Finally! An Explanation Of The "global Warming" Scam!

[Billy_Bob]

yeah, I missed the part where the EPA went for political control because the only mention of how that happened is simply you saying it happened. Unfortunatly theres no part for me to see. If you'd like to link to anything or quote anything to back that up maybe the picture would be clearer.

You really are out to lunch... permanently..

Nor is the CFC-ozone theory itself in good shape. Over the years, its predictions for long-term, global ozone depletion have varied widely; during the early eighties the National Academy of Sciences published values that gradually decreased from 18% down to 3%. Since the discovery of the ozone hole, there have been no further quantitative predictions published because it was recognized that the existing theory could not cope with the heterogeneous destruction processes that depended more on particulate surface area than on the level of chlorine (25,26).

The theory could not describe ozone variations caused by the (heterogeneous) reactions on particulates (volcanic debris, aerosols, etc.) in the lower stratosphere and therefore was not able to predict the Antarctic ozone hole.. In the upper stratosphere, where only gas-phase (homogeneous) reactions take place, the theory predicts larger changes than are actually observed (27).

Were back to models again, ones that can not depict reality in any form.

Source

 

[ClosedCaption]

LOL! Ok someone simply explain how concern for global warming translates into communism? Seriously, how will your lives become similar to communist Russia?

"On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.”

The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010

So again, I love the bias opinions as explanations and all that. Its like me saying Marshmellows are nasty then posting quotes from a "I hate marshmellows" group as proof.

But I asked you, simply explain how concern for global warming translates into communism?
how will your lives become similar to communist Russia?

Seriously???
You can't understand how that was answered and documented?
Must be that government schooling.

So I ask you how will global warming control your life and your explanation of how is a quote from some guy repeating that global warming will control your life?

Must be that of home schooling

 

[ClosedCaption]

yeah, I missed the part where the EPA went for political control because the only mention of how that happened is simply you saying it happened. Unfortunatly theres no part for me to see. If you'd like to link to anything or quote anything to back that up maybe the picture would be clearer.

You really are out to lunch... permanently..

Nor is the CFC-ozone theory itself in good shape. Over the years, its predictions for long-term, global ozone depletion have varied widely; during the early eighties the National Academy of Sciences published values that gradually decreased from 18% down to 3%. Since the discovery of the ozone hole, there have been no further quantitative predictions published because it was recognized that the existing theory could not cope with the heterogeneous destruction processes that depended more on particulate surface area than on the level of chlorine (25,26).

The theory could not describe ozone variations caused by the (heterogeneous) reactions on particulates (volcanic debris, aerosols, etc.) in the lower stratosphere and therefore was not able to predict the Antarctic ozone hole.. In the upper stratosphere, where only gas-phase (homogeneous) reactions take place, the theory predicts larger changes than are actually observed (27).

Were back to models again, ones that can not depict reality in any form.

Source

So once again, this seems to be a reoccuring problem, I asked for you to post something backing up the claim that the EPA is acting for political reasons now and wasnt in the past. You reply with a quote from a site that main page says "dissolve the EPA" that talks about the Ozone layer. From a paragraph that titled "Scientific Uncertainties" as if to say there is no uncertainty in science. Typical Peanut Gallery stuff.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Also Scietific Models ALWAYS change. Thats a far cry from deniers like yourself who will always have the same opinion despite any new evidence.

See? Instead of posting from sites that back my already held beliefs like you, I'll post the link to a simple site on science.

No scientific model has ever been totally complete. When credible observations of a new situation come into conflict with the predictions of a model, something must be changed because either the data or the model is incorrect. Although Columbus used the “spherical Earth” model to predict the length of his voyage to the Indian subcontinent, his estimate of the Earth’s radius was much smaller than what we now know it to be. Thus, Columbus underestimated the circumference of the Earth and the length of his voyage to India. (Fortunately for Columbus, there were two other rather large continents for him to reach before he ran out of supplies.) Later, the model of Earth as a sphere was refined to include a better estimate of its radius, and thus make better predictions about distances to locations on its surface. The model was correct, but its parameters had to be refined.
We will see in the rest of the series that our particle model will not have to be thrown out when it doesn’t sufficiently explain new data, but adding some detail or refining some parameter of the model will explain these new observations.

Physical Science Session 2

What you are describing essentially is the scientific modelling process and saying that its bad because it changes which is the process.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So once again, this seems to be a reoccuring problem, I asked for you to post something backing up the claim that the EPA is acting for political reasons now and wasnt in the past. You reply with a quote from a site that main page says "dissolve the EPA" that talks about the Ozone layer. From a paragraph that titled "Scientific Uncertainties" as if to say there is no uncertainty in science. Typical Peanut Gallery stuff.

You really are easily mislead.

The science about sulfuric acid or acid rain was founded by repeatable science. Its foundations were found in open and debated science.

Today the EPA just elicits mandates. The Endangerment finding is just one of many which are based on poor science or outright lies. As your ignorant on this subject here is some information for you;

On to the Endangerment Finding...

