The death of Impartiality

[Old Rocks]

Relevant to radiative forcing Gas Current (1998) Amount by volume Increase (ppm)
over pre-industrial (1750) Increase (%)
over pre-industrial (1750) Radiative forcing (W/m2)
Carbon dioxide 365 ppm
(383 ppm, 2007.01) 87 ppm
(105 ppm, 2007.01) 31%
(38%, 2007.01) 1.46
(~1.53, 2007.01)
Methane 1745 ppb 1045 ppb 67% 0.48
Nitrous oxide 314 ppb 44 ppb 16% 0.15
Relevant to both radiative forcing and ozone depletion; all of the following have no natural sources and hence zero amounts pre-industrial Gas Current (1998)
Amount by volume Radiative forcing
(W/m2)
CFC-11 268 ppt 0.07
CFC-12 533 ppt 0.17
CFC-113 84 ppt 0.03
Carbon tetrachloride 102 ppt 0.01
HCFC-22 69 ppt 0.03

(Source: IPCC radiative forcing report 1994 updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1[41][42] ).

 

[westwall]

OK konrad I'll tell you where the CO2 goes. This is basic 5th grade science so pay attention. Animals exhale CO2 (and it also comes from a whole host of other sources) and it goes into the atmosphere. The plants then take it and use it to feed themselves and a part of their waste is called oxygen. Animals then breath the oxygen and the cycle repeats. The more CO2 the more and the better plants you have. You may want to look at some of the biological and botanic forums for evidence of that...those folks are very happy with what is going on.

Now what happens when there is more CO2 than the plants can process? It goes into solution in the oceans and is used to make a rock called limestone. The Redwall Limestone Formation in the Grand Canyon is a famous example of that form of rock. The last time there was more CO2 than could be handled was approximately 5 million years ago when Dolomite (a form of limestone) was deposited in shallow seas around the world.

There you go. A first year gelogical student could have told you that, or you could have obtained a Historical Geology textbook and read it yourself.

It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.
-----------------------------------------

You're missing the point. "Tricks" meant "tricks of the statistical trade" and "hide" meant subtracting out background to determine the contribution of man. It's the deniers that have made this political, because they HAVE lost the scientific argument. EVERY scientist knows CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. Prersent levels are known to be above historical averages. So, where does it go, if not to heat the earth? Check out a science text on Conservation of Energy, some time.

 

[westwall]

No IPCC report after the first two are usable. In a court of law anyone who is a proven perjuror (as the last IPCC report has been proven) would be laughed out of court. This is worthless trash.

Relevant to radiative forcing Gas Current (1998) Amount by volume Increase (ppm)
over pre-industrial (1750) Increase (%)
over pre-industrial (1750) Radiative forcing (W/m2)
Carbon dioxide 365 ppm
(383 ppm, 2007.01) 87 ppm
(105 ppm, 2007.01) 31%
(38%, 2007.01) 1.46
(~1.53, 2007.01)
Methane 1745 ppb 1045 ppb 67% 0.48
Nitrous oxide 314 ppb 44 ppb 16% 0.15
Relevant to both radiative forcing and ozone depletion; all of the following have no natural sources and hence zero amounts pre-industrial Gas Current (1998)
Amount by volume Radiative forcing
(W/m2)
CFC-11 268 ppt 0.07
CFC-12 533 ppt 0.17
CFC-113 84 ppt 0.03
Carbon tetrachloride 102 ppt 0.01
HCFC-22 69 ppt 0.03

(Source: IPCC radiative forcing report 1994 updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1[41][42] ).

 

[gslack]

Relevant to radiative forcing Gas Current (1998) Amount by volume Increase (ppm)
over pre-industrial (1750) Increase (%)
over pre-industrial (1750) Radiative forcing (W/m2)
Carbon dioxide 365 ppm
(383 ppm, 2007.01) 87 ppm
(105 ppm, 2007.01) 31%
(38%, 2007.01) 1.46
(~1.53, 2007.01)
Methane 1745 ppb 1045 ppb 67% 0.48
Nitrous oxide 314 ppb 44 ppb 16% 0.15
Relevant to both radiative forcing and ozone depletion; all of the following have no natural sources and hence zero amounts pre-industrial Gas Current (1998)
Amount by volume Radiative forcing
(W/m2)
CFC-11 268 ppt 0.07
CFC-12 533 ppt 0.17
CFC-113 84 ppt 0.03
Carbon tetrachloride 102 ppt 0.01
HCFC-22 69 ppt 0.03

(Source: IPCC radiative forcing report 1994 updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1[41][42] ).

Where is water vapor????? LOL, see the BS yet? They talk shit and then leave out the largest green house gas by volume.......

 

[uscitizen]

Umm increased water vapor is a result of other factors, not a cause.

 

[Big Fitz]

Sorry, all data from NASA, EAU, and the IPCC is off limits. Known purveyors of fraud.

 

[Big Fitz]

So here's a little challenge since it's such a hotbutton issue right now.

Who can find RAW DATA on CO2 production of mankind versus global volcano production, by year in a graph?

I've been searching off and on for two days and my Bing Fu has been coming up lacking. So who else can find some? I'm looking for the following qualifiers:

1. no blogs or secondary sources.
2. must come from a known science department or lab
3. have a graph

This is the kind of unfiltered raw data I want to see. I don't know if it's possible online anymore.

Volcano. USGS.

Went there. All I could find was "Man's fault" GW bullshit.

 

[gslack]

Umm increased water vapor is a result of other factors, not a cause.

??? volcanoes produce water vapor, a greenhouse gas, number one by volume on the planet. And its left out of their accounts of green house gas hypothesis in regards to warming or actual greenhouse effect. Be the measurements on volcanoes or any other, water vapor is the largest GHG and leaving it out is evidence the reports and all claims based on them, and the data itself is inaccurate.

