM
John Coleman already knows how the CRU and NOAA work. Michael Mann and his followers have shut down 7,000 weather stations in the coldest climates, while leaving their numbers in the baseline; in order to create and artificial rise in temperatures. But if you remove those 7000 weather stations from the baseline too, temperatures have actually fallen since 1998, not risen. John Coleman and others have reported on this many many times. The fraud at the CUR, NOAA and other Government run institutions are complete institutions of mass propaganda and no real science going on there.
ED. John Coleman is a retired TV Weatherman. Did coleman fail to notice that many of those 7,000 were replaced or the fact that it is a global average by AREA. Not a flat average.

Plus of course the weater has been lower since 1998. We've been over this again and again. 1998 was the #1 hottest year in recorded temperature.

So it stand to reason that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th hottest years that occured in the last decade would be cooler than number one. Most people know that 2 comes after 1.


Also the BEST temperature study a privately funded and run study done funded by the Kosh brothers confirmed the results.

So any suggestion that Several dozen governments from across the globe are all in a conspiracy to cook the books is just STUPID.



I'd also like to point out that once again you have failed to respond to my rebuttal in post #55. Just because you disappear for a week doesn't mean that you cann restart the conversation without responding to people.

Blue Wolf
07-01-2013, 10:08 PM
Thanks to these CAP-N-TRADE laws based on the junk science of man made global warming there are now 90 million Americans out of work.

Like I mentioned before, most of those people choose not to work or don't need to work. It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Or global warming.

From the U.S. Department of Labor: (http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf)

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

Mongo
07-04-2013, 11:48 AM
I just have to repeat this who post because it seems the AGW believers can't argure against it so they instead ignore it or try to argue other non-important points.


Due to family issues, the Stanley Cup and a very bad computer virus I've been away. No one scared me off and some interesting things have come up in the last 10 days or so.

First off there is this article: Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html)

Hans von Storch, 63, is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center Geesthacht for Materials and Coastal Research, near Hamburg. A mathematician and meteorologist, he ranks among the world's leading climate experts. At the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, he had an important role in analyzing the computer models used to simulate future climate changes.

Here are some of the jucier tidbits:
In regarrd to flooding (and the crazy twisted logic you use regarding flood insurance) he said; "But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing."

Or this question and answer:
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another.

Regarding that "all climate scientists agree:
"Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators."

And here is a comment where we can put to rest the argument over if the warming has basically stopped int eh last 15 years:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

Now here is the real meat concerning the models:
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: In under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

I can go on and on but you need to read the article. He admits the models are wrong and that they need to be adjusted. He even says this VERY telling statement in regard the the foundational belief that humans caused the warming: "Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments."

And to make matters even worse there was a huge article in the New Republic of all places. See here: [url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go[/url]

First off more proof and admittance that warming has basically stopped over the last 15 years. Can we put that argument to bed now?

Here is an interesting line fromt he article: "The phenomena that most clearly causes the Earth’s temperature to rise and fall are El Nino and La Nina." Yet we are supposed to believe that man made greenhouse gas is the major cause.

I also loved this line for being so ironic: "Conveniently, the “hiatus” is said to begin in 1998, when a historic El Nino produced the warmest year of the twentieth century. That starting point amounts to cherry-picking."

Same thing many of us have said about 1850 since that was the end of the Little Ice Age. Cherry-picking for everyone!

After trying to create a few "theories" the article hits on what I've been saying for a very long time: "But other scientists think that the heat is missing because it never made into Earth's climate system. The idea that heat might not have made it relates to the concept of “forcing.”" The VALUE used in the models for the forcings were always just a guess and never proved by any experiment. But let's not stop there.

"According to Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, lower levels of solar radiation account for 10 to 15 percent of the hiatus." Yet the very active sun leading up to 1998 could NEVER account for more then a couple of percentage increase in warmings. This sentence proves that solar radiation accounts for 10-15% which means that 95% figure the IPCC used for eyars is WRONG!

There are other great tidbits like how parasol-reflecting particles account for the hiatus yet the IPCC completly dismissed the removal of these particles from the US and Europe in the 70' and 80's due to tough polution laws.

Now for the BIG BIG paragraph in the article:
"Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty mean that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s “sensitivity” to additional greenhouse gas emissions. For Held, the last 10 to 15 years “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.” Held is not alone."

And to put to rest the silly and absurd notion that the science is settled or that there is a "consensus" we have:
"In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity."

I was going to get into a very long and detailed discussion on why the models were wrong. I don't have to now that in the last week these articles basically drive holes int he models that are so big you can fit a semi-truck in them. There were other articles but these came from "skeptic" sites so I decided to focus on the left leaning sites.

Bottom line is as this hiatus continues over the next five years no one will be left to support the models and their predictions for the next 100 years. Let's continue with the science and hold off on the crazy doomsday talk.

Spector567
07-05-2013, 12:00 PM
I just have to repeat this who post because it seems the AGW believers can't argure against it so they instead ignore it or try to argue other non-important points.

Kinda like how you didn't argue the insurence comment but kept diverting around it and disappearing twice now in the middle of the conversation.

Truthfully. I didn't respond to your article because I wanted to hold you to one point and one discussion. Simply abandoning the discussion for a week is not a reason to restart the discussion from scratch and ignore everyone who took the time and energy to respond to you.


As to your article. The doctor only appears to be annoyed at the extreme alarmists and has taken the view that we are too late unable to stop global warming. He has not said that the negative effects are not true, he has not said it's a good thing, he has not said the science is wrong, he has not even said the models are not accurate enough to predict the trend, he has not even said that the change will be easy. Just that it's too late.

In short he hasn't disputed the known results. He just takes a more moderate view and disagrees with the alarmists and enviro nuts who jump at each rain storm and say it's AWG. (No one here listens to the enviro nuts anyway)

It also should be noted that this is a German scientists, talking to a german newspaper about germany. His answers are going to focused on how AWG affects germany. For instence Germany is not known for hurricanes or other more extreme weather events.

He was also no doubt specifically choosen for this interview because his opinions are at the further end of the spectrum from the main scientific body. However, even with that his opinions do not vary anywhere near the opinions of most of the Anti-AWG or denier crowd.



I'd also like to note that you did not quote the entire article just some "tidbits" The other tidbits. Articls should be read in there entirty. One question leads up to another and he often provided further detail in the next question.

Some other tidbits:


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.


SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.


SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.


SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.

Spector567
07-05-2013, 12:55 PM
Damn there is a short period to edit here. =) I double copied a section.:scared_1:

Edmund129
07-10-2013, 01:59 PM
This is an explanation of the mass fraud and hoax behind "Man Made Global Warming" for scientific dummy's like Spector567.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Clearly proves the point of how fraudulent man made global warming really is.

Spector567
07-11-2013, 06:50 AM
This is an explanation of the mass fraud and hoax behind "Man Made Global Warming" for scientific dummy's like Spector567.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Clearly proves the point of how fraudulent man made global warming really is.
Ed. If i'm a dummy what are you? I didn't think talc and asbestos were the same thing and I did answer your questions from before. Sadly you never responded to them and I can only assume that you don't have an answer.

If you really want to prove that you know what you are talking about. Please try responding to people. Any idoit can post a youtube video or cut and paste challanges. Any idiot can disappear for a week and than return with new challanges while ignoring the old ones.

Edmund129
07-13-2013, 05:41 PM
Ed. If i'm a dummy what are you? I didn't think talc and asbestos were the same thing and I did answer your questions from before. Sadly you never responded to them and I can only assume that you don't have an answer.

If you really want to prove that you know what you are talking about. Please try responding to people. Any idoit can post a youtube video or cut and paste challanges. Any idiot can disappear for a week and than return with new challanges while ignoring the old ones.

I don't sit in my parent's basement like you do and complain about a world you never lived or worked in.

I actually work for a living and provide for my family. Asbestos is simply rocks that grind up into fiber instead of smaller rocks, that is the basic technical definition of what asbestos is. And because it is a fiber it can be woven into clothing, solid surfaces, etc., ... making anything fire proof if applied. Talc does the same thing, when it is ground up it to turns into fiber that is also fire proof. But no one is pulling talcinpowdeer off the shelves.

Edmund129
07-13-2013, 05:43 PM
As one can see the Temperature levels have gone down over the past 10,000 years as this Temperature plot shows. So todays Temperature levels are not out of the ordinary. Matter of fact we are currently amongst the coolest years of the past 10,000 years. no where near record high temperatures.

This data comes from the Greenland ice core temperatures as previously discussed in earlier postings by the documentary "Doomsday called off".

5130

Spector567
07-15-2013, 11:23 AM
I don't sit in my parent's basement like you do and complain about a world you never lived or worked in.

I actually work for a living and provide for my family.

And your mother wears army boots.

I hope you know Ed that these over the top and ridiculous insults do not bolster your case. They actually detract from it. Afterall if I’m such a lowly form of human being than why are not able to respond to my and others peoples responses to your questions?

Are you being outsmarted by people you consider the lowest form of life? Making you even dumber than you consider them to be.

Or

Are you just so wrong that any idiot can see, But you.


If you really want to prove to me wrong than the best way is to respond to the rebuttals and myself and others have made and by not repeating long debunked arguments. Than we will be able to see that you are not an idiot but possibly just mislead as to the value of the information or perhaps we are the ones who are mistaken and haven’t considered something.

