-
1 Attachment(s)
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.
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.
Attachment 3320
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Didn't they thoroughly debunked your argument t at the scam.com thread you started ?
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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?
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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).
...
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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:
Attachment 3321
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
[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?
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
...
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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:
Attachment 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
"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?
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baylee
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
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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:
Attachment 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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Edmund129
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ribshaw
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.
Attachment 3531
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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)
Attachment 3532
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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:
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ribshaw
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!!!
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ribshaw
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!!!
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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=PL6C2641BB1E0A DC48&feature=results_main
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ribshaw
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
..
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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.
Attachment 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.
...
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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]
Attachment 3707
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.
Attachment 3708
This graph was produced by the IPCC.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
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.
Attachment 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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spector567
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.
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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.”
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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…”
-
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
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