 

[konradv]

Umm increased water vapor is a result of other factors, not a cause.

??? volcanoes produce water vapor, a greenhouse gas, number one by volume on the planet. And its left out of their accounts of green house gas hypothesis in regards to warming or actual greenhouse effect. Be the measurements on volcanoes or any other, water vapor is the largest GHG and leaving it out is evidence the reports and all claims based on them, and the data itself is inaccurate.

-----------------------------------

Aren't volcanoes "another cause"? Increased heat would lead to more vapor and then more heat. I think what uscitizen is saying is that vapor is an amplifier of warming.

 

[Bfgrn]

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

The science is there. But here is your problem; it doesn't match your predisposed pea brain dogma.

 

[gslack]

Umm increased water vapor is a result of other factors, not a cause.

??? volcanoes produce water vapor, a greenhouse gas, number one by volume on the planet. And its left out of their accounts of green house gas hypothesis in regards to warming or actual greenhouse effect. Be the measurements on volcanoes or any other, water vapor is the largest GHG and leaving it out is evidence the reports and all claims based on them, and the data itself is inaccurate.

-----------------------------------

Aren't volcanoes "another cause"? Increased heat would lead to more vapor and then more heat. I think what uscitizen is saying is that vapor is an amplifier of warming.

Junior be quiet....

Volcanoes produce water vapor its a fact. Water vapor is the number one green house gas by volume also a fact..... I am tired of correcting you now so just go away....

 

[gslack]

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

The science is there. But here is your problem; it doesn't match your predisposed pea brain dogma.

Twisted, agenda -based science.....

 

[Big Fitz]

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

The science is there. But here is your problem; it doesn't match your predisposed pea brain dogma.

Damn me for wanting honest science! How could I be so demanding?

 

[Bfgrn]

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

The science is there. But here is your problem; it doesn't match your predisposed pea brain dogma.

Damn me for wanting honest science! How could I be so demanding?

Medieval Warm Period ...That would be 5th century through the 15th century.

Why not check the records kept back then?

Hey, maybe George Washington, the father of our country looked into it. He was a smart guy. He died at the turn of the 19th century...I'm sure science had progressed enough to answer your question by then. Unfortunately, Washington died largely because of his treatment, which included calomel (being fed Mercury chloride to regurgitate and release the body from "impurities") and bloodletting, resulting in a combination of shock from the loss of five pints of blood, as well as asphyxia and dehydration.

 

[Big Fitz]

The science is there. But here is your problem; it doesn't match your predisposed pea brain dogma.

Damn me for wanting honest science! How could I be so demanding?

Medieval Warm Period ...That would be 5th century through the 15th century.

Why not check the records kept back then?

Hey, maybe George Washington, the father of our country looked into it. He was a smart guy. He died at the turn of the 19th century...I'm sure science had progressed enough to answer your question by then. Unfortunately, Washington died largely because of his treatment, which included calomel (being fed Mercury chloride to regurgitate and release the body from "impurities") and bloodletting, resulting in a combination of shock from the loss of five pints of blood, as well as asphyxia and dehydration.

So you're saying that direct observation by honest observers is invalid because they didn't know as much as us now, and we have no direct access to a point in time and therefore must extrapolate it from anecdotal evidence?

Did you fall into the tard bush again? By this same measure, we can't believe anything written in history because it happened years ago. Dimbulb.

I guess we best throw out Newtonian Physics, Calculus, Chemistry, the Periodic Table and even all the tools we use today to measure the weather that were developed before the year 2000. What a maroon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

Does this add to the discussion?

"Science is objective. Therefore, scientists are objective, right? Being a scientist myself, I wish I could agree, but I’m afraid that wouldn’t be very objective of me. Truth be told, I’m biased and so is every other scientist on this planet -- and every other human being, for that matter. Yes, journalists, too, but you probably already knew that. Being biased isn’t a great problem as long as we’re aware of our biases and try not to let them blind us to the truth."
MercatorNet: Barack, can you spare a dime?

 

[westwall]

Yes everyone is biased (even scientists, as I am too) but that is why the Scientific Method was brought forth...to eliminate the effects of bias. That is why for it to be science it must be repeatable... by anybody...and not require value added data to get the result you want.

So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.

Does this add to the discussion?

"Science is objective. Therefore, scientists are objective, right? Being a scientist myself, I wish I could agree, but I’m afraid that wouldn’t be very objective of me. Truth be told, I’m biased and so is every other scientist on this planet -- and every other human being, for that matter. Yes, journalists, too, but you probably already knew that. Being biased isn’t a great problem as long as we’re aware of our biases and try not to let them blind us to the truth."
MercatorNet: Barack, can you spare a dime?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry, all data from NASA, EAU, and the IPCC is off limits. Known purveyors of fraud.

Oh yes, that great junky, ol' Limpbaugh is the only expert on climate that one can trust.

So, all real scientists, all universities, all scientific societies are not to be trusted.

Need more foil for your hats?

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Fritz cannot find real science to support his version of reality. For shame. Perhaps he should consider dealing with reality as it is.

A whole book of data from the National Academy of Science has been posted here which definatively shows that the Medieval Warm Period was nowhere near as warm as we are today.

 

[westwall]

Not all, just the ones proven to have commited fraud, like the ones mentioned below.

Sorry, all data from NASA, EAU, and the IPCC is off limits. Known purveyors of fraud.

Oh yes, that great junky, ol' Limpbaugh is the only expert on climate that one can trust.

So, all real scientists, all universities, all scientific societies are not to be trusted.

Need more foil for your hats?