Because Ed I wouldn’t consider you an idiot or dishonest for trusting the wrong person for your information. I would consider you a dishonest idiot if you continue to repeat that incorrect information after being shown just how wrong it was.



Asbestos is simply rocks that grind up into fiber instead of smaller rocks, that is the basic technical definition of what asbestos is. And because it is a fiber it can be woven into clothing, solid surfaces, etc., ... making anything fire proof if applied. Talc does the same thing, when it is ground up it to turns into fiber that is also fire proof. But no one is pulling talcinpowdeer off the shelves.[/B]

Your right that Asbestos is just ground up form of a very special fibourous rock.
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4

However, Talc...... is not the same thing. It is also created from a fibourous rock. However, Talc instead of being ground up is converted into an entirly different substance through a chemicle reaction.

serpentine + carbon dioxide → talc + magnesite + water
2 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 → Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 + 3 MgCO3 + 3 H2O

This is why no-one is pulling talc off the shelves because Asbestos and talc are 2 different substances and have different reactions.

Also FYI. The insulating rings on the challanger mission did have Asbestos in them. In short the asbestose rings FAILED.
7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster - Technology & science - Space | NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11031097/page/2/)


As one can see the Temperature levels have gone down over the past 10,000 years as this Temperature plot shows. So todays Temperature levels are not out of the ordinary. Matter of fact we are currently amongst the coolest years of the past 10,000 years. no where near record high temperatures.

This data comes from the Greenland ice core temperatures as previously discussed in earlier postings by the documentary "Doomsday called off".

5130

This one is more interesting and I certainly don't blame you for believing this one ED.

Long story short Christopher moncton is incapible of reading a scientific report. He plotted the graph incorrectly and correlated the wrong information together.

"present" in the meaning of the report he cited was 1950 not 2000 (the origenal graph didn't have dated years) and the data set didn't start till 1855 well before most of the current warming.
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer (http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm)

Here is the corrected graph using the actual information and a comprision to current temperatures.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

It should also be noted that this is also the temperature record from a single cherry picked location on earth. NOT the global average. Other parts of the globe experienced much different temperatures.

Edmund129
07-16-2013, 12:06 PM
[/B]

And your mother wears army boots.

I hope you know Ed that these over the top and ridiculous insults do not bolster your case. They actually detract from it. Afterall if I’m such a lowly form of human being than why are not able to respond to my and others peoples responses to your questions?

Are you being outsmarted by people you consider the lowest form of life? Making you even dumber than you consider them to be.

Or

Are you just so wrong that any idiot can see, But you.


If you really want to prove to me wrong than the best way is to respond to the rebuttals and myself and others have made and by not repeating long debunked arguments. Than we will be able to see that you are not an idiot but possibly just mislead as to the value of the information or perhaps we are the ones who are mistaken and haven’t considered something.

Because Ed I wouldn’t consider you an idiot or dishonest for trusting the wrong person for your information. I would consider you a dishonest idiot if you continue to repeat that incorrect information after being shown just how wrong it was.




Your right that Asbestos is just ground up form of a very special fibourous rock.
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 → Mg3Si2O5(OH)4

However, Talc...... is not the same thing. It is also created from a fibourous rock. However, Talc instead of being ground up is converted into an entirly different substance through a chemicle reaction.

serpentine + carbon dioxide → talc + magnesite + water
2 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 → Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 + 3 MgCO3 + 3 H2O

This is why no-one is pulling talc off the shelves because Asbestos and talc are 2 different substances and have different reactions.

Also FYI. The insulating rings on the challanger mission did have Asbestos in them. In short the asbestose rings FAILED.
7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster - Technology & science - Space | NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11031097/page/2/)



This one is more interesting and I certainly don't blame you for believing this one ED.

Long story short Christopher moncton is incapible of reading a scientific report. He plotted the graph incorrectly and correlated the wrong information together.

"present" in the meaning of the report he cited was 1950 not 2000 (the origenal graph didn't have dated years) and the data set didn't start till 1855 well before most of the current warming.
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer (http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm)

Here is the corrected graph using the actual information and a comprision to current temperatures.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

It should also be noted that this is also the temperature record from a single cherry picked location on earth. NOT the global average. Other parts of the globe experienced much different temperatures.

Again more fraudulent cooked up numbers. The real facts based on the Actual Scientific research shows that the Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, not 6 to 8 degrees cooler. as this ICE core from Greenland shows. But the Antartic ice core data shows the exact same numbers as well. So this isn't just an even that occurred in the northern hemisphere:

5161


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw

It would take 2000 to 3000 years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt.

Spector567
07-16-2013, 04:14 PM
Again more fraudulent cooked up numbers. The real facts based on the Actual Scientific research shows that the Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today, not 6 to 8 degrees cooler. as this ICE core from Greenland shows. But the Antartic ice core data shows the exact same numbers as well. So this isn't just an even that occurred in the northern hemisphere:

5161


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw

It would take 2000 to 3000 years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt.

Ed...... We are using the same raw source for the information. So if my numbers are cooked than so are yours. (did you notice how the graphs were the same? The only difference is that "lord" mockton and Eastbrook tried to re-use the data for something else and got some conversions and dates wrong. Something that is clearly explained in my text and the linked article.

Also as to everthing being 6-8 degrees warmer..... This is a single source from greenland. This is not a global average. Even your origenal errored graph only had it being 3 degrees and I very much doubt that you'll be able to find another source that would agree with you.

and please stop posting youtube videos. All it showes that you don't understand your own point well enough to explain it yourself.

Edmund129
07-16-2013, 05:05 PM
One if the dishonest things in Spector's graph is he mixes and matched different data sets between Greenland and Maui, Hawaii. Clearly Maui is always warmer than Greenland on average do to the latitude.

In Spector's graph he shows Greenland ice core data then compares it to Maui, Hawaii data to create an artificial rise in Temperatures. The same exact dishonest trick that Global Warming propagandist use to create an artificial rise in CO2 levels in the Antarctic Ice Core Data.

Based on Ice Core data in Greenland and the Antarctic the average temperature during the 7000 year long Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today. Which brought about the greatest period of human advancements in agriculture, metallurgy, civilization and recording of history. Because humans had the pleasant environment of warm weather and prosperous crop yields that permitted them to better their lives and eventually ours as well.

5165

As one can clearly see from the graph above, that our last 1000 years was the coldest in the previous 10,000 years. Our time is the right most temperature point. Notice how the Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today. But the previous Holocene Maximum was much warmer by many degrees (6 to 8 degrees on average based on both the Greenland, Antarctic and other proxy measured data).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

More comparisons to the Greenland ice Sheet clearly shows the extremely long and high temperature rise of the Holocene maximum (10,000 to 3,000 years ago).

Meteorological observations started around 1875 which was about the coldest point in the past 10,000 years.

Professor Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey stick graph tries to erase and discredit the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm period based on thousands over other observations; with the junk science invented by Michael Mann.

Spector567
07-17-2013, 08:03 AM
One if the dishonest things in Spector's graph is he mixes and matched different data sets between Greenland and Maui, Hawaii. Clearly Maui is always warmer than Greenland on average do to the latitude.

In Spector's graph he shows Greenland ice core data then compares it to Maui, Hawaii data to create an artificial rise in Temperatures. The same exact dishonest trick that Global Warming propagandist use to create an artificial rise in CO2 levels in the Antarctic Ice Core Data.

Based on Ice Core data in Greenland and the Antarctic the average temperature during the 7000 year long Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today. Which brought about the greatest period of human advancements in agriculture, metallurgy, civilization and recording of history. Because humans had the pleasant environment of warm weather and prosperous crop yields that permitted them to better their lives and eventually ours as well.

5165

As one can clearly see from the graph above, that our last 1000 years was the coldest in the previous 10,000 years. Our time is the right most temperature point. Notice how the Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today. But the previous Holocene Maximum was much warmer by many degrees (6 to 8 degrees on average based on both the Greenland, Antarctic and other proxy measured data).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

More comparisons to the Greenland ice Sheet clearly shows the extremely long and high temperature rise of the Holocene maximum (10,000 to 3,000 years ago).

Meteorological observations started around 1875 which was about the coldest point in the past 10,000 years.

Professor Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey stick graph tries to erase and discredit the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm period based on thousands over other observations; with the junk science invented by Michael Mann.

Source please. I provided you in my link the papers and other data. Can you not do the same?

Spector567
07-17-2013, 12:03 PM
I'd also like to ask when was the last time Maui, Hawaii had an average yearly temperature of -29degrees Celsius.

Silly I know. Who on earth would actually read what the axis on the graphs say. Why not just look at a blurry picture and read the cartoon caption.

Edmund129
07-19-2013, 10:27 AM
The Climate of Corruption behind Man Made Global Warming Propaganda:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buAiehw0Q1c

Edmund129
07-19-2013, 11:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg

Edmund129
07-19-2013, 11:26 AM
The founder of the Weather Channel speaks out on the Global Warming Global Fraud:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s47y8ZGOmI

Since 2000 we have seen some of the coldest winters on record, with Alaska seeing the coldest temperatures in over 20 years.

China the worst winter ever.

South America coldest winters ever.

