Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[Big Fitz]

Persuading private sector entities to invest in making their operations and communities carbon neutral have always been a large part of the push to address AGW issues.

A solution for a problem that hasn't been improved to exist. And if someone refuses? Penalties under the law? Fines, cost increases, extra governmental monitoring? these are still government solutions unless someone can freely opt out.

There is actually a wide panoply of voluntary private sector addressments that have and can be implemented to help address issues of climate change, unfortunately, we've already waited too late for private sector solutions alone to do more than assist larger efforts by individuals and governments.

Right. The use of force. Since voluntary programs haven't changed society because the problem cannot be proven to exist, we just have to force the issue and mandate it.

the whole point is to deliver global socialism/fascism. Just as long as society bends to your will, eh?

If massive private sector initiatives had been instigated and maintained 3-4 decades ago, it may have been possible to significantly and predominantly address the issues of AGW without the need for any major governmental addressments. But that is water under the bridge and there is little sense in going down that coulda, shoulda, woulda discussion.

Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%. Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.

 

[Trakar]

This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling evidences please present them.

Which is my exact point about your assertions. But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.

Science has made its case on the issues relating to AGW, you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings, it is up to you to support those assertions of fraud and conspiracy. Please provide the evidence that supports your assertions or leave them as the unsupportable assertions they appear to be.

If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW, please present your evidence and understandings

I'm sorry. Are we now supposed to accept that pink dancing/singing elephants don't exist? You've proof to show they don't?

Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC documents and published science archives. It is the mainstream science perspective. If you wish to refute or offer an alternative to the mainstream scientific perspective or simply assert that the mainstream perspective is wrong, then burden is on you to support your refutation, alternative or assertion. Please do so, or leave your assertions as the unsupported claims they appear to be.

Where's your proof for your allegations that MANKIND is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for climatological change on a global scale through the production of 'greenhouse gases'. Can you show me an experiment which I can repeat to confirm your assertations?

Measure the absorption spectra for major natural greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.

Calculate the radiative transfer energies and processes through the Earth's atmosphere based upon the measured composition of the atmosphere.

measure the average Carbon isotope composition of coal, oil and natural gas, compare to historic and modern Carbon isotope compositions of atmospheric compounds. plot and track evolving isotope ratios over the historic record period.

Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the historic record of such assessments.

These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.

Just as a reminder, NASA, NOAA's surface stations, Mann/Jones and the East Anglia CRU have all been debunked as frauds in this manner, and therefore invalid as source material due to data bias (cherrypicked or deliberately biased placement of sensors) or deliberate deletion or false manufacture.

This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.

 

[Big Fitz]

you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings,

Accurately making claims. http://www.climategate.org

Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC documents and published science archives.

The IPCC has stated it's data is bad, and has been based on anecdotal sources from activists. I'm supposed to believe them, when?

I don't have to find sources to back my claim it doesn't exist when your own sources have been shown to be frauds. I leave it to westwall, Meister, Oddball, and many many others to provide you with data to links you'll ignore anyway. I just have to use basic logic and understanding of what science is to know you've not proven your case.

Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the historic record of such assessments.

These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.

Huh... really? that's what you're going to claim? Well work your way out of this.

In Junior High, we learned about atmospheric composition in science class. We learned that CO2 is around .4% of the total atmospheric composition. Of that, mankind produced 0.06% of the amount. Now you tell me that an increase of less than 0.003% of the total atmospheric condition will significantly raise the temperature of the world? Why do I need to know more to know you're fulla shit? Tha's some magical CO2 coming out of them tailpipes.

This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.

You have one link, and look for "climategate" in google will produce hundreds of thousands of hits. To find NOAA's bias, go here:

http://www.surfacestations.org

Do you enjoy cracking your skull on the bottom of the pool, or is this an accidental pleasure you've come by?

 

[Trakar]

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.

Really? They share it? Then no one has ever had to file a FOIA request.

Oh, wait...

So, it's not a lie. You idiot leftists need to learn that something you disagree with is not a lie.

