Climate sceticism rebutted

[Sodafin]

Also the BBC didn't address the main issue, which is the temperature data was deliberately manipulated and anyone who dared asked questions was stifled.
.

That's probably because the BBC understand perfectly well that the email scandal had precious little to do with manipulation of data, and only concerned 2 or 3 scientists in 1 or 2 research units.

Given there are at least another 60 research units in other countries who have never been accused of any manipulation, you don't have a point.

I'm amazed how many people have bought the crap written on some of the blogs about those emails.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are you so skeptical of the scientific facts that the Sun warms the Earth and drives our climatic processes? Why are you skeptical of the scientific fact that since sun spots have greatly diminished our temperature has leveled off and begun to drop?

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?

Once again, another lie.

Why is it that the Bjerksen Lecture at the AGU Conferance on December 15 in San Francisco stated exactly the opposite to what you have stated? Them thar dumb scientists don't know Jack, right?

How people as fucking dumb as you survive is a mystery.

 

[del]

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?

Once again, another lie.

Why is it that the Bjerksen Lecture at the AGU Conferance on December 15 in San Francisco stated exactly the opposite to what you have stated? Them thar dumb scientists don't know Jack, right?

How people as fucking dumb as you survive is a mystery.

i'm sure you inspire many.

 

[mudwhistle]

Because expert analysis has confirmed that it its influence is around one tenth of the influence of Co2.

Also note that the solar forcing dropped the 1960s - before the dramatic rise in temperatures.

Unless you have evidence to refute that - I'll take the BBC's word for it.

If CO2 levels directly correspond to temperature fluctuations why is it that the evidence shows no correlation?

Once again, another lie.

Why is it that the Bjerksen Lecture at the AGU Conferance on December 15 in San Francisco stated exactly the opposite to what you have stated? Them thar dumb scientists don't know Jack, right?

How people as fucking dumb as you survive is a mystery.

Liberals spouting cooked up theories during a lecture is not going to change my mind.

I want plausible facts....not all of this overreaching nonsense.

Just because they know how to write and can generate impressive graphs they're still using fake findings.

If you try hard enough you can prove anything is possible but you can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Time and time again research has proved in the past to be wrong and this is no different.

The folks most actively pushing the agenda don't believe it's real. If they did they would change their ways instead of taking limos to conferences and flying jets all over the world. They would do it all on the internet instead of wasting resources and pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere in the process.
They wouldn't be selling carbon credits designed to allow the rich to continue to pollute and institute cap & trade treaties intended to distribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries.

 

[Sodafin]

Liberals spouting cooked up theories during a lecture is not going to change my mind.

I want plausible facts....not all of this overreaching nonsense.

.

If that were true, you'd have been interested in the material presented in this thread, and you wouldn't be pretending this was a liberal/conservative issue.

Conservatives all over the world are up to speed on climate change - why aren't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals spouting cooked up theories during a lecture is not going to change my mind.

I want plausible facts....not all of this overreaching nonsense.

.

If that were true, you'd have been interested in the material presented in this thread, and you wouldn't be pretending this was a liberal/conservative issue.

Conservatives all over the world are up to speed on climate change - why aren't you?

You just stepped on your dick. You cannot assume something so ridiculous. They aren't going along with it. They are for the most part in direct opposition to it.


And let's not forget what transpired in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen conference was nearly a disaster. Infighting and arguments about who's gonna be paying whom how much.

It was all about cash....not saving the motherfucken planet.

 

[slackjawed]

I offer that this message board is green and contributes to a decline in localized warming.
A lot of hot air is prevented by typing instead of talking.

 

[mudwhistle]

I offer that this message board is green and contributes to a decline in localized warming.
A lot of hot air is prevented by typing instead of talking.

Didn't you know that if you drive a green car and live in a green house you're saving the planet.......all you have to do is give the Dems your green cash and you can save it even more.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The East Anglia Emails create two problems for the data. One is the fact it is not just the fact we have one or two crooks. It is the fact that this institution was the source of everyone else's numbers. They were the source for all of it. Everyone was citing their numbers. They were the assay of all climate data. It is almost as if overnight they had decided to change the weight of the kilogram. There is no longer any standard data, because everyone was using the bogus set. There are no alternative sets we can measure against.

So Old Rock's argument is circular. There is no conspiracy, there is just to much dependence on too few fallible people.

One can make the same argument about the bible. Everyone who trusts it regards it as the truth, despite internal evidence to the contrary. We can't go into our time machine and interview Pilate on his motives, or Peter, nor can we do a census on the multitude who ate the loaves and fish, nor can we go to Cannea and check out the wine after the wedding, nor can we go to Garadine and see if some poor farmer is missing some pigs. We have to take it on faith, which I don't have.

Now the bible does not have deliberate lies as its source. The weather data does.

Now check out the graphs earlier.... The carbon numbers are flat, or nearly so. The temperature numbers look like the Matterhorn. There are all kinds of things that go to make up temperature numbers, but it looks like carbon is not one of them.

Now, temperature data has not been collected for a long time. We know, even on a timeline as short as the last 2000 years that temperature fluctuates wildly even over long terms. There have been mini ices ages, and very nice warm times over the last 2000 years. We can't evaluate them. No one was taking temperature readings in the 17th century, so we can't evaluate how temperatures have changed since them, even though we know temperature has increased a lot since then So you can't make the argument that the last 10 years have been the hottest ever just because they are the hottest on record. For things on the scale of climate change, 10 years average just barely rises to the dignity of a data point.

So to recapitulate.. The data source we have is from only one corrupt place.

The data set really is to small to make an intelligent decision even if the data were honest.

There is no co relation between the supposed cause and the effect

even if there were a co relation, there are too many other factors to make an effective determination of just what that relation is.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Eagle -

You seem to have misunderstood one very key element here - CO2 is NOT the only influence on our atmosphere.

Hence, looking for a day-by-day 100% correlation between C02 levels and temperature simply does not work.

We CAN definitely chart C02 levels and temperature, but one has to be rational here and realise that because of the influence of La Nina, methane, the sun etc etc etc these are decade vs decade trends, not week vs week ones.

Atmospheric concentrations of methane increased steadily from 1900 to the present. *Please confirm or deny this fact in any rebuttal.* Trends in Atmospheric Methane

You haven't been confirming or denying any of the facts. The warmists have been saying for decades that greenhouse gases cause global temperature increases. GHG's increased consistently from 1900 onward, yet temperatures have not done so. I fail to see a direct correlation. How can you have half of a period showing the opposite result from what your hypothesis predicts and still maintain that such a hypothesis is true?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Someone else had posted this the other day, but I love it.

OMFG!!!! Priceless!!!!!!!

That is just so so so so so perfect in so many ways!

 

[mudwhistle]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

Mud, you are really stretching your lies.

Every scientific society in the world now states that the warming is real, and that the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels. They represent the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Every National Academy of Science of every industrial nation states the same.

As does every major university in the world.

Now show me where I am wrong. Show me a major scientific society that states AGW is not occurring.

Show me a National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not occuring.

Show me a major university that states that AGW is not occuring.

You cannot because only you wingnut fruitcakes are foolish enough to deny all the sceintific evidence that has been presented. Your denial of reality is a pathetic thing.

 

[sherp]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

Mud, you are really stretching your lies.

Every scientific society in the world now states that the warming is real, and that the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels. They represent the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Every National Academy of Science of every industrial nation states the same.

As does every major university in the world.

Now show me where I am wrong. Show me a major scientific society that states AGW is not occurring.

Show me a National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not occuring.

Show me a major university that states that AGW is not occuring.

You cannot because only you wingnut fruitcakes are foolish enough to deny all the sceintific evidence that has been presented. Your denial of reality is a pathetic thing.

Nothing wrong with the planet warming up. Over warm periods is when we thrive and shiver up and freeze when its cold. Betcha Siberia, Canada and other "cold spots" can't wait. We know folks loved the Medieval Warm Period when everyone thrived including the Vikings in Greenland who had to abandon the place during the "little ice" age. The Polar Bears are thriving too and have increased their numbers to over the last 50 years to 25,000 from 5,000 due to the Seal Population exploding and they can swim 200 miles. Bring on Global Warming. Did you see where the six students in Denver had their protest rally against GW snowed out in a blizzard?
In response to the "show me .......", well MIT and Professor Lindstim don't agree and the folks who do have outed themselves in their own "trick" words. I am praying the Philippine volcano won't throw us into an extended cold period and this winter is setting records. Paraphrasing Goucho Marx "Are you going to believe those GW dolts or your own lying eyes"?

 

[eots]

January 01 2010 at 12:15PM

New Delhi - At least 17 people died as towns and cities in India's northern states were hit by cold weather, officials said on Friday.

"Sixteen people have died in Uttar Pradesh since early Wednesday due to cold [weather] conditions in the state. Most victims were homeless or pavement dwellers," state police spokesman G N Khanna said.

Police in Jammu, the winter capital of India-administered Kashmir, found the body of a worker who also died due to the cold.

Temperatures have plummeted in Uttar Pradesh and main cities such as Kanpur and Agra recorded temperatures as low as 1 to 4 degrees Celsius.
↓
News - Asia: Cold weather kills scores

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Old Rocks strikes me as the type who would claim a snowfall in Mexico City as proof of Global warming

 

[eots]

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds


ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

 

[slackjawed]

hi eots, when do you want to go fishing?
btw-don't forget at least 1 utube video.

 

[eots]

fishing..right...I can picture it now

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0mvIR0C02w[/ame]