Spector567
07-19-2013, 11:34 AM
The founder of the Weather Channel speaks out on the Global Warming Global Fraud:



Your not going to tell me when Hawaii had an average temperature of -29degrees C?
and your not going to tell me why you believe a single souce graph from a single location represents the globe.

You are also not going to provide any sources for your information to counter my information showing how your graph produced by a political think tank was in error. (yes your graph was produced by the heartland institute)


You are just going to provide more youtube videos.

Edmund129
07-31-2013, 10:01 AM
Global Warming is a Doctrine of Deception.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGgGttVvk4

The measured data has been grossly misrepresented for political reasons to justify the eradication of 7 billion people on the false assumption that the human population explosion is the source of Global Warming.

But when the Earth's temperature falls, they change the name to climate change to hide their previous lies.

Spector567
07-31-2013, 11:53 AM
Global Warming is a Doctrine of Deception.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGgGttVvk4

The measured data has been grossly misrepresented for political reasons to justify the eradication of 7 billion people on the false assumption that the human population explosion is the source of Global Warming.

But when the Earth's temperature falls, they change the name to climate change to hide their previous lies.
3 cheers another YouTube video.

Also FYI. In scientific circles and within scietific litature it was ALWAYS called climate change.

It's only as the public gained more knowledge on how it works that people started using more accurate terms.

I believe you'd already been told this.


and once again thankyou for proving that you are full of BS since you once again failed to respond to the responses made by the posters in this forum.

nomaxim
08-04-2013, 07:10 AM
But when the Earth's temperature falls, they change the name to climate change to hide their previous lies.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (http://www.ipcc.ch/) was founded in 1988.

Edmund129
08-09-2013, 01:30 PM
3 cheers another YouTube video.

Also FYI. In scientific circles and within scietific litature it was ALWAYS called climate change.

It's only as the public gained more knowledge on how it works that people started using more accurate terms.

I believe you'd already been told this.


and once again thankyou for proving that you are full of BS since you once again failed to respond to the responses made by the posters in this forum.

In the 1970's it was called Global Cooling and the up coming Ice Age after 4 decades of cooling, then in the late 1970''s it was called Global Warming and since 2005 and to now with over 1 decade of cooling it has changed its name to climate change. It is blatantly clear that Global Warming Propagandists are Genuine 14 karat liars, because they keep changing their story when the facts are brought to bare.

Spector567
08-11-2013, 08:50 PM
In the 1970's it was called Global Cooling and the up coming Ice Age after 4 decades of cooling, then in the late 1970''s it was called Global Warming and since 2005 and to now with over 1 decade of cooling it has changed its name to climate change. It is blatantly clear that Global Warming Propagandists are Genuine 14 karat liars, because they keep changing their story when the facts are brought to bare.

I'm not even going to bother explains this to you once again.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)

And FYI you've run away from a response yet again.

Edmund129
08-14-2013, 08:14 AM
By Dr. Tim Ball (Climtologist from Winnipeg University)

The official website of Dr. Tim Ball (http://drtimball.com/)


Lack of understanding allows those with a political agenda to exploit people. This was the case with the necessary new paradigm of environmentalism as Gould’s comment anticipated. Without understanding natural processes you can’t identify human induced changes. You are vulnerable to the claim that all natural changes are unnatural, which is occurring daily in the mainstream media.

Education was always about indoctrinating children to think the way the powerful in society wanted. This was done openly and primarily centered on a religious belief. Now the indoctrination is denied because they claim education is not about religion. In fact, it is about the new religion of environmentalism that is being used to create equally, if not more indoctrinated, young minds. Few parents have any idea what their children are learning in the schools. It is not the wide ranging, free thinking, investigative experience they think.

One way this is apparent is in the movement of young people through the education system. Historically they entered university and challenged the prevailing wisdoms. Now they come fully indoctrinated with environmentalism that ignores facts, manufactures false information and blames humans for everything. It is significant that challenges come from much older people who know and understand the fallacies. Everyone knows that information is power, but it’s exploitation of power that has allowed a few to control and manipulate people.

Throughout my career I’ve worked to help people learn and understand climate and how it changes. The contradiction amused me when I was dubbed a climate change denier. So much information in today’s world is couched in jargon or terminology alien to most. This is expanding with the change from generalist to specialist understanding. It means abandonment of general rules and even forbids generalizations. The chances of understanding are diminished as each specialist only knows one small piece of any complex system.

Climatology is a generalist discipline in a world of specialization. Even a basic understanding requires integration of almost everything from cosmic radiation from space to volcanic heat on the bottom of the ocean and everything in between. It is almost impossible to leave anything out as those who try to produce simulations through climate models understand or ignore depending upon their objective.

Knowledge is valuable but only if it improves the human condition. As a consequence, beyond understanding the generalist nature of climate I am especially interested in how it affects all aspects of human existence. This website will examine a wide variety of topics about the way the environment affects humans and the way humans affect the environment. We’re in an information revolution because the Internet is democratizing information.

Great leaders grasp the potential, both positive and negative. President Eisenhower did this about the Internet in this excerpt from his January 17, 1961 Farewell Address;

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

Tim B. - See more at: The official website of Dr. Tim Ball (http://drtimball.com/#sthash.VJvohy9b.dpuf)

nomaxim
08-14-2013, 02:04 PM
By Dr. Tim Ball (Climtologist from Winnipeg University)

The official website of Dr. Tim Ball (http://drtimball.com/)


sourcewatch.org/Tim_Ball (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball);
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.
..............

Lawsuit
In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge. Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball. In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.

Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.

In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald (“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”), Ball withdrew the suit in June 2007.

Canada Free Press retraction
On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ten days later, Canada Free Press issued a full apology to Dr. Weaver and retracted Ball's article.

Lobbying the Canadian Government on Climate Change
Tim Ball was one of 60 'accredited experts' who in April 2006 wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying climate change and urging inaction.
..........
Click link for sources.

Dr. Ball's PhD. is in Geography.

Beacon
08-30-2013, 08:08 AM
R

I noticed that you basically ignored where I found articles with "climate scientists" that call into dispute the models used.
...
I come from a background programming these types of models and have done work in the fields of hydro, structural and thermal. What you fail to realize is that the whole issue is based on these computer models.

...
You have said you don't want to know the science. Fine, but then don't make up pseudo-sceince to replace it. You can not derive and answer as to if the values used in AGW models are accurate simply based on how the insurance industry perceives it to be. If that was the case then they proved God exists because so much is disallowed to "Acts of God".

As regards the models you are aware many models were used to estimate the dust from that Icelandic Volcano? the models resulted in Europe being declared a no fly zone for weeks. But I don't think anyone will claim there was no dust cloud.

Also you claim to be an expert in global warming modeling. Based on what evidence?

"Act of God" is AFAIK a legal term denoting that no person is responsible i.e it happened by accident and is completely natural and no one caused it to happen.

OTOH Climate change which is caused by humanity is by definition caused by humanity and not just happening naturally.

Beacon
08-30-2013, 08:42 AM
I'm a very strong believer in clean water and air. But CO2 is not a pollutant to me.


But it is a causer of global warming. i mean look at Venus. Dont you believe CO2 has an effect on global warming there?



As for insurance the idea behind it is spreading the risk and cost. In it's truest form all payers share the same chance at loss but the loss hits randomly. So all the individuals get together and basically pay for a future damage. It is not a free lunch nor was it ever meant to be.


So why is the US taxpayer paying for the Iraq War and not insurance or oil companies?


Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature.


This is rubbish! Military of a Colonialist Empires have. Military of non oppressive non colonist countries are defence forces. for example the Irish Defence forces help out in UN peacekeeping. they have never invaded any country or gone in for economic interest.



So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.

Wrong! Ireland the Netherlands and Sweden have peacekeeping forces in countries with which they were economically involved and in countries in which they have had no economic interests.

In fact Saddam owed Ireland 100 million in beef but Ireland did nothing militarily against him. Meanwhile they assist people in asia and Africa and other developing nations.



All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history.


Wrong! Ireland didn't! It was invaded and most of it colonised by Britain. It was starved out while it exported food but it never totally collapsed. It has always had moderate Military spending in spite of decades of terrorism.


Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.


so basically you think it is right for the US Military to rape others of their resources. But when china or germany or Iraq does that it is wrong? Who made the US into a moral authority?

Rome didnt defeat any cultures. Rome dint have a superior culture. It just had a more efficient Military engineering and logistics. Greece was the culture with the Arts, democracy etc. Rome and Western History also made a myth of "bad guys" out of the Celts Goths Visigoths Vandals etc.



Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.


"Polluter pays" is also a buzz word. But the principle is accepted.


Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.
would that be like believing in WMD in Iraq because Bush said so even when he had no evidence at all?



2) Man as part of the Earth does have an impact.
...

So the question is HOW MUCH impact does man have. IPCC thinks it is over 90%. People like me think it is much much lower and no more then 1-5% per others.

If the last 55 is a critical tipping pouit it makes no difference if it is 5 or 95.
At least you admit mankind is causing some global warming.



Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.


Ed mass posts the same videos and does not provide sources , just soundbytes.


And here is how it is addressed:

This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.


I rarely indulge in ad hominem. If you can show where I made a personal attack please do so . Otherwise withdraw that claim.