Many of the FOIA requests being objected to by some researhers, are not requests for direct raw data or even methodologies and source code. Most of the FOIA requests are being made for unofficial and casual communications documents, memos, emails, phone records, working paper notes and notebooks, etc.,. They are "fishing expeditions" being launched to harass researchers, impede their work and generally hunt for any ancilliary issue that can be twisted to publically ridicule and intimidate the leading researchers in the field of climate research.

 

[Trakar]

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

You made specific assertions, you need to provide specific support for such assertions. If you cannot, or choose not to, support your assertions, you are free to leave them as the unsupported accusations they appear to be.

 

[Big Fitz]

Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.

Really? They share it? Then no one has ever had to file a FOIA request.

Oh, wait...

So, it's not a lie. You idiot leftists need to learn that something you disagree with is not a lie.

Many of the FOIA requests being objected to by some researhers, are not requests for direct raw data or even methodologies and source code. Most of the FOIA requests are being made for unofficial and casual communications documents, memos, emails, phone records, working paper notes and notebooks, etc.,. They are "fishing expeditions" being launched to harass researchers, impede their work and generally hunt for any ancilliary issue that can be twisted to publically ridicule and intimidate the leading researchers in the field of climate research.

Love the emails where Mann and Jones talked about dodging and ignoring FOIA requests and illegally blocking them. Criminal acts to cover up fraud and scam?

Things that make you go... hmmmmmm.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo]YouTube - ‪Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....‬‏[/ame]

 

[Trakar]

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

Quite possibly, in fact I'm sure that this is occassionally the case with individual researchers whether we are talking about the fields of Economics, Theoretical Physics, Climatology or any other field of scientific study. This, however, is not a reasonably compelling reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, any more than one oddfellow's penchant for "tapping his toes" in airport bathrooms is a compelling reason to dismiss and discard centuries worth of socially conservative considerations and contributions to the modern political discourse.

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

 

[Trakar]

Have you offered objectively compelling verifiable and generally unambiguous evidence that supports this contention of agenda-driven science? If so please link to, cite, or otherwise reference this material as I would be most interested in reviewing it. I have investigated and follwed climate science very closely for much of the last couple decades and am unaware of any such evidence.

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

Strawman

Please indicate any climate scientist or even any group of climate activists that have advocated socialism as a remedy for AGW.

To paraphrase your own admonishing, characterizing people, actions and ideas you don't like as "socialist/ism" is not sufficient to actually make such ideas representative of socialism.

 

[Trakar]

Go back over all the damn threads, roxie. There has to be no less than 2 dozen of them. It still won't change your mind what the truth actually is. Your part of the cult movement, son.

I have always been under the impression that it was obligated upon the person making claims and assertions to provide supporting evidences of their claims and assertions.

Claims and assertions have been made....it's just an endless cycle. Do your own homework with the other threads....it's all there. I'm not going to waste my time to try and change your mind, that would be an act of futility, as you with me.

Support your claims and assertions or leave them as the unsupported/unsupportable rhetorical rants they appear to be, the choice is yours.

 

[Trakar]

...Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%. Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.

Are you seriously unaware of the internally conflicting and self-contradictory clauses in the above assertions?

 

[Meister]

I have always been under the impression that it was obligated upon the person making claims and assertions to provide supporting evidences of their claims and assertions.

Claims and assertions have been made....it's just an endless cycle. Do your own homework with the other threads....it's all there. I'm not going to waste my time to try and change your mind, that would be an act of futility, as you with me.

Support your claims and assertions or leave them as the unsupported/unsupportable rhetorical rants they appear to be, the choice is yours.

If your too lazy to do the research that's on this board, just say so, it's there. I'm not going to jump through your hoops, son.

 

[Big Fitz]

...Once empirical proof of an actual crisis exists, I'd get behind solving it 100%. Since the proof does not exist and nothing man could do can change it anyway... it's irrelevant.

Are you seriously unaware of the internally conflicting and self-contradictory clauses in the above assertions?

I'm aware of your inability to get it though.

You chicken littles quickly devolve into religious insanity.

