Can you really trust the science of global warming?

[SuperDemocrat]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

 

[TNHarley]

I stopped reading it at the title. Science and GW don't belong together.
But to answer the question, no. We have had leaks that showed scientists were fudging the numbers for political purposes. Nuff said

 

[task0778]

There are a number of other fields of endeavor besides science and politics where individuals allow their personal or political biases to influence their work: journalism, business, and teaching for starters. So no, I don't trust any particular source that produces information one way or the other. I think you have to look at multiple sources and weigh their relative merits as far as integrity is concerned and pretty much keep an open mind. Clearly (to me) there are some people and organizations who are obviously biased and I don't give them much credence, and I think you have to check for who is backing the person or org. There doesn't seem to be that many clean sources any more.

 

[RDD_1210]

I stopped reading it at the title. Science and GW don't belong together.
But to answer the question, no. We have had leaks that showed scientists were fudging the numbers for political purposes. Nuff said

I stopped reading when you said "Science and GW don't belong together"

WTF. I'd ask if you're retarded but I'm afraid you wouldn't understand the question.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Heisenberg Was a Nazi

I don't trust the Quantum Quacks and Relativists either. Their agenda is personal. They are captives of a decadent escapist academic cult and are driven by a desperate need to spread their own confused irrationalism, which also proves they hunger for power in order to compensate for their personal deficiencies. The whole century that started with their superstitious fantasies about physics was a prelude to the Dark Ages. We better turn away from such people or we will be led into a final chaos.

 

[RightyTighty]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

 

[TNHarley]

I stopped reading it at the title. Science and GW don't belong together.
But to answer the question, no. We have had leaks that showed scientists were fudging the numbers for political purposes. Nuff said

I stopped reading when you said "Science and GW don't belong together"

WTF. I'd ask if you're retarded but I'm afraid you wouldn't understand the question.

then show me some science. Your pseudo bullshit doesn't count, obviously.

 

[cnm]

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory? Until you do falsify it you really can accept it as the best knowledge we have.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Trust the ones collecting the money. They say climate change has nothing to do with the environment, and is, in reality, a way to distribute America's money and resources for free.

 

[cnm]

then show me some science.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/The Greenhouse Effect- Fact of Theory.pdf

 

[RightyTighty]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

 

[cnm]

They say climate change has nothing to do with the environment, and is, in reality, a way to distribute America's money and resources.

Yes. It's a world wide conspiracy to get US dumb fuck rightards to buy lunches for climate scientists.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I stopped reading it at the title. Science and GW don't belong together.
But to answer the question, no. We have had leaks that showed scientists were fudging the numbers for political purposes. Nuff said

I stopped reading when you said "Science and GW don't belong together"

WTF. I'd ask if you're retarded but I'm afraid you wouldn't understand the question.

Then let's use common sense science. How does the environment profit from coal being burned with impunity in India and China instead of the United States or Canada where modern technology is used?

 

[The Original Tree]

THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING IS EASILY DISPELLED.

Advice from a guy with an actual Science degree or two.....me...

The Check Is In The Mail... I Promise!

Missing - Omitted - Excluded Data

Man made global warming is a myth and unprovable. It's based on faulty computer models built on manipulated and omitted data.

You cannot build a model like that and exclude variables like cloud cover, the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis, the effect of the moon on tides and weather, and the solar minimum and maximums.

Furthermore there is no reliable temperature data beyond the space era, and I am talking about not the 1960s, but it was not until the 1990s that we had enough satellite coverage to get a ROUGH SKETCH of what the average global temperature "might be".

I say "might be" because even satellites cannot measure the temperature of every square inch of the planet, and neither are there enough ground stations to accurately measure it either. We also have an accuracy issue with Ocean temperatures, which is a major flaw in the modeling and theory. We can only measure surface temps of the Ocean. We cannot measure the temperature at various depths unless we have a probe\buoy at that location. And even then we cannot measure the temperature at any depth all over the vast oceans of the Earth with any certainty. The Earth is simply too large a system to be measured by too few instruments in too few locations.

The Difficulty of Measuring CO2 Levels Globally

We also cannot accurately measure global CO2 concentrations. We just make educated guesses. We have the same problem with temperature measurements as we do with CO2. We simply cannot measure every square inch of the atmosphere to get an accurate picture of CO2 levels. CO2 near volcanic islands like Hawaii where our so called "Scientists" measure CO2 at Mauna Loa cannot be reliably depended upon and extrapolated as a global average. Volcanos are contaminating the readings at Mauna Loa because they dump massive amounts of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. This is completely unreliable data. One Volcano in one day can spew out more CO2 than an entire year's industrial output of the most heavily industrialized nation. Even bringing humanity to zero CO2 emissions, and asking all of us to simply quit breathing will be fruitless if even one volcano on planet Earth erupts.


The Truth about Climate in Paleogeology.