2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.


all of which can be dealt with by PROVIDING THE SOURCE. It is for the parson making the claim to provide their source.




5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.


No evidence for me doing any of that.



Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.


1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.


Just like there was uncertainty in models of Volcanic dust. But nobody claimed "no dust so we should fly all aircraft"



2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age.


No! It just hapopens to be around when they started direct recording of temperatures. Please read my replies.



Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else.


Why would they not? and why are they claiming the temperature is cooling when you claim they already know it isnt.



What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.


Read my posts. Using moving averages the trend is still INCREASING.

Beacon
08-30-2013, 11:43 AM
Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature. So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.


All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history. Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.



Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.

Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.


First off some basic ground rules and observations.

1) Climate has changed, will change and is changing.
2) Man as part of the Earth does have an impact.
3) Nature (defined to mean other sources outside direct control of humans I.E. space, volcanoes, oceans etc) also have an impact on climate.

So the question is HOW MUCH impact does man have. IPCC thinks it is over 90%. People like me think it is much much lower and no more then 1-5% per others. Bit since I was asked to comment on previous posts here goes.

Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.


And here is how it is addressed:



This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.
5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.

Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.


1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.
2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else. What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.

[QUOTE=Edmund129;55925]You are dead wrong again, listen to the these climatologist talk about the Medieval warm period, it was not only confirmed in the Greenland ice sheet, but also in the Antartic Ice sheet as well, clearly proving that the medieval warm period was indeed global, because it also shows up in all the tree ring data.


1 You fail to provide you sources
2. I didnt claim that there was no MW period. I claimed ( read my references)
a It - the MWP- was cooler than at present
b It didnt cover the period you claimed
c It was not global in the sense that equal warming didnt happen everywhere. ther wher hot spots and other regions that only heated by less than a degree.



Only the corrupted research of one single Marxist committed lying Michael Mann's hocky stick graph even suggests there was no medieval warm period, but even in his graph the margin for error shows a 500 year long medieval warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw&feature=player_embedded


You supply no source ! and that video shows no such graph



So are you saying that citizens have no power to detemine the taxes they are saddled with? We just have to shut up and take it? Accept whatever our lords and masters decide for us? You do know that this country was basically founded on issues of taxes and not wanting to pay them because they felt they weren't fair.


Yes . and you have to shut up and take it. It is called "representative democracy" When you elect a Congress and President you have very limited powers to remove them. they can bring in any tax they like and you will have to accept that. All you can do is wait till the next election and elect a different representative who is committed to removing or reversing that tax.



BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.

And your answer to the WMD that Bush said Saddam must have had was?
A one degree rise globally would in my opinion cause immense damage.

World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
...
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.





These are just fine and pretty much fit right where the IPCC in it's last assessment siad they were. I think most people that support AGW will come up with numbers very close to this. So let's go with 3.5 and 90%. Simple math says that man will be responsible for 3.15 degrees C warming through 2100.

Now let me ask a harder question that the supporters of AGW won't necessariry agree upon. What is the lowest temperature increase between now and 2100 that we should be concerned about. For example I doubt if anyone would care much if the increase was .0001 degrees. Another way to look at it is what number do we need for us to want to do something about it?

My motive in asking this is some AGW supporters are really just fosil fuel opponents and even if there was no increase they would still demand money spent on 'green' and place a punishment on fossil fuels. These people can't be reasoned with as their fight is not AGW but something else.


Same source:
In the analysis, the years from 1880 to 1950 tend to appear cooler (more blues than reds), growing less cool as we move toward the 1950s. Decades within the base period do not appear particularly warm or cold because they are the standard against which all decades are measured. The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.

Fossil fuel use also increased in the post-War era (5 percent per year), boosting greenhouse gases. But aerosol cooling is more immediate, while greenhouse gases accumulate slowly and take much longer to leave the atmosphere. The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gases, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls, according to GISS director Jim Hansen.

Beacon
08-31-2013, 02:19 AM
[QUOTE=Edmund129;56019]In 1486 the Pope blamed witches for Global Cooling which lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches for centuries.


No the Pope did not!
The whole Witchcraft thing was a Central and Eastern European thing and more Protestant in nature than Roman Catholic. It was Protestants who transported Witchfinding to the americas. It was German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who pushed Pope Innocent VIII to write a Bull in order for Kramer to prosecute Witches in Germany. The Pope did not claim witches were responsible for bad weather. Kramer himself claimed it in a later publication, Malleus Maleficarum

You have been shown this before and you ignored it!

Beacon
08-31-2013, 02:37 AM
[B]Fox News has the largest Cable and Network Audience in the Country, while MSNBC has the lowest viewer ship in all of Cable. That proves that MSNBC's news quality is so poor you couldn't find 50 viewers; even the cartoon channel beats not only MSNBC but also CNN + MSNBC combined.

This is nonsense.
Top Tens & Trends (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html)


60 Minutes ( a news /current affairs show) from CBS has 7.5 million vievers in Prime broadcast
Under the Dome (CBS) has over ten million.

The best Fox can do is a tenth place with a sports show - NFL ON FOX PRESEASON


an there is no Fox show in the top ten on cable

Top Tens & Trends (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html)

Try outfoxxed for a view on bias in news reporting:
"Outfoxxed" Part 1 - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/199922/outfoxxed_part_1/)

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

It is the propaganda you are watching.

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/30/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-august-29-2013/200063/)

In just news Fox does indeed have shows top daily rating in the 250 thousand viewers but MSNBC has 105 thousand at the same time

Also this in peanuts compared to the seven million viewers of 60 minutes for example or NBC broadcast news.

And even just cable Fox ( and I include 2 year olds in this) has 97 million hits and MSNBC has 96 million.

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, August 29, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/30/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-august-29-2013/200063/)
Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of August, 2013)

CNN/HLN: 99.292 million HHs

CNBC: 96.242 million HHs

FNC: 97.186 million HHs

MSNBC: 94.519 million HHs

Fox Business: 75.501 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.


But Fox news only goes to 95,000 homes
List of How Many Homes Each Cable Networks Is In – Cable Network Coverage Estimates As Of August 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/23/list-of-how-many-homes-each-cable-networks-is-in-cable-network-coverage-estimates-as-of-august-2013/199072/)

Beacon
09-02-2013, 03:30 AM
May I add. From the other global warming thread... Here is a link to actual first hand data and not corrupted videos or opinions about data http://www.realscam.com/f13/global-warming-1878/#post43016

Whip
09-02-2013, 10:31 AM
Isn't everybody for gerbil warming?

baylee
09-03-2013, 05:25 PM
Here is a link that I found by accident.

Link:

Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.123)

Spector567
09-04-2013, 11:50 AM
Here is a link that I found by accident.

Link:

Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.123)

For those of you who don't know. The word "Emeritus" means retired. As in heasn't done any work for year and has no intention of doing anymore work. Also has no professional stake in his statments but has lots of time on his hands.

baylee
09-04-2013, 03:40 PM
For those of you who don't know. The word "Emeritus" means retired. As in heasn't done any work for year and has no intention of doing anymore work. Also has no professional stake in his statments but has lots of time on his hands.


Yahoo was trending global warming topics yesterday and that is were it came from but not all members were retired.

Beacon
09-05-2013, 10:45 AM
[

As one can clearly see from the graph above, that our last 1000 years was the coldest in the previous 10,000 years. Our time is the right most temperature point. Notice how the Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees warmer than today. But the previous Holocene Maximum was much warmer by many degrees (6 to 8 degrees on average based on both the Greenland, Antarctic and other proxy measured data).


I can't see the point you are making! You are basically saying that
1. There IS GLOBAL WARMING but it is currently colder than several periods in the past
2. If the Earth warms up then that is not a problem because crop production and economic progress happened when it was warmer in the past.

First of all I don't accept your contention in 1 and you have not showed your source.
Global warming | OpenLearn - Open University (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1526)


3. Recorded temperatures
Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and
historical records) show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the
millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the
millennium was 1998, and the coldest was probably 1601. (Climatic Research
Unit, 2003)


Throughout historical times, fluctuations in the Earth's mean temperature
have been recorded. During the seventeenth century, the Thames periodically
froze over during winter and mini-glaciers were present in the North West
Highlands of Scotland. More recently, the 1990s included some of the hottest
years ever recorded in the British Isles, and 10 August 2003 was the hottest
day ever on record. An annual temperature record for central England has
been constructed, beginning in 1659.

Yes your graph does say it was warmer in the past but what is the source for this graph? On the other hand I have provided several sources showing warming over the last century and warmer today then in the MWP.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htmThe Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.[/quote]

Sources: Mann et. al. ( 2008) Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric
and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes)

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)


The PAGES 2k team found that a global surface cooling trend over the past 2,000 years has been erased by the global warming over the past century. Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years, including during the Medieval Warm Period (Figure 5).
Here is a worrying prediction
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CXhZq5GDGH4/TGoWgvTsEjI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/S_KyPNOJp5Q/s1600/Hockey+stock+-+21st+century.jpg


Second it just isn't acceptable to say warming today by say a degree or two won't cause massive economic consequences. It is fairly much accepted that a warming globally by a degree or more would have huge consequences.
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)


A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

Spector567
09-05-2013, 12:12 PM
Yahoo was trending global warming topics yesterday and that is were it came from but not all members were retired.