 

[Trakar]

you are making claims of fraud and conspiracy against those findings,

Accurately making claims. http://www.climategate.org

This is a nonfunctioning link

Not at all the scientific evidence supporting AGW is listed in the IPCC documents and published science archives.

The IPCC has stated it's data is bad, and has been based on anecdotal sources from activists. I'm supposed to believe them, when?

Reference?

I just have to use basic logic and understanding of what science is to know you've not proven your case.

Please do, so far I have seen no evidence of your use of either.

Calculate volume of CO2 generated by the open cycle combustion of fossil fuels over the last 200 years. Plot and compare ratio shifts due to the addition of fossil fuel combustion products to the atmosphere over the historic record of such assessments.

These are the essential bases of AGW, and they are fairly trivially demonstrated with the proper devotion of time and effort.

Huh... really? that's what you're going to claim? Well work your way out of this.

In Junior High, we learned about atmospheric composition in science class. We learned that CO2 is around .4% of the total atmospheric composition. Of that, mankind produced 0.06% of the amount. Now you tell me that an increase of less than 0.003% of the total atmospheric condition will significantly raise the temperature of the world?

that is what the calculations and measurements I outlined will demonstrate to you, it is not that difficult. These experiements are conducted and the effects demonstrated in High School and lower level university classrooms daily around the world.

This is an assertion you continue to make that is, thus far, without objective substantiation nor compelling evidentiary support.

You have one link, and look for "climategate" in google will produce hundreds of thousands of hits. To find NOAA's bias, go here:

http://www.surfacestations.org

This doesn't appear to be a site dedicated to the use or application of rigorous scientific methodology/analyses nor the proper scientific verfication of results procedures. That said when analyses and results from this site's efforts are applied to the actual data measurements how does it impact and compare with the overall USHCN station information and the modelling work resulting from the use of such data?

(Hint: if you aren't sure, here are a few of the actual studies that have taken the data and information provided by Surfacestation.org and fully analyzed the findings:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2006tp1073.pdf

http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs/menne-etal2010.pdf

Abstract
Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool&#8221 bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm&#8221 bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool&#8221 bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

and if you don't like these analyses and results, how about this recent paper that Pielke, Watt and a few others managed to get published in the AMS journal presenting the findings of Watt's SurfaceStation.org to the scientific community:

AMS Journals Online - Distribution of Landscape Types in the Global Historical Climatology Network

Abstract -
The Global Historical Climate Network version 2 (GHCNv.2) surface temperature dataset is widely used for reconstructions such as the global average surface temperature (GAST) anomaly. Because land use and land cover (LULC) affect temperatures, it is important to examine the spatial distribution and the LULC representation of GHCNv.2 stations. Here, nightlight imagery, two LULC datasets, and a population and cropland historical reconstruction are used to estimate the present and historical worldwide occurrence of LULC types and the number of GHCNv.2 stations within each. Results show that the GHCNv.2 station locations are biased toward urban and cropland (>50% stations versus 18.4% of the world’s land) and past century reclaimed cropland areas (35% stations versus 3.4% land). However, widely occurring LULC such as open shrubland, bare, snow/ice, and evergreen broadleaf forests are underrepresented (14% stations versus 48.1% land), as well as nonurban areas that have remained uncultivated in the past century (14.2% stations versus 43.2% land). Results from the temperature trends over the different landscapes confirm that the temperature trends are different for different LULC and that the GHCNv.2 stations network might be missing on long-term larger positive trends. This opens the possibility that the temperature increases of Earth’s land surface in the last century would be higher than what the GHCNv.2-based GAST analyses report.

Do you enjoy cracking your skull on the bottom of the pool, or is this an accidental pleasure you've come by?

Thinking you are seeing other people when you look in a mirror seems a rather peculiar manifestation to me.

 

[Trakar]

...Love the emails where Mann and Jones talked about dodging and ignoring FOIA requests and illegally blocking them. Criminal acts to cover up fraud and scam?...

Do you have a link to an objective, reliable reference to support these assertion/insinuations?