Rock sampling is the way to go. When igneous rock is formed, it more or less locks in the atmospheric conditions at the time of it's formation. Think of things like Granite, Feldspar, Dolemite etc. The rock is dated, and the CO2 levels can be assessed. Even this method, which is the most accurate way of measuring prehistoric CO2 levels is not completely accurate but it's the best we have. Using this method we see that the Earth has had abundant life at all sorts of different concentrations of CO2 all through it's geologic history. CO2 is a non factor when it comes to bio diversity and life thriving on Earth unless you want to discuss it's greening factor when there are higher concentrations of it. It's a trace gas and has little effect on climate. Geologically speaking The Earth is actually at one of it's lowest levels of CO2 in it's 4 Billion History. But so called Climate Nazis or Science Brownshirts, don't want that little fact to be known. It defeats their propaganda and interrupts their funding streams.

Don't Throw Stones at Glass Houses

We don't live in a Greenhouse. Greenhouse gas theory....and that is exactly what it is....a theory is based on a faulty premise that "The Greenhouse" traps all solar radiation or IR. This is completely false. Someone had a good imagination though, but it's a fairy tale. Heat escapes from the Earth continually, and not only that CO2 is very poor at trapping heat. It has ZERO IR TRANSITIVE properties. What that means is that as a molecule it reflects as much IR as it absorbs meaning that speaking from a physics perspective it is neutral in this regard.

Hey You Kids, Keep Your Politics Off Of My Green Lawn!

Lastly, the primary driver of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is not actually science or facts. Theories are NEVER "Settled Science" They are educated guesses made about things we really don't understand. That is correct....we do not understand our own Climate and why exactly we have ICE AGES, and Warming Trends which have occurred for 4 Billion Years with zero input from Man. AGW is a funding instrument for research and the green industry. So was the ozone hole scare, so was the impending doom of the Next Ice Age scare before it.

AGW also serves as political leverage to coerce and entice Sovereign Nations to adopt Globalist Government and allow themselves to be placed under Global Taxation and their economies under globalist regulations, and their courts be placed under the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

This flies completely in opposition to The American Principle of Taxation without Representation, and it is an Usurping of our rights to govern ourselves, and to determine our own destiny. It's a trojan horse rolled up to our gates, waiting for the gullible and the useful idiots to roll it inside the wall as if it were a prize, a war trophy. But inside are the seeds of destruction just waiting for the right moment to subjugate and conquer us from within.

With gifts like that from so called 'friends' who needs enemies?

 

[TNHarley]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

that's weird. Article 20 and 21 of the accord said only parties to the convention can join it. Also, I wonder how a non un member can join a un treaty?

 

[The Irish Ram]

They say climate change has nothing to do with the environment, and is, in reality, a way to distribute America's money and resources.

Yes. It's a world wide conspiracy to get US dumb fuck rightards to buy lunches for climate scientists.

So, you don't believe the ones distributing our money, but you do believe that giving our money away somehow makes for nicer weather. Let's see where the conspiracy really lies, leftie:

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 1990 quote: "More than any other time in history, the 1990s will be a turning point for human civilization."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

__________________________________________________________________________________
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." ~ H. L. Mencken

 

[RightyTighty]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

that's weird. Article 20 and 21 of the accord said only parties to the convention can join it. Also, I wonder how a non un member can join a un treaty?

It's symbolic.

 

[The Original Tree]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

that's weird. Article 20 and 21 of the accord said only parties to the convention can join it. Also, I wonder how a non un member can join a un treaty?

How awesome is Hawaii joining the Paris Accord?

Not so awesome. They receive millions of dollars in funding for measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa.

The hilarious part of these so called measurements is that Hawaii is a volcanic Island who's perpetual eruptions and venting contaminates the readings at Mauna Loa due to the massive amounts of CO2 The Hawaiian Islands pump in to the upper atmosphere.

If there was any place on Earth you'd want to pick to rig the CO2 Climate Game, it'd be Mauna Loa when it comes to extrapolating your CO2 ppm readings as a global average.

Laughable if it weren't so tragically DISHONEST!

 

[RightyTighty]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

that's weird. Article 20 and 21 of the accord said only parties to the convention can join it. Also, I wonder how a non un member can join a un treaty?

How awesome is Hawaii joining the Paris Accord?

Not so awesome. They receive millions of dollars in funding for measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa.
The hilarious part of thes so called measurements is that Hawaii is a volcanic Island who's perpetual eruptions and venting contaminates the readings at Mauna Loa due to the massive amounts of CO2 The Hawaiian Islands pump in to the upper atmosphere.

If there was any place on Earth you'd want to pick to rig the CO2 Climate Game, it'd be Mauna Loa when it comes to extrapolating your CO2 ppm readings as a global average.

Laughable if it weren't so tragically DISHONEST!

I wonder, do you think seven billion people doing what they do changes anything at all?

And what if instead of let's change things to save ourselves it was - let's not because it's too late. Would you admit to man-made climate change then?

 

[TNHarley]

I see Hawaii joined the Paris Accord - that's nice.

that's weird. Article 20 and 21 of the accord said only parties to the convention can join it. Also, I wonder how a non un member can join a un treaty?

It's symbolic.

gotcha
well, they certainly have that right.