I really just wanted to point out to people what Emeritus means. Most people probably think it's some title but in reality it just means retired. However, saying that a professor who has been retired from the industry for 20 years has signed the list doesn't inspire as much confidence.

So when 20% of the list is made up of "retired" people it does make people pause.

The next trick would be to check out the institutions and see who they are or if they are just some private religious college. Or if they even have a department for the topic they hold their degree in.

Something else that should be noted is that the title of "Meteorologist" at one point was a useless title requiring no education.

Our local Weather guy holds the title but has no education and only experience is interpreting the weather an airport when he was younger and then several years as a TV weather guy.

baylee
09-05-2013, 12:33 PM
I really just wanted to point out to people what Emeritus means. Most people probably think it's some title but in reality it just means retired. However, saying that a professor who has been retired from the industry for 20 years has signed the list doesn't inspire as much confidence.

So when 20% of the list is made up of "retired" people it does make people pause.

The next trick would be to check out the institutions and see who they are or if they are just some private religious college. Or if they even have a department for the topic they hold their degree in.

Something else that should be noted is that the title of "Meteorologist" at one point was a useless title requiring no education.

Our local Weather guy holds the title but has no education and only experience is interpreting the weather an airport when he was younger and then several years as a TV weather guy.

The signers name, titles and such are there. Private religious college?

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 03:02 PM
[QUOTE=Edmund129;56019]In 1486 the Pope blamed witches for Global Cooling which lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches for centuries.


No the Pope did not!
The whole Witchcraft thing was a Central and Eastern European thing and more Protestant in nature than Roman Catholic. It was Protestants who transported Witchfinding to the americas. It was German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, who pushed Pope Innocent VIII to write a Bull in order for Kramer to prosecute Witches in Germany. The Pope did not claim witches were responsible for bad weather. Kramer himself claimed it in a later publication, Malleus Maleficarum

You have been shown this before and you ignored it!

The Historical Facts speak for themselves, the Pope in 1486 blamed witches for the longer winters, and shorter summers that had trended this way for 186 years (Since 1300). This lead to massive food shortages, malnutrition, starvation, weakened immune systems and wide spread plagues that killed 10's of millions of people. This was done all in the name of power and control over the masses to imply a power that these authorities never had, control over the climate. But this publically excepted mass fraud lead to the mass Genocide of 10's of thousands of witches over the centuries throughout England, Europe and the America's but had no effect on climate, but certainly gave them the power that they seeked.

What is amazing about this historical fact, is that the same methods are still being used today by our Fascist leaders for the same kind of power grab to justify higher taxes, greater power over the masses to create a one world fascist government that answers to no one, but themselves.

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 03:39 PM
The evidence is very clear, there is no clear correlation between CO2 levels and the Earth's average temperature, but there is a very clear and very strong correlation between solar activity and the Earth's average temperature:

5766

This graph was published by IPCC and data provided for by NASA.

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=Mongo;55961]First off some basic ground rules and observations.


You supply no source ! and that video shows no such graph

[/b]



Yes, there are videos and graphs presented by the actual scientists and Climatologists speaking. Watch the entire video and you will see all the graphs mentioned in my postings on this matter:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPbAuJy2fw&feature=player_embedded


Points that this video are showing:

1) The Antartic would take between 2000 to 3000 years to melt.

2) Even if the Earth's average temperature would increase by an insane amount of 10 degrees, even far more than the most criminaly insane global warming alarmist could of ever dreamed of, it still wouldn't melt one speck of ice in antartica. But instead would cause the Antartic ice sheet to get even bigger.

3) Computer models do not agree with any of the climate observations to date, and cannot simulate water vapor or precipitation.

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 04:04 PM
The Michael Mann Hockeystick graph is clearly debunked and the reasons for it, are clearly discussed by professional Climatologists:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fD6VBLlWmCI

1) There is overwhelming evidence from a vast majority of Climatologist around the world (>98%) have confirmed that there was a 500 year long Medieval Warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today and that it was global climate change and not a local climate event.

2) The 20th Century was not abnormally warm, but well within the normal temperature range of the last 1000 years, with the coldest point being around 1860 or so. The Medieval Warm period is still the warmest period in time for the past 1000 years.

3) Water vapor is clearly understood to be the most dominate greenhouse gas in our atmosphere and is agreed to be so by 100% of all Climatologists. CO2 is not a relevant greenhouse gas.

4) Only professor Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graphs disagrees with all other scientific observations.

5) The IPCC Audit found Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph to be a complete Scientific Fraud. The Auditors found that even when they put in random numbers into Michael Mann's algorythms, they still produced a Hockey stick graph. Clearly proving the fraudulent nature of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 04:36 PM
Here is yet another Professor that has also debunked Professor Michael Mann's Hockey stick based on Junk Science, and explains why the Hockey stick has been rejected by everyone:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-1k4mFZr-gE

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 04:39 PM
The IPCC removes the Michael Mann's Hockey stick graph in the IPCC's 4th Assessment report:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zfafW_3oJ3Q

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 04:57 PM
Professor Terry J. Lovell discusses how 49 PHD's that formally worked at NASA sent a petition to NASA declaring the mass fraud of Man Made Global Warming was destroying NASA's credibility and that the perpetrators of this fraud are only out to destroy NASA and America's space program. (Which they have done.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aEaFzhoS67I

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 05:13 PM
Dr. David M. W. Evan's presents a 12 minute discussion on the Global Warming Skeptic's case:


1) The observable Climate data clearly shows no CO2 feedback system exists; which is the underlying foundation for Man Made Global Warming.

2) The observable facts are constantly being replaced with flawed computer models as a basis for proof, but the observable data clearly shows the opposite.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0gDErDwXqhc

Edmund129
09-05-2013, 05:28 PM
More of the Junk Science of Man Made Global Warming exposed for what it is; JUNK SCIENCE:

There isn't a shred of observable data that supports one single shred of evidence of Man Made Global Warming.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fWDc6lpcqzc

The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.

Spector567
09-06-2013, 11:41 AM
The signers name, titles and such are there. Private religious college?
I'm sorry baylee i've been typing from a cell phone so somethings were probally not as clear as they could have been.

I'll i'm siimply saying is that I don't really trust lists like this. I've seen the ones creationists produce and there methods and a lot of those methods have been transfered over to climate change.

The average person who looks at the list would see a list of prominent and important sounding titles and names.

After reading through the names, titles and locations several things pop out too me.

-17% have the title emaritus. Meaning they are retired. Having such a large number stands out. (this over laps the other titles)
-32% have the title of meterologists. Experts in weather not necissarily climate. It's also a title that up till the last 10-15 years didn't require any education in climate to hold the title. Several are local news casters.
- 23% are geologists...... Are geologists experts in climate? or are they experts in oil?

To me this sounds like someone is padding the list.

Does this mean this list is fake.... Certainly not. Does it mean it deserves extra scrutiny.... certainly.
Does this override the several thousand experts who disagree with the people in the list.... No.

However, that's just my take on things.

Spector567
09-06-2013, 11:44 AM
More of the Junk Science of Man Made Global Warming exposed for what it is; JUNK SCIENCE:

There isn't a shred of observable data that supports one single shred of evidence of Man Made Global Warming.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fWDc6lpcqzc

The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.



Ed.... You are literally repeating your claims over and over. We have already discussed most of this within this thread. Repeating the claim over and over will not make it any more true than the first time you did it.

littleroundman
09-06-2013, 12:09 PM
The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.


The current population of the USA stands at just over 313 million people.

Are you saying that 28% of the entire American population has been put out of work by the EPA ??

Bullshit, Edmund.

Sources for your nonsense claims, Edmund or you'll become the ex Edmund.

Spector567
09-06-2013, 07:25 PM
The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.



Ed I'll point you to bluewolf post from over a month ago when he responded to you then.

Like I mentioned before, most of those people choose not to work or don't need to work. It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Or global warming.

From the U.S. Department of Labor: (http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf)

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

I'll also point out that your article you posted at the time pointed out that.
- Coal prices have vastly increased
- Power consumption has gone down
- Natural gas prices have dropped (Fracking anyone?) Natural gas plants being built?

Apparently you are opposed to capitalism.



Ed. If i may make 3 suggestions.
- READ PEOPLES POSTS
- READ PEOPLES POSTS
- READ PEOPLES POSTS

For God sake you are literally repeating mistakes over and over. You spent a couple of hours looking up videos on stuff that had already been debunked. It was a complete waste of your time.

littleroundman
09-06-2013, 08:00 PM
The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases.

What is the average age of a coal fired power station in the USA, Edmund ???

What is the life expectancy of a coal fired power station, Edmund ??

How much does it cost to refurbish a power station, Edmund ???

In 2013, what form of power generation is the most cost efficient in terms of building / maintaining / power output, Edmund ??

Can you provide us with a list of the 300 coal fired power stations you claim were "already shut down by the EPA" together with a list showing they had not simply reached the end of their useful life and needed to be refurbished or replaced and were NOT shut down by the EPA ?

baylee
09-06-2013, 08:12 PM
I'm sorry baylee i've been typing from a cell phone so somethings were probally not as clear as they could have been.

I'll i'm siimply saying is that I don't really trust lists like this. I've seen the ones creationists produce and there methods and a lot of those methods have been transfered over to climate change.

The average person who looks at the list would see a list of prominent and important sounding titles and names.

After reading through the names, titles and locations several things pop out too me.

-17% have the title emaritus. Meaning they are retired. Having such a large number stands out. (this over laps the other titles)
-32% have the title of meterologists. Experts in weather not necissarily climate. It's also a title that up till the last 10-15 years didn't require any education in climate to hold the title. Several are local news casters.
- 23% are geologists...... Are geologists experts in climate? or are they experts in oil?

To me this sounds like someone is padding the list.

Does this mean this list is fake.... Certainly not. Does it mean it deserves extra scrutiny.... certainly.
Does this override the several thousand experts who disagree with the people in the list.... No.

However, that's just my take on things.

For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

This is my take on it.

ProfHenryHiggins
09-06-2013, 08:49 PM
CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.



This is patently ludicrous.
First of all, the dinosaur extinction was not caused by atmospheric conditions, but rather by a natural disaster. And it wasn't 300 million years ago which was at the end of the Carboniferous period / beginning of the Permian period. The dinosaur die-out was at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago.
Secondly, CO2 levels do not control plant growth in the long term. Life adapts, and alters its' environment around itself.
Third, flowering plants did not yet exist during the Permian. The majority of modern plants are flowering. Different biology, Edmund, different biology. For that matter, dinosaurs hadn't evolved into a major group yet at that point in time.

littleroundman
09-06-2013, 11:52 PM
Here ya go, Edmund,

how many of your "300" power stations allegedly "closed by the EPA" appear on this list ??

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8624/xo9q.jpg

See the column highlighted in pink, Edmund ???

How much does it cost to upgrade / refurbish a 50 year old power station, Edmund ??

Edmund129
09-07-2013, 02:25 AM
WHAT ABOUT THE TERROR OF GLOBAL WARMING?

One can understand fully why the citizens of earth will fall in with any plan which will save them from the crisis of the dread "greenhouse effect"! They have visions of disasters horrific, icecaps melting with civilizations being wiped out along coastlines as the oceans overflow, extremely high temperatures causing gigantic bush fires beyond imagination, no rain, no water, everyone getting melanomas on their skins - a hell on earth! There are a number of points of immense importance we should consider straight away here:

1. ALL scientists do NOT agree that there is any catastrophic greenhouse warming happening. The facts are startling, as pointed out on page 39 of "Saviours of the Earth"; "Some environmental leaders and politicians would have you believe that almost all scientists agree global warming is occurring. Vice President Albert Gore asserts that 98 percent of all atmospheric scientists agree that catastrophic greenhouse warming has begun. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. A February 1992 Gallup poll of climatologists and atmospheric physicists yielded the conclusion that only SEVENTEEN PERCENT of these scientists believed there was scientific evidence for greenhouse-caused global warming." (Emphasis added). (The poll was taken within the members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorlogical Society. from National Review, March 16 1992, 17.)

2. Therefore, a massive EIGHTY THREE PERCENT of those scientists cited above actually believe that there is NO EVIDENCE for greenhouse warming. A small sample only of the scientific facts should go a long way towards convincing the reader that something "smells fishy" about this whole global warming fiasco.

3. We have been told that the warmest global temperatures occurred in the 1980s. That is true enough, but what they did not tell us was that 90 percent of the warming during the past 100 years had already occurred by 1940:"In fact, the entire 100-year increase in temperature can be explained by a five-year increase that took place between 1917 and 1921. But the increase was so benign that nobody noticed it for sixty-five years. Although the biggest temperature increases occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, the big increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not occur until AFTER 1950." ("Saviours of the Earth", p. 40). (Robert Balling, The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992), 87. Patrick Michaels, Sound and Fury (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute, 1993. 55.63.) Most of the warming had really happened BEFORE greenhouse gas emissions started to accelerate!

4. From a scientist that should know, Patrick Michaels, associate professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, he says: "Northern Hemisphere satellite data, like those for the Southern Hemisphere, show no warming since the platforms were launched in 1979. Moreover, the very warm years of the 1980s, which are so evident in the land-based record, simply do not appear in the satellite readings." (: Ibid. 55.) Scientists have also shown that "extensive tree ring analyses show the same result - no warming in the past twenty five years." ("Saviours of the Earth", p.40.

5. A great exaggeration has accompanied the environmentalists' forecasts about the climate, it seems. The climate models are not accurate, indeed illogical. Looking at the past 100 years we should be able to test this. The environmental climate models of the mid-80s predict that the 40 percent increase in greenhouse gases happening since the beginning of this century should have caused a temperature rise of over 2 degrees C. This hasn't happened, however. What is the increase in global temperature? At the very worst, only 0.45 degrees C. (Michaels, Sound and Fury, p. 40).

6. Dr Coffman, using the findings of climatologist Patrick Michaels, and the investigations of Thomas Karl, gives these comforting comments on current trends: "They describe a pattern of cooler summers, warmer winters, and longer growing seasons. OUR CLIMATE IS ACTUALLY GETTING BETTER....Rather than being a disaster, increasing carbon dioxide has greater chance of being a major boon to life on earth!" ("Saviours of the Earth?" p.43).

Edmund129
09-07-2013, 02:31 AM
Here ya go, Edmund,

how many of your "300" power stations allegedly "closed by the EPA" appear on this list ??

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8624/xo9q.jpg

See the column highlighted in pink, Edmund ???

How much does it cost to upgrade / refurbish a 50 year old power station, Edmund ??

The Cost is over $500 million per coal fired power plant. (Source: Actual Employees of Coal Fired Power Plants that I have personally know and talked to)

The official number of Coal Fired Power plants shut down by the EPA is over 300. Retired is just a code word for: SHUT DOWN BY THE EPA and put millions of Tax paying Americans out of work.

Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades, after they were built.

littleroundman
09-07-2013, 02:32 AM
O.K. Edmund.

In the words of that great philosopher and raconteur, Popeye; "That's all I can stand, I can't stands no more."

The forum is not a soapbox for conspiracy theorists who quote unknown sources and refuse to answer questions or properly debate the subject.

You're welcome to return during your next school holidays.

littleroundman
09-07-2013, 02:37 AM
Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades after they were built.

Nonsense.

Coal powered generating plants built in the 1950s / 60s / 70s using the technology available at the time either have, or are about to reach the end of their lifespan with or without the EPA interfering.

Edmund129
09-07-2013, 02:38 AM
This is patently ludicrous.
First of all, the dinosaur extinction was not caused by atmospheric conditions, but rather by a natural disaster. And it wasn't 300 million years ago which was at the end of the Carboniferous period / beginning of the Permian period. The dinosaur die-out was at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago.
Secondly, CO2 levels do not control plant growth in the long term. Life adapts, and alters its' environment around itself.
Third, flowering plants did not yet exist during the Permian. The majority of modern plants are flowering. Different biology, Edmund, different biology. For that matter, dinosaurs hadn't evolved into a major group yet at that point in time.

Plant life does thrive better with higher levels of CO2, just watch the video documentary I posted in the previous link. A doubling of CO2 permits plants to live on 1/4 as much water. The higher the CO2 levels, the less water that is needed.

Yes the Dinosours were whiped out by a meteor impact about 65 million years ago, but if you were to teleport those exact same dinorsours into days world, they would starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough vegitation to support their huge diet needs.

ProfHenryHiggins
09-07-2013, 03:52 AM
Plant life does thrive better with higher levels of CO2, just watch the video documentary I posted in the previous link. A doubling of CO2 permits plants to live on 1/4 as much water. The higher the CO2 levels, the less water that is needed.

Yes the Dinosours were whiped out by a meteor impact about 65 million years ago, but if you were to teleport those exact same dinorsours into days world, they would starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough vegitation to support their huge diet needs.

Even more stupidity, with laughable spelling errors.

Increasing carbon dioxide does not change the fact that photosynthesis uses CO2 and H2O in specific proportions to build glucose. Increasing CO2 can result in plants growing faster, but at the cost of being less nutritious per unit of plant tissue.

Also, not all dinosaurs were huge. Look at your local sparrows. Those are descendants of dinosaurs, from the same lineage that produced T. Rex. Are sparrows humongous? No.

Beacon
09-08-2013, 12:23 AM
For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

This is my take on it.

Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

The fact that a list is undependable has nothing whatsoever to do with the totally separate issue that data collection might be questioned.

That's not MY take on it it is logic's and reasons take on it.

Beacon
09-08-2013, 12:41 AM
The Cost is over $500 million per coal fired power plant. (Source: Actual Employees of Coal Fired Power Plants that I have personally know and talked to)

The official number of Coal Fired Power plants shut down by the EPA is over 300. Retired is just a code word for: SHUT DOWN BY THE EPA and put millions of Tax paying Americans out of work.

Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades, after they were built.

Indeed, I have a hammer my grandfather had that is over a hundred years old in my shed. It is as good as new. We have only changed the head twice and the handle three times. One could do the same with power plants but the costs would be astronomical.