 

[Trakar]

Claims and assertions have been made....it's just an endless cycle. Do your own homework with the other threads....it's all there. I'm not going to waste my time to try and change your mind, that would be an act of futility, as you with me.

Support your claims and assertions or leave them as the unsupported/unsupportable rhetorical rants they appear to be, the choice is yours.

If your too lazy to do the research that's on this board, just say so, it's there. I'm not going to jump through your hoops, son.

They aren't my hoops, young'un. These are the standards of any logical and reasoned discourse. The person who makes an assertion is responsible for providing the support for their assertions. As you mature and hopefully continue on in your education, you will come to see that this is the manner of most adult exchanges and interactions.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is your assertion and it is either supported by compelling and verifiable objective evidence, or it is not. I see no scientifically compelling evidence for what you assert. if you have compelling evidences please present them.

Which is my exact point about your assertions. But since I don't have to prove something DOESN'T exist, you must prove that it DOES exist, the onus is on you, bigboy.

If you have access to compelling scientific evidence that refutes or supports an alternative to the mainstream scientific theories of AGW, please present your evidence and understandings

I'm sorry. Are we now supposed to accept that pink dancing/singing elephants don't exist? You've proof to show they don't?

Where's your proof for your allegations that MANKIND is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for climatological change on a global scale through the production of 'greenhouse gases'. Can you show me an experiment which I can repeat to confirm your assertations?

Just as a reminder, NASA, NOAA's surface stations, Mann/Jones and the East Anglia CRU have all been debunked as frauds in this manner, and therefore invalid as source material due to data bias (cherrypicked or deliberately biased placement of sensors) or deliberate deletion or false manufacture.

"Nobodys to the trusted but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!"

LOL, break out the little tinfoil hats, gents, Fritz is ready to be fitted for one.

 

[Meister]

Support your claims and assertions or leave them as the unsupported/unsupportable rhetorical rants they appear to be, the choice is yours.

If your too lazy to do the research that's on this board, just say so, it's there. I'm not going to jump through your hoops, son.

They aren't my hoops, young'un. These are the standards of any logical and reasoned discourse. The person who makes an assertion is responsible for providing the support for their assertions. As you mature and hopefully continue on in your education, you will come to see that this is the manner of most adult exchanges and interactions.

Son, don't tell me about education....I did just fine, if you need a mentor, just PM me.
Those ARE your hoops because you don't have the drive (or just being lazy) to go bone up on what has been hashed out over the last 2+ years. Just go back and read them and catch up to speed, then get back to me and we can discuss.

 

[daveman]

The evidence for which is?

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

There may be some instances of behaviors and circumstances that could be portrayed in the manner you speak of. These, however, are neither widespread nor all-inclusive with regards to climate science. More importantly, despite the few outlier instances where such may have occurred, it apparently didn't involve any actual distortion or manipulation of data or significant scientific findings, as the results of even the few contentious studies (with regards to such issues) have generally been in full accord with the findings of the multitude of fully open source and data studies that make up the bulk of the research into climate issues.

Have you been paying attention at all?

 

[daveman]

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

There is allegorical proof that the issue is political and religious, not scientific.

I'm still waiting on my challenge for one private sector, non-governmental solution to the supposed problem.

Well, I hope you're not holding your breath.

 

[daveman]

Which is simply a lie. They share their work all the time, you can find it in peer reviewed journals. What the dingleberries are doing is to create time consuming searches for details that are irrelevant.

Really? They share it? Then no one has ever had to file a FOIA request.

Oh, wait...

So, it's not a lie. You idiot leftists need to learn that something you disagree with is not a lie.

Many of the FOIA requests being objected to by some researhers, are not requests for direct raw data or even methodologies and source code. Most of the FOIA requests are being made for unofficial and casual communications documents, memos, emails, phone records, working paper notes and notebooks, etc.,. They are "fishing expeditions" being launched to harass researchers, impede their work and generally hunt for any ancilliary issue that can be twisted to publically ridicule and intimidate the leading researchers in the field of climate research.

And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.

If climate scientists object to releasing such communications, perhaps they need to stop colluding among themselves and start practicing science the way it's supposed to be done.