In order to take control of the nations economy (after congress has explicitly said no) the current administration has taken its out of control agency club and now used it's unfettered control of rule making to find CO2 a danger to man. In doing so they can now control every aspect of human life.

Lets Review the Amicus Brief to the SCOTUS (PDF Here)which challenges the EPA's finding.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
In the midst of an unsettled and vigorous international debate regarding the existence of purported global warming and the role—if any—of human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) in contributing to that alleged warming, EPA concluded with near absolute certainty that temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century were “unusually” high because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009). That sweeping conclusion was a critical component of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and so was an impetus for the most significant and far-reaching regulatory program ever devised by a federal agency.

Amici urge the Court to grant petitioners’ request for certiorari because the three “lines of evidence” from the administrative record that EPA relied on do not support the conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions have caused climate warming in the latter half of the twentiethcentury. Indeed, each line of evidence is demonstrably invalid.

EPA’s first line of evidence, its purported basic physical understanding of the effect of GHGs and other factors on climate, is invalid because it relies on the existence of an atmospheric “hot spot” or “fingerprint” that simply does not exist in the real world’s temperature data. Its second line of evidence, the assertion that temperatures around the globe rose to unusual and dangerously high levels over the last fifty years, is also demonstrably false using the best temperature data available. Likewise, EPA’s third line of evidence, involving computerized climate models, is also invalid. It can be shown that those models, premised on faulty assumptions, just do not produce forecasts that match up with the real world.

No specialized scientific education or previous experience with climate science is needed to see that those facts are true. Each of EPA’s lines of evidence requires that the most relevant and credible temperature data available show upward-sloping trends in temperature. That is true for the Hot Spot or GHG Fingerprint theory, the assertion that worldwide temperatures have been anomalous, and for actual data to conform to EPA’s model forecasts of rising global average surface temperature (GAST). In science, theories must be validated against the most credible evidence will be shown to be invalid via such easy to understand hypothesis testing.

EPA reached its invalid conclusions through a highly deficient process. EPA refused to examine “relevant data,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), and made other procedural errors. EPA’s Endangerment Finding is not “rational,” but arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 556 U.S., at 516. Amici therefore respectfully request that this Court grant petitioners’ request for certiorari in this case.

Now that we have set the table lets discuss the lines of evidence (LoE). The fact is, I have already shown all three of their LoE as demonstrably falsified.

The EPA is a political group and science is NOT in their game plan any more.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Also Scietific Models ALWAYS change. Thats a far cry from deniers like yourself who will always have the same opinion despite any new evidence.

See? Instead of posting from sites that back my already held beliefs like you, I'll post the link to a simple site on science.

<snip>

What you are describing essentially is the scientific modelling process and saying that its bad because it changes which is the process.

Ah Yes the argument that models can never be falsified... this is the new meme to keep the lie alive.. If it can not be falsified IT IS NOT SCIENCE! It is dogma.

Omitting the predictive and observation stages and claiming your right is a fools errand.

 

[Toronado3800]

PC, this is a new level of random rant. Do you want to talk about conspiracy theories I guess? Do you want to talk about science? Do you want to talk about people you want to take up a cause they feel they can't be wrong about?

I just don't get all the yelling and name calling. It is kinda childish.

So guys, what effect is this conspiracy having on your lives? A few pages back I talked about my 3 cars, 80 valves and almost 900 horse between them. I don't feel victimized.

I THINK there is as big a conspiracy to be held that folks who fear raising the value of ISIS and Iranian oil are grabbing for any reason to get us to stop burning as much of it and use good ol hazardous non Arab terrorist funding batteries to run our cars off American coal. It just makes more sense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, we see the real motivation of the throngs of beardless....and bearded....youth, yearning for substance, yearning to be significant....not what they've been taught of their existence in government schools: "you're unique, just like everybody else."

'Global Warming' gives them raison d'etre, the political nexus of religion and science.


14. " Insight into the quasi-religious motivations that stand behind climate activism cannot finally resolve the empirical controversies at stake in our debate over global warming. Yet understanding climate activism as a cultural phenomenon does yield insight into that debate.


The religious character of the climate-change crusade chokes off serious discussion. It stigmatizes reasonable skepticism about climate catastrophism (which is different from questioning the fundamental physics of carbon dioxide’s effect on the atmosphere).


Climate apocalypticism drags what ought to be careful consideration of the costs and benefits of various policy options into the fraught world of identity politics. The wish to be oppressed turns into the wish to be morally superior, which turns into the pleasure of silencing alleged oppressors, which turns into its own sort of hatred and oppression."
The Wannabe Oppressed National Review Online





And so, is and when our global warmists grow up, and actually make something of their lives.....they'll look back on this, laugh nervously,...

....and change the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL! Ok someone simply explain how concern for global warming translates into communism? Seriously, how will your lives become similar to communist Russia?

"On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.”