Ripe For Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants | Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html)


As many as 353 coal-fired power generators in 31 states — representing up to 59 GW of power capacity — are no longer economically viable compared with cleaner, more affordable energy sources
...
The nation's current natural gas power plant fleet operated at only 39 percent of its design capacity in 2010. Running these plants at 85 percent capacity would generate more electricity than is currently being produced by all ripe-for-retirement coal generators, plus an additional 288 coal-fired generators that have already been scheduled for closure.

Ed apparently opposes Oil and Gas :)

Beacon
09-09-2013, 09:03 AM
Some of the problem with Ed seems to be his mindset as to
1. His sources of information e.g. video snips and Fox news
2. His logical thinking ( or lack thereof) e.g. he expects Global Warming is a fraud so rather than approach with an open mind depend on actual "objective" evidence he goes to biased sources which will confirm his own bias.
3. He avoids actually looking at the evidence and when gioven an opinion about a report takes the unsupported opinion rather that actually read the report.

Now there seems to be a pattern here of a particular mindset
This is supported by the following
Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)


A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[47] reported that poll-based findings[48] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[47]


I have hinted at these misconceptions in earlier posts but ED didn't reply as to his belief.


47: ^ a b Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis, Evan (2003). "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War". Political Science Quarterly (The Academy of Political Science) 118 (4): 569–598. Retrieved July 28, 2011.

48: ^ PIPA / Knowledge Networks Poll Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Program on International Policy Attitudes October 2003

What did those sources find?


67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS

35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

I suspect Ed is of that mindset.

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists"
http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Fox-News.pdf

nomaxim
09-09-2013, 04:30 PM
Some of the problem with Ed seems to be his mindset as to
1. His sources of information e.g. video snips and Fox news
2. His logical thinking ( or lack thereof) e.g. he expects Global Warming is a fraud so rather than approach with an open mind depend on actual "objective" evidence he goes to biased sources which will confirm his own bias.
3. He avoids actually looking at the evidence and when gioven an opinion about a report takes the unsupported opinion rather that actually read the report.

Now there seems to be a pattern here of a particular mindset
This is supported by the following
Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)


I have hinted at these misconceptions in earlier posts but ED didn't reply as to his belief.
..........
I prefer the term Pseudoscience (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).

http://www.fsteiger.com/cartoon.gif

Of course, it isn't just Creationists (of any Religion, there are Hindu creationists too. ) or Climate Change deniers that use pseudoscience.

Wiki has a decent list at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience).
You've likely heard of many of those topics.
You might even believe in a few of them yourself. :RpS_smile:

Umm, I don't see the Aquatic ape hypothesis (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis) on that list. But, at least the give a kudos to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax)

Remember that everything on the below list is 100% true.
dhmo.org/facts (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html);
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.Once you realize what Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is, your like :duh:.

Beacon
09-11-2013, 05:03 AM
I prefer the term Pseudoscience (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).


dhmo.org/facts (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html);Once you realize what Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is, your like :duh:.

Yeah . About ten years ago I though some high school students about the dangers of DHMO. I kept hinting for two classes for them to do some research but none of them twigged. They were so used to being spoonfed the "truth".
Indeed everything I told them was factually correct. I mean about DHMO being widely used in agriculture and that it causes death if inhaled. And the Military and government are huge consumers of DHMO etc.

In the end I had to ask them to draw atoms of DHMO - they still didn't twig!
I blame the teacher. :)

The big difference though is they didn't have the "truth" and look for facts to fit like in your cartoon.

By the way I dont accept the Darwinean Theory of gradualist evolution of species over long periods . I go more for the catastrophist theory like world wide deluges . Puncuated evolution where species settle down and dont evolve much an then a catastrophe ( of Biblical proportions) and rapid evolution to fill the spaces and then things settle down again until the next catastrophe.

Ironcially the christian fundamentalists opposed the gradualist philosophy and insisted on catastrophism but gradualism is now scientific mainstream and catastrophism was promoted by people like Gould, Muller, Alvarez, Raup and Sekowski,
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)

Spector567
09-12-2013, 12:07 PM
For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

This is my take on it.
baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

baylee
09-12-2013, 06:06 PM
baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

OK, what you said is reasonable.

Spector567
09-18-2013, 11:57 AM
The book of Bad Arguments.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages

This is not in response to any global warming discussion but I thought it was an interesting read and description of logical fallices and how they have been used.

BobRussell
10-22-2013, 04:03 AM
baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

There should be strict laws to check rising earth temperature.. Green ways of generating energy must be implemented all around the world along with cutting down of fossil fuel usage

BobRussell
10-23-2013, 10:40 AM
baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar panels (http://www.shinesolar.net) output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

There should be strict laws to check rising earth temperature.. Green ways of generating energy must be implemented all around the world along with cutting down of fossil fuel usage

Anybody else using solar panels for energy generation.

Beacon
01-06-2014, 10:21 AM
Anybody else using solar panels for energy generation.

I use them to recharge batteries. On another note I am going to critique myself here. The problem with the "global warming is a conspiracy" element is that they are fairly much linked to the neoconservative or libertarian elements in the US and as such linked to specific political and economic and in some cases moral theories. But there is a valid case to critique climate modelling as it is based on just that "models" . Yes as I have pointed out one can use indirect methods to estimate temperatures centuries ago but that isnt a direct measurement.
Even using direct measurement there is a difficulty in standardisation and management on an international basis but I would think there is a strong argument that the readings made are both valid and reliable. But they in turn are inputted into models. and human beings put values on what is considered "standard"

For example when that famous volcano in Iceland blew ( not caused by gobal warming AFAIK) ALL air craft ere grounded. So ther was no direct measurement of the dust from the couds just models of it. When I say no measurement I mean taken daily at several altitudes etc. This might have been done by baloon but im not aware it was . Most probably this was because such projects require budgets and preparation neither of which was available or given any priority.
Im not saying no dust was there nor am I saying no heating up exists. IIR four Swedish military SaaB jets did fly from Iceland through the dust cloud and two were badly damaged and nearly crashed due to dust in the engines.
Anyway after a week or so the estimates of parts per million was still too high for aviation so the "authorities" increased the "standard" by a factor of a THOUSAND e.g. it want from say 7 parts per million to 7,000 parts being the minimum!
All this goes to show that science doesnt really know wher the "tipping point" is.
I ll also say there is a strong correlation between production of human made CO2 and warming but correlations isnt causality.

I recently read Superfreakonomics and I recall some other good critique ther . Illget back on that.

Spector567
01-12-2014, 09:52 AM
I use them to recharge batteries. On another note I am going to critique myself here. The problem with the "global warming is a conspiracy" element is that they are fairly much linked to the neoconservative or libertarian elements in the US and as such linked to specific political and economic and in some cases moral theories. But there is a valid case to critique climate modelling as it is based on just that "models" . Yes as I have pointed out one can use indirect methods to estimate temperatures centuries ago but that isnt a direct measurement.
Even using direct measurement there is a difficulty in standardisation and management on an international basis but I would think there is a strong argument that the readings made are both valid and reliable. But they in turn are inputted into models. and human beings put values on what is considered "standard"

For example when that famous volcano in Iceland blew ( not caused by gobal warming AFAIK) ALL air craft ere grounded. So ther was no direct measurement of the dust from the couds just models of it. When I say no measurement I mean taken daily at several altitudes etc. This might have been done by baloon but im not aware it was . Most probably this was because such projects require budgets and preparation neither of which was available or given any priority.
Im not saying no dust was there nor am I saying no heating up exists. IIR four Swedish military SaaB jets did fly from Iceland through the dust cloud and two were badly damaged and nearly crashed due to dust in the engines.
Anyway after a week or so the estimates of parts per million was still too high for aviation so the "authorities" increased the "standard" by a factor of a THOUSAND e.g. it want from say 7 parts per million to 7,000 parts being the minimum!
All this goes to show that science doesnt really know wher the "tipping point" is.
I ll also say there is a strong correlation between production of human made CO2 and warming but correlations isnt causality.

I recently read Superfreakonomics and I recall some other good critique ther . Illget back on that.
Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.

As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.

Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.


The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.

Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.

The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.


So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.


I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.

Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.

Beacon
01-14-2014, 01:20 AM
Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.

Dont think i argued that it wasnt. I just pointed out that the actual levels do require more measurement and exactly wher the tippping point is nobody knows. thst isnt to say we arent approaching a tipping point or should not reduce our human caused output.
But Ill draw a parallel. Tonight I say a TV show about surrogate mothers. In India woman are paid $5000 (about ten years wages) to have babies. this is about 20% of what the "parents" pay ( $25,000). the point made was about this being an exploitation of women. But another way of looking at it is you are giving the ten years wages. If you really want to stop exploiting Indian young women than why dont you invest in theor country and pay them better? Similar arguments can be made about prostution. In fact the Freakonomics guy shows how feminism and womens rights directly caused the lowering of standards in education by lowering the standards of primary teaching because the teachers - almost all womes- went on to better jobs.




As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.

?
Okay how much of this is power plants how much cars and how much forest fires?


Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.

Ill accept gasses are of huam origin but how much and what percentage and at what level will irreversable warming occur?


The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.


Yes - see mu last comment. Is ther an acceptable level of road traffic deaths if not we should ban all motor cars.
Givren you wont ban all fossil fuels what do you think is acceptable?



Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.


Yes but you ban all flights and have no damage at all. similarly you can ban cigarettes and alcohol. So given you wont ban petrol and gas and cows how are you going to stop CO2 production?


The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.


Yes. so what is an unacceptable level of CO2 producion and how will you stop it increasing beyond that?


So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.

My personal view is that humans are possibly creating a huge problem. But it isnt only in global warming. But as Im not going t suggest genocide I dont have any ready solution to over consumption and over population


I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.

In the modern world people only care about THEIR welfare and not about things outside themselves and maybe their family country etc. How do you change that?


Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.

Exactly what consequences will occur ar exactly what levels of CO2? And what steps can we take?

Beacon
01-21-2014, 11:13 AM
From the horses mouth Freakonomics » Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear (http://freakonomics.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/)


We discuss how it’s a very hard problem to solve since pollution is an externality – that is, the people who generate pollution generally don’t pay the cost of their actions and therefore don’t have strong incentives to pollute less. We discuss how even the most sophisticated climate models are limited in their ability to predict the future, and we discuss the large measure of uncertainty in this realm, given that global climate is such a complex and dynamic system. We discuss some of the commonly held misperceptions about climate and energy, including the fact that the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is more complicated than is generally thought.

The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer. (That is the “global cooling” in our subtitle. If someone interprets our brief mention of the global-cooling scare of the 1970′s as an assertion of “a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling,” that feels like a willful misreading.) To think we are “deniers,” would obviate the chapter’s central point: if we weren’t convinced that global warming was worth worrying about, we wouldn’t have written a chapter about proposed solutions.

Beacon
02-13-2014, 05:56 AM
Some clarifications. the title of this thread (and the arguments introduced) are based on a Channel 4 (UK) Documentary from March 2007 of the same name.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle)


The Documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" clearly proves the mass fraud and deception of "Man Made Global Warming" is dressed up as science, but is actually propoganda. --- Dr. Riener (Former member of the IPCC).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

1) All the Proxie Measured data clearly shows the Temperature rising first and CO2 rises 800 years to 4000 years later.


Edmund is fairly correct here.

HERE IS THE MODEL:
Temperature leads CO2 levels. something (periodic) causes temperature to rise e.g. a "wobble "
in the Earths axis. Temperature has a slow effect of CO2 and a while later Co2 begins to rise. Then CO2 which has a much greater effect on temperature causes temperature to rise and this continues until temperature starts to fall ( due to the change in orbit or "wobble" or whatever astronomical reason. then the temperature FALL has a slight effect on CO2 but Co2 is still rising. A while later CO2 begins to flatten and eventually fall and that has a greater effect on temperature and the two begin to drop until Temperature eventually begins to increase again.

They are like two sine waves one behind the other with CO2 having a slight lag.

I would think the lag is closer to 100 and not 800 years.

So if Edmund is correct there is no Global Warming?
Most scientists agree to all of the above and that Co2 lags temperature in a natural cycle but It has nothing to do with "global warming".

"Global warming" or "climate change" is about changes OUTSIDE OF this natural cycle. Specifically changes caused by human activity interfering with the accepted natural cycle of warming and cooling. That point is not usually made clear.

Climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change)
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)


Let us look at the rest of Edmunds original points


2) We are told that it is warmer than it has ever been in 640,000 years, yet the Midieval warm period 1000 years ago was 1.5 degrees warmer than now.


I disagree but let us assume it is true. So what? Global warming does not say the Earth has never been hotter than now just that human interference with a natural cycle is causing it to be hotter than it should be if that cycle was left alone.



3) The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than now, and was like that for 7,000 years. Yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct.


Again we have argued that this isn't true either but again so what if it is true? The problem is that we know for a fact that Temperature rise causes CO2 increase and CO2 causes even bigger temperature rises. Eventually something else like a "wobble" in the Earths Axis causes Temperature to drop and this affects CO" by slowing the increase and eventually CO2 begins to stop and drop which in turn makes Tempoerature drop even faster.

So assume we are in a cycle (like a sine wave~or two one following right behind the other ) either mid way up or midway down. If we add additional CO2 we will slow the cooling or increase the warming depending of whether we are on the down slide or upswing. We wont see the immediate effects until the cycle begins to turn back up or back down but it is easy to model . The eventual effect is that the average of the whole cycle will have moved up in temperature!
the answer to so what is The temperature might even be lower than a prior maximum ever before and may even be going down if we are on the downward slope of the cycle BUT:

A: The peaks will eventually be higher and the troughs will be higher and the average will be higher.

B: Maybe the whole system could break down but at the very least the average temperature will be higher.

That's one of the problems the maybe might only just change most of the agriculture or it might WIPE US OUT!
Okay so maybe it wont cause the total destruction of life on earth or even the extinction of mankind. Maybe it might only cause the US to become a desert and majority Muslim countries in the Middle East China and Russia to become exceedingly fertile but that would suddenly become important because it is a political concern and not just a mathematical model. The point is we just don't know what destroying the current natural cycle WHICH WE ALREADY ACCEPT GOES UP AND DOWN might do.



4) The previous interglacial warm period about 100,000 years was many 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene Maximum and it was like that for 36,000 years. And yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct then; any more than now. (See Warm Period # 4)


Again not true but suppose it is true. We also don't believe that launching all the nukes in the world will destroy all life on Earth or even destroy all civilization or even extinct the Polar Bears but that isn't a good reason to keep building them so we can launch all of them at once is it?



5) We are told that Man Made Global Warming will bring about global environmental destruction. Yet when anyone looks at these warm periods, it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for both humans and nature.


Global Warming IS "Man Made Global Warming" ~ see above. We are not talking about the natural cycle of heating and cooling but about where mankind causes that cycle to change! No warm periods EVER in the past were "man made" with the possible exception of cutting down all the worlds forests in antiquity and the middle ages .

So if we are changing the climate don't you think this should be a concern?

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html)
Drought Conditions Worsen in Parts of U.S. | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/4124-drought-conditions-worsen-parts.html)
Deserts Might Grow as Tropics Expand | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/10472-deserts-grow-tropics-expand.html)


6) The greates greenhouse gas is Water Vapor, it is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2. H2O makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is only 380ppm (0.038%). And human contribution is less than 1ppm per year.


It isn't the percentage by amount we should worry about it is the percentage of warming it causes!

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases)
The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.

That means Non Water Vapour causes from 30% to 64% of the warming. If the Water is "natural" should we not be concerned about the majority contribution of non natural warming caused by people?

concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[75] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.




And as one can easily see:

1) Temperature is always rising first (see the rectangles of time blocks).

Dealt with above
Correct and so what?


2) The 4 previous interglacial warm periods were all warmer than the current warm period (Holocene Maximum)

Ditto


3) Notice how the CO2 levels are rising near the end (now time) yet temperature is trending downward. Clearly proving that rising CO2 levels do not cause a rise in temprature.


Wrong. when the peak is reached Temperature starts to drop but CO2 which lags this still increasing. eventually CO2 drops and causes temperature to drop more. This is well understood and accepted.
See above. CO2 levels lag temperature and both go up and down in a natural cycle
Global warming = interference by humans in this natural cycle.

Blue Wolf
06-18-2014, 02:50 PM
Last week, Live Science came out with this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet:

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below (http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html)

But I think somebody like Edmund would prefer the article below, which came out a few days later from The Daily Caller (a politically conservative news and opinion website).

Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study-west-antarctic-glacier-melt-due-to-volcanoes-not-global-warming/)

A new study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming.

Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes. Thwaites is considered a key glacier for understanding future sea level rise.

UTA researchers used radar techniques to map water flows under ice sheets and estimate the rate of ice melt in the glacier. As it turns out, geothermal heat from magma and volcanoes under the glacier is much hotter and covers a much wider area than was previously thought.

Blue Wolf
07-14-2014, 02:31 AM
I suppose we're all going to have to start drinking more water from now on . . .

From yahoo: (http://news.yahoo.com/another-side-effect-climate-change-painful-kidney-stones-213045658.html;_ylt=A0LEVxrBe8NTvScAwBdXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzbjZrMzFmBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDQ0MV8x?.tsrc=tmobustoday)

Here’s Another Side Effect of Climate Change: Painful Kidney Stones

Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:15:48 PDT

We know that climate change is bad. Because of warmer temps panicked polar bears stand on melting icebergs with nowhere to go, and the Statue of Liberty might not even survive for future generations to see. Now it’s getting personal: A new study links a warmer climate with a greater chance of developing kidney stones, an agonizing affliction.

“We found that as daily temperatures rise, there is a rapid increase in probability of patients presenting over the next 20 days with kidney stones,” said author Gregory E. Tasian of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, according to CityLab.

The researchers, who published their paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined 60,433 patients in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, and other U.S. cities. They concluded that experiencing more hot days—when temperatures hit 81 degrees or higher—could lead to an increased risk of growing a kidney stone.

Though the exact relationship between temperature and kidney stones remains unclear, the researchers wrote that heat causes “water loss, urinary concentration, and low urine volume and pH”—all of which promote the accumulation of lithogenic minerals in urine.

“Kidney stone prevalence has already been on the rise over the last 30 years, and we can expect this trend to continue, both in greater numbers and over a broader geographic area, as daily temperatures increase,” wrote Tasian. “With some experts predicting that extreme temperatures will become the norm in 30 years, children will bear the brunt of climate change.”