Thread: 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).



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.

Al Gores Inconvenient Graph Challenged.JPG

Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread you started ?

Originally Posted by Nourjan

Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread 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).

...

Originally Posted by Nourjan

Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread 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.

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.

..

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?

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.

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.

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:

Global Warming Artic Temperatures and Solar 3.JPG

[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?

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.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ribshaw

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:

Global Warming Greenhouse Gas Ratios.jpg

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

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.

...

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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:

Global Warming Artic Temperatures and Solar 3.JPG

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
"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

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


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/v.../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

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?

Originally Posted by Beacon

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
"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

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


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/v.../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

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

[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?

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.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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/re.../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
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...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

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

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which links to
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[QUOTE=Beacon;53794]

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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/re.../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
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...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

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.

Originally Posted by Beacon

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.

Originally Posted by Beacon

Which links to
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Originally Posted by Beacon

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.

Originally Posted by Beacon

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
"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

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


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/v.../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

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.

Global Warming Artic Temperatures and Solar 3.JPG




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.

...

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.

Global Warming in the Past 1000 years.jpg

This graph was produced by the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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.

Global Warming in the Past 1000 years.jpg

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Edmund129

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:

Originally Posted by ribshaw

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.

Originally Posted by Beacon

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
"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

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


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/v.../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

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.

Originally Posted by Mongo

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.

More than the past 4 years, Spector. I saw vomit spew from him in 2000, looking back over USENET records.