The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010

So again, I love the bias opinions as explanations and all that. Its like me saying Marshmellows are nasty then posting quotes from a "I hate marshmellows" group as proof.

But I asked you, simply explain how concern for global warming translates into communism?
how will your lives become similar to communist Russia?

Seriously???
You can't understand how that was answered and documented?
Must be that government schooling.

So I ask you how will global warming control your life and your explanation of how is a quote from some guy repeating that global warming will control your life?

Must be that of home schooling

to·tal·i·tar·i·an
tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən/
adjective

1. 1.
   of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

 

[edthecynic]

What the heck is it with the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" brigade?
How many years of no global warming will it take for them to wander off into well deserved obscurity??

How many years of no global cooling will it take for deniers to wander off into well deserved obscurity??

Try reading the rest of the OP....It would definitely help with your therapy.

IOW, yeah there have been 100 years of no cooling during which time the temperature has risen, and only 14, or 17 or 20 years (the deniers keep changing the number from day to day) of no warming during which time the temperature has also risen only not as fast.

 

[Billy_Bob]

IOW, yeah there have been 100 years of no cooling during which time the temperature has risen, and only 14, or 17 or 20 years (the deniers keep changing the number from day to day) of no warming during which time the temperature has also risen only not as fast.

Empirical Evidence is not your friend.

 

[Toronado3800]

IOW, yeah there have been 100 years of no cooling during which time the temperature has risen, and only 14, or 17 or 20 years (the deniers keep changing the number from day to day) of no warming during which time the temperature has also risen only not as fast.

Empirical Evidence is not your friend.

Global Analysis - Annual 2013 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Gimme your link. I am curious.

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

All AGW science is predisposed to a 'hot' spot in our atmosphere which has never appeared and is not currently present. That atmosphere is now cooling.. The models and their science is wrong.

 

[Toronado3800]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

Is that telling me there is a .03 degree C decrees in temps where those trees grew? Maybe on a PC there was more description there. I am killing time at the inlaws on my cell. (An old NoteII with a double size + battery. I will be here for sometime)

 

[edthecynic]

IOW, yeah there have been 100 years of no cooling during which time the temperature has risen, and only 14, or 17 or 20 years (the deniers keep changing the number from day to day) of no warming during which time the temperature has also risen only not as fast.

Empirical Evidence is not your friend.

Global Analysis - Annual 2013 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Gimme your link. I am curious.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Set the time period for 14 years, 17 years or 20 years, depending on which denier you are citing, and be sure to check the box for the trend line in the options on the right and set the same time period and see if the trend line rises or falls.

14 years

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

17 years

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

20 years

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

The Left Relentlessly Pushes Climate Hoax in All-Out Assault on Capitalism
September 23, 2014
RUSH: I'm just telling you there isn't any warming. There hadn't been in 20 years. There's cooling, in fact.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So once again, this seems to be a reoccuring problem, I asked for you to post something backing up the claim that the EPA is acting for political reasons now and wasnt in the past. You reply with a quote from a site that main page says "dissolve the EPA" that talks about the Ozone layer. From a paragraph that titled "Scientific Uncertainties" as if to say there is no uncertainty in science. Typical Peanut Gallery stuff.

You really are easily mislead.

The science about sulfuric acid or acid rain was founded by repeatable science. Its foundations were found in open and debated science.

Today the EPA just elicits mandates. The Endangerment finding is just one of many which are based on poor science or outright lies. As your ignorant on this subject here is some information for you;

On to the Endangerment Finding...

The EPA is a political group and science is NOT in their game plan any more.

Dude, I asked for you to post something backing up the claim that the EPA is acting for political reasons now and wasnt in the past. You respond with a petition that has nothing to do with that topic. Only the topic of how the models werent 100% correct which is normal for the scientific modelling process and nothing on how the EPA is acting for political reasons.

I asked before, 3 times to 2 different people how global warming will control your lives. Both of you, 3 times have failed at explaining your platitudes

 

[edthecynic]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

All AGW science is predisposed to a 'hot' spot in our atmosphere which has never appeared and is not currently present. That atmosphere is now cooling.. The models and their science is wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

Is that telling me there is a .03 degree C decrees in temps where those trees grew? Maybe on a PC there was more description there. I am killing time at the inlaws on my cell. (An old NoteII with a double size + battery. I will be here for sometime)

I think they cherry picked a single month because the chart says it begins in 2001 and when I plugged in the annual numbers starting in 2001 I get this:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

 

[Toronado3800]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

All AGW science is predisposed to a 'hot' spot in our atmosphere which has never appeared and is not currently present. That atmosphere is now cooling.. The models and their science is wrong.

Guys, are these numbers generally agreed upon?

 

[edthecynic]

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

All AGW science is predisposed to a 'hot' spot in our atmosphere which has never appeared and is not currently present. That atmosphere is now cooling.. The models and their science is wrong.

Guys, are these numbers generally agreed upon?

They are not exact, but Hadley (hadcrut3gl), NOAA and NASA are pretty close.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets