The 2012 Global Warming Debate Thread

[lukep]

Since my Petrodollar thread grew dangerously offtrack on this subject, I felt it's time (already) to start the great 2012 Global Warming debate thread here on Wickedfire.

Past iterations of this thread were unorganized and didn't convince anyone either way, so this time I'm going to take it upon myself to put the good shit up front here in the OP. I'm also going to answer some questions/make some rebuttles from the petrodollar thread here.

First let's repost this Graph Moxie posted last night:

Originally Posted by Moxie

This is some pretty damning evidence, directly from NASA, that we Humans have been fucking up the natural balance of at least the Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere. If you don't want to believe that fact then please go argue with NASA about it; no one on this forum is going to be able to prove it to you better than they can.

Now the real scary shit comes when you consider how the greenhouse effect works. (NOTE: I'm going to be getting a lot of the following evidence from the PDF here. It's a compilation of work by many of the foremost Climatologists of our day, not just some stupid liberals in a basement somewhere.)

First, you must understand that our carbon measurements are a NET gain... Not just 'a little more from some factories,' but the entire planet's output is considered and tallied...



What it breaks down to is pretty obvious. We're gaining a lot of CO2. In fact, the weight of CO2 added to our system by human activity worldwide is comparable to 8,000 Gulf of Mexico oil spills each day by some estimates. It is NOT TRIVIAL.

So how does more CO2 create global warming?

At least here in the US, we had a very shitty education about this in school. (I'll set conspiracy theories about why aside for now.) They allowed us to think the term referred to the average air temperature, which it does not. The vast majority of global warming is in the ocean. They also told us it was all about clouds and reflectivity but really those have very little to do with it at all.

It's about a FEEDBACK LOOP.

Throughout history, as far back as they can measure with ice core samples, climatologists have observed an effect worldwide... That warming (in a local region, at least) causes CO2 levels to rise, and then more CO2 causes Temperatures to Rise in return. Put these two together and you get positive feedback loop that sounds impossible to break free of.



But mother nature has always broken us free from that feedback loop by not injecting too much CO2 over too long of a period. Volcanoes erupting and other huge CO2 releases were always Time-limited events, and after all of the CO2 was spread out among the biosphere, the feedback loop would go back to sustainable levels.

The Fossil record, too, is full of events they can point to like eruptions, which match in time to gas samples found in ice core bubbles halfway around the world. The bottom line here is that they are quite sure in their hypothosis now; Major outgassing for a short amount of time is something the earth can absorb without raising its' temperature too much. It will get uncomfortable for a while and then the Earth sucks it up somehow. Every time.

However, what we're doing is UNNATURAL. It's like we've set off a Krakatoa at all corners of the planet 24/7/365, for over a century now, and the Earth never gets a rest!

The Feedback loop is constantly being supplied.


So you're probably thinking at this point if that's true, we'd have other evidence besides the singularity of CO2, correct? Not just the pollution and other obvious stuff that doesn't prove anything, but real, hard, scientific data that shows how the climate is different now than it is at any other point in history, amirite?

This is where I feel there has been a huge coverup by Climate Deniers.

There is HUGE evidence out there for this... But the cherry-picking climate deniers never talk about those, and always act like the CO2 levels alone are the only evidence. Well it's not. It's just the first in a league of Hockey stick-shaped charts showing our climate over the last 1000 years:



There is simply too much evidence against climate deniers. We have caused this, and we WILL be suffering the damage, whatever that may be.


To address one last common concern; "why are there so many papers published AGAINST climate change?" It's really simple. There are many corporations with big bucks who do not wish to stop polluting and releasing too much CO2. So these corporations hire scientists to publish a paper against the theory of AGW, and some of these have even been caught and exposed as fraud. (There are documentaries about this, surely some Youtube stuff as well.)

The publishers of the PDF linked above took the time to look at the BACKGROUND of all of the paper publishers on the topic of AGW in all of the biggest journals... What they found when they discarded the publishers who were not Climatologists for more than a year before Publishing their papers was pretty revealing:



Simply put; the propaganda against AGW has a huge lobby, and will never stop. But they are WRONG. To learn the facts about AGW you HAVE TO find the facts for yourself and listen to the few, quiet, LEGIT sources of science.

The PDF I linked to above, again, is one of those few places. Be wary of the rest.

[lukep]

Now for the responses from the petrodollar thread:

Originally Posted by wayn3

A single mild volcano eruption shits out more energy than a shit-ton of hiroshima bombs. Treehug fags, in their ridiculous arrogance, believe that we can solve all of earths "problems" by just adjusting a couple screws.

As I just pointed out, even the largest eruptions are time-limited. The earth knows how to handle that. What we're doing has never been done to the earth before.

Originally Posted by wayn3

The impact humanity has on this planet might seem huge, but if we were wiped off today, barely 100 years later, no visitor would notice that we have ever existed. Humanity barely scratches the surface.

I'll put aside the obvious arguments about how plastics and electronics don't degrade for many millennia and just concentrate on the real issue:

Our comfort, and even our lives, are at what is at stake here... The words "Save the Earth" are just a short soundbyte taken out of context... Even the so-called 'Tree huggers' aren't as concerned about the state of the trees and earth itself as they are their own comfortable, continued existence on this rock.

I know I'd rather live in a world with a nice atmosphere and low pollution, where the storms don't try to kill me every week, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by wayn3

Journalists take the liberty to oversimplify stuff that they might have read somewhere or completely made up and leave the impression that they are somehow experts on topics they didnt take the introductory classes in high school to.

That goes both ways. Also, what do you expect? It's hard science, not the sunday morning comics...

Originally Posted by wayn3

There are so many possible disasters that nature, as a whole, can throw our way, that we are completely unable to prevent, on a fundamental level. From asteroids and solar flares and gamma ray bursts to the whole yellowstone park erupting, to possibly normal cold/hot cycles that earth goes through. Reducing a carbon footprint is such a funny idea.

It doesn't seem natural, I grant you. And it IS unnatural, because we made this problem unnaturally.

This solution (reducing carbon output) is just what the science says we need to do. They are also looking at ways to Store carbon in the ground or ice, but that sounds to me like stopping the damn from bursting by scooping cups of water out of the reservoir and setting them along the side.

Originally Posted by wayn3

The pictures that were shown to me when I was a kid and this stuff was a hot topic went like this:

Sun radiation enters through the layer that contains clouds, gets reflected by earth and leaves through that same layer. Now evil C02 gets introduced and the rays that would just leave through that layer would instead be reflected back to earth.

Ah that classic american education. So sad, even when they were trying to help, they couldn't teach us shit somehow.

Originally Posted by wayn3

Either way, Im wondering why the reduction in energy relief is a one-way street.

They presented it to you the wrong way. See the part above about the Feedback Loop.

Originally Posted by wayn3

I dont see how introducing a certain gas into the atmosphere could reduce its reflectivity. Especially since C02 isnt new to the atmosphere, all we might be able to do is increase its concentration by a couple permille. Ive just tried to find the spectrum of C02 but I cant because the serps are full of climate bs instead of useful data.

Spectrum doesn't matter. Wrong issue. Unlearn what you have learned.

Originally Posted by mimoza3

...maybe I just don't feel like paying those happy global warming taxes, that are somehow used to fixing the global weather system.

I'm a little afraid too that if the US government were to embrace AGW then they'd find a way to tax us for the lost productivity in the business sector their changes would demand.

Running from that fear though is to stick our heads in the sand and say AGW still doesn't exist. Then we suffer even worse in the long run as our sea levels rise, scary storms kill us each week, and pollution makes our lives too uncomfortable.

Our grandchildren will be so ashamed of us for not acting now with this evidence and leaving them that shitty, unfomfortable world...

[nickCR]

Dude, this shit has me worried. I don't think in our lifetime we won't have problems and I'm not sure if in my kids but eventually this will effect them.

The world needs to get rid of BURNING fosil fuel. There are solutions out there. The government could easily provide such solutions. However lets be honest will Shell, Exxon, BP or any other money hungry corporation give us the oppoprtunity to do this. If you don't think they hide new technologies your mistaken. There are tons of corporations that are providing products that don't actually help you.

For example McDicks their food will literrally kill you one day (i do eat it though). Then there are cigarette companies, alcohol etc. They don't care about anything aside from their bottom line.

We need to stop burning fuel and cutting down trees. Unfortunately I just don't see the world changing it's consumption or ways to accomplish this.

Didn't Al Gore do a huge campaign or still part of one of those huge environmental corps?

Edit: Lets put it this way. If the world continues on this path, you won't be able to go outside without a breathing mask, expose your skin to the sun, or stand outside when it rains (because it will be acidic rain). Aside from the polar caps melting, etc. I'm pretty sure that the planet has it's own way or purging these problems out. The question is what will it do this time.

[poisonsembrace]

I'm not schooled in the science but the issue I have with things like that chart is that it only shows data for the past 400k years. Given the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it's just not representative of what's going on.

I gotta side with George Carlin on this one.. our time here as a species is a drop in the fucking bucket and the Earth has and will continue to go through dramatic changes. Earth is dynamic, not static. I mean fuck.. simply rewind 20,000 years and North America was covered in a sheet of fucking ice and you're concerned our CO2 levels are high?

Unless we head off into space and colonise other planets, our species is going to disappear at some point. Even if we do colonise other planets, we'll still probably disappear. 99.9% of species that ever existed are gone. The odds are highly against us to remain in that .1% regardless of how we treat the planet.

[tomaszjot]

All this scientific data is often skewed in some direction. Most of theories are logically coherent but you may prove them wrong once you look for primary assumptions. Do you know what methodology has been used to collect the data? What was (if) omitted, how the data has been collected etc.

97/100 scientists doesn't prove anything. 97/100 people believe God exists. 97/100 think soccer is the greatest sport ever.

There are a lot of people who benefit from polluting with CO2. There are plenty people who make big coin from fighting CO2.

I don't have any knowledge about NASA but don't believe any institution run by gov money (if NASA is run with gov money). There is no truth in this world anymore.

I stay neutral to this case not because lack of opinion but rather lack of sense in discussing it. Same apply to topics such as: God, religion, homosexuality, politics etc.

That said I +rep you for your effort lukep, your posts stand out in terms of quality

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by DocApocalypto

this is just simply not true AT ALL. there is no consensus, never has been, and more and more scientists are saying AGW is BULLSHIT...including Noble laureates.

‘There is no consensus’–If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? | Grist

RealClimate: Just what is this Consensus anyway?

if these people are so worried about the planet and not TAXING YOU...why are they trying to commit you to known FRAUDS like cap and trade that do NOTHING to cap emissions, while they buy mansions on the coast???...which is supposedly about to swallow up cities. LOLz.

You seem to be confusing people like Al Gore with the actual researchers in the field, many who died years ago. The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1800s and the effects of man made CO2 was being looked into before World War II.

"More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

These are lists from oil's favorite senator, James Inhofe and Climate Depot, a group also sponsored by big oil. The qualifications of many of the people on the lists aren't the best and many have ties to oil companies. There's also at least one guy who says he was tricked into signing the petition.

Now if we want to get technical, it's correct that none of that matters. 2+2 equals whatever it does and that can't be changed based upon how many people agree with that or not. Inhofe can gather all the signatures he wants, but what would be much better would be just one scientific paper clearly suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas as thought, or something shocking like that which would rock the scientific community.

guess what other planets "ice caps" (on mars there are polar concentrations of CO2, not ice) were "melting", MARS. guess how many SUVs are on Mars? its the fucking sun which has been as active as scientists have ever recorded, retards. jesus christ.

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I'm not schooled in the science but the issue I have with things like that chart is that it only shows data for the past 400k years. Given the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it's just not representative of what's going on.

I'd say 400k years is rather good sample range. We can joke about weathermen never being right, but their forecasts are usually a lot better than random chance. Much of how they predict it has to do with knowledge of past patterns seen on radar, which is a relatively recent invention.

I gotta side with George Carlin on this one.. our time here as a species is a drop in the fucking bucket and the Earth has and will continue to go through dramatic changes. Earth is dynamic, not static. I mean fuck.. simply rewind 20,000 years and North America was covered in a sheet of fucking ice and you're concerned our CO2 levels are high?

Unless we head off into space and colonise other planets, our species is going to disappear at some point. Even if we do colonise other planets, we'll still probably disappear. 99.9% of species that ever existed are gone. The odds are highly against us to remain in that .1% regardless of how we treat the planet.

The "we're all going to die anyway" argument can be used as a justification for most anything - such as waging wars or stealing from the old guy who lives next door.

Could Just One Degree Change the World? - YouTube

2 Degress Warmer: Ocean Life in Danger - YouTube

3 Degrees Warmer: Heat Wave Fatalities - YouTube

4 Degrees Warmer: Great Cities Wash Away - YouTube

5 Degrees Warmer: Civilization Collapses - YouTube

6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction? - YouTube

[ly2 from WF]

I have no doubt in my mind that the same guys who are unable to accurately tell me if it's going to rain two days from now can definitely tell me what weather was like in 1500 BC.

[ly2 from WF]

Originally Posted by Moxie

I'd say 400k years is rather good sample range.

[Andrey]

CO2 goes up when temperatures go up. The oceans release a lot of CO2 when the temperatures go up.

So there is a dependance. But it is opposite of what they claim.

Another thing: All planets in Solar system are heating up. I will try to find some sources to back this up when I have time.


Also Google ClimateGate!

Simply look who is behind Man Made Global Warming conspiracy. It is UN. UN is NWO. Need I say more?

[poisonsembrace]

Originally Posted by Moxie

I'd say 400k years is rather good sample range. We can joke about weathermen never being right, but their forecasts are usually a lot better than random chance. Much of how they predict it has to do with knowledge of past patterns seen on radar, which is a relatively recent invention.

The "we're all going to die anyway" argument can be used as a justification for most anything - such as waging wars or stealing from the old guy who lives next door.

I'd have to disagree. Those 400k years are cherry picked and taken out of context when you consider how the Earth came to form and how it has developed over such time. Because of our short life span, I think some people forget that the environment that we enjoy today has not been around very long and Earth has always been an extremely hostile place to live and always will be.

The we're all going to die argument is not valid when considering wars and the like. We know nothing good comes from waging war and it's something that occurs as direct result of our behaviour unlike the environment we live in. I also think having complete control over our environment will always be out of our reach regardless of what technology we have in the hundreds of years to come.

I believe in climate change and perhaps our future is doomed but I don't think it'll be because of our behaviour, it's because we're on a rock that orbits a big ball of fucking fire where shit is and always will be completely out of control.

[Rage9]

I hate getting dragged in to these debates because it's the same side of facts and logic vs the other side. I'm not going to write a gigantic post about it.

Simply put:
The Earth (as shown by ice core data) goes through phases, has been around for a while, and like 20,000 years ago we where in an ice age. Simple trends shows that the earth "rapidly" rises in temp, and then goes through a longer cooling cycle. Based on ice core data it looks like we are near or at the top of our cycle, based on previous data. I also believe that I just recently that the sun is going to be going in a regressive cycle coming up causing cooling temps.

Anyways, you won't be able to draw any good conclusions (looking for a definitive downward trend) for probably at least a few hundred years at which point we'll all be dead anyways. But if the earth has shown anything, it's that it's a tough SOB and has made it through some really crazy shit. We are the most advanced creatures on the planet so if anyone can survive, it's us.

Now go cry yourself to sleep.

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by ly2 from WF

400k as in 400,000 years.. maybe you read it as 400?

Originally Posted by Andrey

CO2 goes up when temperatures go up. The oceans release a lot of CO2 when the temperatures go up.

So there is a dependance. But it is opposite of what they claim.

CO2 is coming from the ocean

Another thing: All planets in Solar system are heating up. I will try to find some sources to back this up when I have time.

See the link I already posted about Mars and also :
What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I'd have to disagree. Those 400k years are cherry picked and taken out of context when you consider how the Earth came to form and how it has developed over such time.

100 years is nothing compared to 400k. Does the last 100 years of recorded temperatures for Chicago give a good idea of what it will be there this summer? Do we really need 10 million years worth of temps to guess that it won't be 10 degrees everyday in Chicago this summer?

Originally Posted by Rage9

Simply put:
The Earth (as shown by ice core data) goes through phases, has been around for a while, and like 20,000 years ago we where in an ice age. Simple trends shows that the earth "rapidly" rises in temp, and then goes through a longer cooling cycle. Based on ice core data it looks like we are near or at the top of our cycle,

The scientists are well aware of the natural cycles and take them into account when trying to figure out man's effect.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?



I don't plan to post much more in this thread, so I will just leave this link :
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

[Andrey]

Moxie, you rock

edit: no you disproving me! lol ahh fuck arguing takes so much energy.. lol

[ly2 from WF]

The Earth is only 6,000 years old so how do you come up with 400,000 years?

[guysmy]

Originally Posted by ly2 from WF

The Earth is only 6,000 years old so how do you come up with 400,000 years?

[Kerkat]

It's all cycles.

[christopherim]

The people telling us we are producing too much co2 are the same people taking money of you and I to fund a population explosion in the 3rd world.

If this is caused by people, why do they want more people?

[Andrey]

I am just gonna leave this here:

Global Warming: A Religion of Anti-Science - Journalist James Delingpole - YouTube

Global Warming: A Religion of Anti-Science - Writer James Delingpole 2/2 - YouTube

[Benji49]

Ice core data shows CO2 emissions steadily rising over 400k years. But there is a second way to measure historical CO2 levels: leaf fossils. And they show a much more complex (rise and fall) history.

(I've provided the link below but it's a bit garbled. Go google co2 levels leaf fossil)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...-_g-nqFVAEZ8mA

There's also a nice write up in the Oxford book of science about leaf fossils analysis show vastly different results than polar ice levels.

[Jeff-DBA]

Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.

[Benji49]

Originally Posted by Jeff-DBA

Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having an open-minded discussion here. My bad. I'll leave now and let you guys have the circle-jerk all to yourselves.

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by ly2 from WF

The Earth is only 6,000 years old so how do you come up with 400,000 years?

[Rage9]

Originally Posted by Jeff-DBA

Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.

No one would say that planet isn't warming. It's whether or not it's catastrophic. There's a reason most of the time on the news now they don't call it "Global Warming" they call it "Glocal Climate Change" but if any data that has studied the past hundred of thousands of years have any indication is that the climate is always changing, so it's a bit of an oxymoron.

The Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit came out and said that the planet hasn't increased in temperature in the last 15 years. There's lots of talk of the sun entering the 25 cycle which will be a cool cycle.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

With Sun's Activity Set To Diminish, Is Global Cooling Coming? | Fox News

I mean I would love to say that no matter what we are in deep shit but there are multiple sides fighting the facts. At the end of the day it probably doesn't boil down to much more than an educated guess. If I didn't see politicians drooling over the profit of this so hard I might take it seriously, but that's the world we live in and it's hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by Rage9

There's a reason most of the time on the news now they don't call it "Global Warming" they call it "Glocal Climate Change"

Why are they calling it 'climate change' now? - CSMonitor.com

even through the 1970s, news reports continued to overwhelmingly refer to global temperature increases as "climate change."

This began to change in the 1980s...

And then it started to swing back in the other direction, helped, in part by conservatives who thought "climate change" sounded less threatening.

The Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit came out and said that the planet hasn't increased in temperature in the last 15 years

A couple days ago, The Daily Mail tabloid published this blatantly false info and then Fox News and such also ran with the story.


Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

...article includes numerous errors

...for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading

...Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers

...what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850

[Rage9]

Originally Posted by Moxie

A couple days ago, The Daily Mail tabloid published this blatantly false info and then Fox News and such also ran with the story.


Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

...article includes numerous errors

...for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading

...Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers

...what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850

It sounds like someone is butt hurt, it does go against the globalist agenda after all. I'm sure they won't stand for it, just like the media won't stand for Ron Paul to become president. Also wordpress.com blog *yawn*

If you want to run around and cry *oh nos* that's fine I won't stop you.


just sayin, it's easy to say their is a correlation between c02 and warming, but it isn't perfect and there could have been other factors in play that caused the warming. Again, it's a best guess system, there are time frames where c02 rose without temperature spikes. It's not a perfect system.

The facts are we are due for temperature drop and neither side can claim victory probably for another few hundred years. And as you said Instrumental History, which is relatively new to the planet.

[ly2 from WF]

Originally Posted by Jeff-DBA

Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.

I think Jeff has single handidly ended this debate forever. How can you argue with that? Yeah, didn't think so.

Good job, Jeff. You're da man!

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by Rage9

It sounds like someone is butt hurt, it does go against the globalist agenda after all. I'm sure they won't stand for it, just like the media won't stand for Ron Paul to become president. Also wordpress.com blog *yawn*

Haha, I linked you straight to the horse's mouth. Would you trust the Daily Mail's reporting about a Ron Paul column more than the actual column itself?

If you want to run around and cry *oh nos* that's fine I won't stop you.


just sayin

From the same site where that image came from :




A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner...

As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions.

New Ice Core Data: A Closer Look

[MSTeacher]

late to the thread but for what it's worth..

There are more than a few holes within and credible dissent against the concensus line. A couple gems from the The Climate Research Unit of climategate fame

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That's called fixing data around policy

Pick a few

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions - Douglass - 2007 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph

Now tests show the ice ISN'T melting: Sea water under shelf in the East Antarctic is still freezing | Mail Online

Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph

'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 – Telegraph Blogs

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Climate change experts say sorry

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels | Environment | The Observer

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud'

Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp' | Environment | The Guardian

As third Climategate report is published, even computer models turn against AGW alarmists – Telegraph Blogs

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet - Washington Times

Voices - Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

And the Institute of Physics filing complaints to Parliament about scientific credibility is nothing to worry over. No surely the data is solid and consensus has been reached.

Seems to me like a typical hose job by elitist malthusian douchebags.

I think the issue took a big step onto the big stage with Gore's Academy Award, which was essentially the elite using Hollywood to promote regressive taxation and juice wall street by preying on enviro libtards using a government figurehead to garner support. And Gore is among many other things a gofer of Maurice Strong, Illuminatti upper management, who somehow managed to even spin global warming into a derivative on the CME.

In Anglo Saxon lore magic wands are made of holly wood, which is associated with sleep and dreaming.

Oh and Gore's daughter also married Andrew Schiff, great great grandson of Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild banker who helped create the Fed, financed Trotsky, and seeded the Rockefellers.

I for one am definitely getting behind global warming. After all Ted Turner's on board and he's good people cuz he helped found the UN and wants a global one child policy.

Oh and Prince Philip too who steals land so people can't live on it and wants to come back in his next life as a depopulating virus and kills billions of people.

And don't forget Soros. These are my kind of guys.

Hell even bil Laden endorsed it lulz. Cuz you know bin laden tapes were definitely not intelligence psyops. Not at all.

It's OK though. If we do need to do something about it we're covered.

PS co2 is not a pollutant. co2 = oxygen = life. Except.. you need plants, and unfortunately we have half the plants we did 10 thousand years ago. And isn't it convenient that deforestation and algae dieoffs are never mentoined in the debate. And funny how the media won't touch the possibility that the earth is indeed running out of oxygen which actually is of slight to concern to things that breathe it.

PPS we don't need oil or green energy. Tesla discovered infinite free radiant energy from the vacuum a century ago and JP Morgan shut him down. No plugs, no wires, no recurring charges. It's fun imagining the kind of world possible if Tesla's discoveries were available in commercial markets. It would certainly make petrodollars a fruitless subject.

[lukep]

Originally Posted by nickCR

The government could easily provide such solutions. However lets be honest will Shell, Exxon, BP or any other money hungry corporation give us the oppoprtunity to do this.

The Governments are controlled very well by those very corporations so you'd better not hold your breath hoping for any kind of a solution from that direction.

Originally Posted by nickCR

Didn't Al Gore do a huge campaign or still part of one of those huge environmental corps?

Al Gore wrote a book with some light science in it, which kind of explains the feedback loop I mentioned above but very poorly. Since it was aimed at the layman, there were many holes in it that were very easily attacked by the rest of the world that isn't a Climatologist.

Although I appreciate his initial effort Al has not followed through very well and is no longer taken seriously on this subject by many, especially after he proposed a "Cap & Trade" Carbon Credit marketplace that would act like the SEC for carbon pollution. You can watch a short vid here on why that was a very bad idea, at least in practice.

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I'm not schooled in the science but the issue I have with things like that chart is that it only shows data for the past 400k years. Given the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it's just not representative of what's going on.

Dude. The last 400,000 years is almost the entire era of humanity. Do you get that? We evolved in this era to be what we are, and we can survive in this climate that exists in this era.

This rock may not always be willing to let us stay here, but let's not hurry in a climate from outside the era of humanity, ok? We may not like it very much!

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I gotta side with George Carlin on this one.. our time here as a species is a drop in the fucking bucket and the Earth has and will continue to go through dramatic changes. Earth is dynamic, not static. I mean fuck.. simply rewind 20,000 years and North America was covered in a sheet of fucking ice and you're concerned our CO2 levels are high?

I love Carlin too; But Carlin doesn't sound very concerned about the comfort of his children or grandchildren very much. Do you think he would choose to recover the US in another sheet of Ice soon? Not if he has family here I'd bet.

Originally Posted by tomaszjot

97/100 scientists doesn't prove anything. 97/100 people believe God exists. 97/100 think soccer is the greatest sport ever.

Did you think that was a random sampling of people like some damn pew poll?

The ONLY people qualified to be making judgements on this issue are trained Climatologists. -Not even lowly meteorologists, but actual Climate scientists and that number above accounted for ALL of them.

So yeah, it proves quite a lot to me.

Originally Posted by tomaszjot

There are a lot of people who benefit from polluting with CO2. There are plenty people who make big coin from fighting CO2.

Think about the two sides for a moment. Which one has the larger financial incentive?

Is it even close?

Originally Posted by tomaszjot

I stay neutral to this case not because lack of opinion but rather lack of sense in discussing it. Same apply to topics such as: God, religion, homosexuality, politics etc.

I can respect that. There are too many people shouting so it's hard to know which voices are right. Not a dumb move.

I can only say in response though that if you listen to the actual experts only, you won't hear much cross-talk at all. It's pretty cut and dry to them.

Originally Posted by ly2 from WF

I have no doubt in my mind that the same guys who are unable to accurately tell me if it's going to rain two days from now can definitely tell me what weather was like in 1500 BC.

Um, you do know that those are two different fields of study, right?

Originally Posted by Andrey

CO2 goes up when temperatures go up. The oceans release a lot of CO2 when the temperatures go up.

So there is a dependance. But it is opposite of what they claim.

So you've read Algore's book and heard the refutations too I see. Man did some big lobby money come out of the woodwork after he published that book... But like Moxie's link pointed out, there are two problems with this counter-theory:

A. We know the general amount of Carbon we're emitting and it correlates with the amount of extra carbon in the atmosphere that we're observing.

B. This CO2 is Displacing oxygen at the same rate... But natural CO2 lived in equilibrium with it.

If your theory about ocean release were true though, then neither of these observable phenomena would be likely to happen at all. Heck, the second would be pretty hard to detect indeed!

Originally Posted by Andrey

All planets in Solar system are heating up. I will try to find some sources to back this up when I have time.

The last 20 or so years have been a complete abberation from the entire observed Solar cycles dating back to 1880:



You could argue that perhaps before 1880 we've had solar activity greater than any of this; but we certainly haven't had consistent Temps this high for millions of years... So it's not very likely that could be the cause of this.

Originally Posted by Andrey

Also Google ClimateGate!

So glad you mentioned that one!

Climategate was a serious attempt to discredit some of the best climatologists around. "Someone" hacked into the University of East Anglia and stole a large amount of email correspondance between university climatology department there and Penn State. These are two of the very top Climate science labs on the planet.

The hackers then CHANGED THE WORDING and otherwise took OUT OF CONTEXT many passages in those emails to discredit the people writing them. Sadly, like with the Ron Paul campaign, the media only covered one side of the story; and it wasn't the side of the climatologists...

Proof.

At least Nine different, independent investigations from different countries, universities and governments have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Phrases like "Hide the Decline" and "Mikes Nature Trick" were simply quoted out of context, and all nine of those independent investigations have seen the original emails and can find nothing wrong whatsoever in how those phrases were originally used.

Further, If those two labs had been even suspected of dodgy practices among their fellow climatologists, then they would be shunned and money would flow elsewhere. Yet today they remain among the most respected climate labs in the world.

And the media has yet to apologize, as usual.

Originally Posted by Andrey

Simply look who is behind Man Made Global Warming conspiracy. It is UN. UN is NWO. Need I say more?

So your argument here is that the UN somehow planted the evidence that hundreds of independent climate scientists from around the world are digging up in fossils and Ice core samples?

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I'd have to disagree. Those 400k years are cherry picked and taken out of context when you consider how the Earth came to form and how it has developed over such time.

You simply cannot take the 400,000 years in which we evolved in "out of context." Your premise is absurd.

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I also think having complete control over our environment will always be out of our reach regardless of what technology we have in the hundreds of years to come.

Who needs a complete control over the environment though? They tell us that we gotta stop releasing so damn much CO2 into the air to keep things like they were. That's it.

Originally Posted by poisonsembrace

I believe in climate change and perhaps our future is doomed but I don't think it'll be because of our behaviour, it's because we're on a rock that orbits a big ball of fucking fire where shit is and always will be completely out of control.

So after all of this, do you honestly believe that the huge uptick in the graph at the top of this page is caused by natural causes? Or do you just not believe it exists?

[pinchyfingers]

+rep MSTeacher

Climate-based legislation/markets == $$$$$$$$$ for the establishment

Also, I don't trust anyone's opinion if they don't get that 400k years is not a credible sample size when talking about geologic time scales.

Edit: I forgot to mention that any Climatologist that wants to have a job is "on board" with global warming, irrespective of their actual fact-based beliefs.

[lukep]

Originally Posted by Rage9

Simple trends shows that the earth "rapidly" rises in temp, and then goes through a longer cooling cycle. Based on ice core data it looks like we are near or at the top of our cycle, based on previous data.

No, ice core data shows that we're way past the top of all previous peaks for the last 400,000 years. We're past 0.8 degrees centigrade above average now, and the last highest peak in temps we can detect was just 0.4 degrees about 1050 years ago... Just before the little ice age.

Originally Posted by Rage9

Anyways, you won't be able to draw any good conclusions (looking for a definitive downward trend) for probably at least a few hundred years at which point we'll all be dead anyways.

That's the spirit!

97% of the real climatologists are saying we know enough now. This is too damn hot and there is too damn much CO2 in the air, at amounts that coincide with the amounts of CO2 that we're releasing out of our activities.

Originally Posted by christopherim

The people telling us we are producing too much co2 are the same people taking money of you and I to fund a population explosion in the 3rd world.

If this is caused by people, why do they want more people?

I have no idea why I'm taking the time to answer this... But WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Andrey

I am just gonna leave this here:

Global Warming: A Religion of Anti-Science - Journalist James Delingpole - YouTube

Global Warming: A Religion of Anti-Science - Writer James Delingpole 2/2 - YouTube

Sorry, couldn't make it past 30 seconds in when Alex told us Delingpole's credentials. ("He's a writer." Lulz.)

How in the FUCK do people keep thinking that ANYONE but a climatologist is qualified to dispute what climatologists say???

It's like if one doctor told you that you have a brain tumor... Then you go ask a WRITER to give you a second opinion? Sheesh!

Originally Posted by Jeff-DBA

Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.

Go easy on 'em, Jeff. The media, our school systems, our government, and pretty much everyone else who hasn't dedicated their lives to the Climate is telling them the opposite. I was told it was all hogwash my entire youth and only found out otherwise after curiosity in my late 20's led me to search for truth at the source... Not many people are willing to go do that though, it's not very easy.

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by MSTeacher

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

If I remember correctly, the papers mentioned in the second quote ended up being included in the report.

"nature trick" and "hide the decline" do not mean what they would appear to the layman, as explained in this video :

6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails - YouTube

I think the issue took a big step onto the big stage with Gore's Academy Award

And before this, the majority of Illuminati theories and such had the oil companies at the center of the conspiracy. Actually they still do, but for whatever reason the conspiracy theorists seem to be ignoring that the Illuminati apparently must have contradictory agendas going on at the same time within it.

[stickyicky]

TL;DR (except OP)

Only question, why aren't energy companies staking claim to all our "energy miracle cures" so that they can in turn profit. If they have the money to steer their own insane, antiquated fossil fuel interests, why not also push the technologies of tomorrow and profit/monopolize those as well. Think about how much money there is to gain with new energy ideas. You would have to retool the whole world for any source of energy to become predominant. Not only that but they could also just focus on a controlling interest in electricity alone, which is evergreen no matter how it's generated or used. I don't understand the hard on for shitty stupid oil.

[lukep]

Originally Posted by pinchyfingers

Climate-based legislation/markets == $$$$$$$$$ for the establishment

If that were true, why in hell does the establishment and especially the media bury ANY AND ALL pro-AGW news?

Look what they did to Climategate... Ever seen anyone even remotely connected to the establishment try to defend East Anglia after that?

Originally Posted by pinchyfingers

Also, I don't trust anyone's opinion if they don't get that 400k years is not a credible sample size when talking about geologic time scales.

It's not about our "not getting" that 400K years is too small in geographic timelines. 400K years is only 1 Ten Thousandth of the time since the earth cooled. That's almost nothing...

But that Particular 400k years is exactly what our bodies were born, bred, and raised to make use of. Vary the temperature too much and we can't live here.

Originally Posted by pinchyfingers

...any Climatologist that wants to have a job is "on board" with global warming, irrespective of their actual fact-based beliefs.

I used to think this myself once.

Then I thought about how anyone who cares enough to study all those years and get into the field to make a difference... Must have to "go missing" somehow to make your statement true.

You wouldn't ask a politician or a writer for advice on your spleen. Why would you listen to them about the climate? Its real science, just like medicine.

Originally Posted by stickyicky

Only question, why aren't energy companies staking claim to all our "energy miracle cures" so that they can in turn profit. If they have the money to steer their own insane, antiquated fossil fuel interests, why not also push the technologies of tomorrow and profit/monopolize those as well. Think about how much money there is to gain with new energy ideas. You would have to retool the whole world for any source of energy to become predominant. Not only that but they could also just focus on a controlling interest in electricity alone, which is evergreen no matter how it's generated or used. I don't understand the hard on for shitty stupid oil.

All it would take is ONE.

They've very likely already gotten their mitts on it. Heck, they could have bought it out in the 1950s, packaged it up like the lost ark, and are sitting on it until the day that Oil isn't mega-profitable anymore... Then they can dust it off and build a huge, evil industry based on that thing instead.

[MSTeacher]

Originally Posted by Moxie

"nature trick" and "hide the decline" do not mean what they would appear to the layman

kinda like 'pull it' ended up not meaning what millions of people thought it meant!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein - YouTube

Originally Posted by Moxie

for whatever reason the conspiracy theorists seem to be ignoring that the Illuminati apparently must have contradictory agendas going on at the same time within it.

1. control both sides of the argument
2. ????
3. profit

[TylerDurden]

I feel like the people who don't think global warming is real are the same people who think president Obama wasn't born in America.

[mimoza3]

the man-made global warming opposition is the one that is more open for debate, while everyone else is just happy that they got the idea (that humans are the ones causing this) across, and that not so much is being done about it - but they sure start charging us money for it.

Politics got very busy with global warming, and rejects almost any attempt for discussion on this, in a couple of years this thing will be taboo and the taxes will keep on coming.

Any effort to decrease the effect that humans have on the planet is a good one, but between this to the global warming hysteria there is still a long way to go...

[nanexo]

I really don't know if those things listed above were true or not. All I know is Global Warming nowadays is getting me on my nerves! You can even feel the hotness of air due to broken atmospheres. We should act now about this or else get lost and die. We already the passed some chapters on the bible and were now on the revalation one! Stand up and make up your minds!

- Kris

[Rage9]

Originally Posted by Moxie

Haha, I linked you straight to the horse's mouth. Would you trust the Daily Mail's reporting about a Ron Paul column more than the actual column itself?

From the same site where that image came from :




A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner...

As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions.

New Ice Core Data: A Closer Look

If you take the time to look at the long term data, you are right/wrong. Talk about cherry picking. The graph you have shows the last 200 years when it's shown we where in a fucking ice age 20,000 years ago. After each "ice age" we have gone up quickly in temperature. Good job on that douche bag. Anything to prove your point right? I'm drunk as shit and still spotted your shit.

Again not disputing the rise in temp. I'm disputing the catastrophic rise in temp. Which you can't prove.

[Rage9]

Originally Posted by lukep

No, ice core data shows that we're way past the top of all previous peaks for the last 400,000 years. We're past 0.8 degrees centigrade above average now, and the last highest peak in temps we can detect was just 0.4 degrees about 1050 years ago... Just before the little ice age.

No, Ice core data shows us that if C02 was such a factor we should be several degrees above where we are. Surprise, C02 doesn't cause a concurant rise in temperature. But hey, haters going to hate. I'm not a pro and I can even devise this statement.

There has been less C02 and higher temps in the past, keep trying.

[Rage9]

By any logic based on C02, within the next 500 years or so we are past the point of no return and the ice caps will melt and cover more than half of all the continental USA. Just saying, there is no point to fight about it because we are fucked none the less based on current C02 data. Unless they are wrong.

[Djshorty89]

The earth ain't no rock. The great sorcerer Alan Watts once said that we grow out of the earth (and the universe), in the same way that apples grow out of an apple tree. We live in a Universe that peoples. To say that the earth is an unintelligent rock is blasphemy of the highest order, and I am butthurt by such an insinuation.

What does that have to do with anything?

We grow out of earth from earth materials
We use earth materials to raise temperature of earth *maybe. This is where the climate change debate comes in

We die, go back to earth, earth grows new species, they use us as fossil fuel

[Moxie]

Originally Posted by Rage9

After each "ice age" we have gone up quickly in temperature. Good job on that douche bag. Anything to prove your point right? I'm drunk as shit

No way?!


Nobody is saying that CO2 is the only thing that has an effect. A wood stove will increase a home's temp, but the same house in the summer can be much hotter without using the stove.

Changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch Cycles) are said to be the main thing that caused warming after ice ages. I suppose it is possible that Milankovitch 100 years ago, and all the astronomers since then, are also part of the vast conspiracy to make money for Al Gore.

[Andrey]

Who controls education? Who controls scientists? Who controls media? Who controls oil companies? Who controls banks?
How can we trust anything the scientists say?

We must go deeper than looking at some "scientific evidence", since it is so easily fabricated, it is not even funny. How can you brush off ClimateGate?

The scientists you trust so much got caught fabricating the data. Is that not enough to understand which way this topic is rigged?

Look at the author of the book:

David de Rothschild on Alex Jones Show (1/4) - YouTube

[wayn3]

Originally Posted by lukep

Now for the responses from the petrodollar thread:


As I just pointed out, even the largest eruptions are time-limited. The earth knows how to handle that. What we're doing has never been done to the earth before.


I'll put aside the obvious arguments about how plastics and electronics don't degrade for many millennia and just concentrate on the real issue:

Our comfort, and even our lives, are at what is at stake here... The words "Save the Earth" are just a short soundbyte taken out of context... Even the so-called 'Tree huggers' aren't as concerned about the state of the trees and earth itself as they are their own comfortable, continued existence on this rock.

I know I'd rather live in a world with a nice atmosphere and low pollution, where the storms don't try to kill me every week, wouldn't you?



That goes both ways. Also, what do you expect? It's hard science, not the sunday morning comics...



It doesn't seem natural, I grant you. And it IS unnatural, because we made this problem unnaturally.

This solution (reducing carbon output) is just what the science says we need to do. They are also looking at ways to Store carbon in the ground or ice, but that sounds to me like stopping the damn from bursting by scooping cups of water out of the reservoir and setting them along the side.



Ah that classic american education. So sad, even when they were trying to help, they couldn't teach us shit somehow.


They presented it to you the wrong way. See the part above about the Feedback Loop.



Spectrum doesn't matter. Wrong issue. Unlearn what you have learned.



I'm a little afraid too that if the US government were to embrace AGW then they'd find a way to tax us for the lost productivity in the business sector their changes would demand.

Running from that fear though is to stick our heads in the sand and say AGW still doesn't exist. Then we suffer even worse in the long run as our sea levels rise, scary storms kill us each week, and pollution makes our lives too uncomfortable.

Our grandchildren will be so ashamed of us for not acting now with this evidence and leaving them that shitty, unfomfortable world...

Your argument lacks an explanation about how co2 makes earth become warmer. I understand one half of the feedback loop, but how does co2 contribute to the warming?

Stuff is never hard science. You claim that its not even about air temperature. If its not about air temperature, why talk about air temperature all the time. Why are the pro global warming people always lamenting about "air temperature". Its all about propaganda and counter-propaganda. Thats why people call bullshit. Governments and Media never try to deliver truth. They always assume that they have to deploy some kind of exagerated bullshit to shock people in order to convince them.

I understand that you have beef with the establishment and global warming deniers. You should still try to produce sound arguments.

I see how that "feedback loop" thing would kill my radiation argument.

97 out of 100 climatologists believing in something doesnt make it right. People are always wrong about stuff til they discover the truth.


The way you express yourself carries an arrogant undertone that makes people in general hard to allow themselves to be convinced by what you say. If you want to change something, you might want to try changing that first.

Youll never make me care about the whole issue, but im honestly interested in understanding why I might be wrong. You could try to do that by providing a paper that takes a global warming is real position without trying to convince readers by saying things like "most reasonable scientists are convinced that this is the case so please, for the love of god, shut the fuck up and believe in it". There will always be consensus. Science will never be democracy. Truth doesnt work that way.

[tspesh]

Only idiots debate this.

[ItsYoBuddy]

It's not shocking, but it's a shame that corporations go out of their way to pay scientists to write papers against the theory on AGW. People are greedy and its all about money. smh.

[headiez247]

tl;dr but I hope that OP drives a hybrid, doesn't leave comp on over night, walks or bikes everywhere, doesn't buy from companies that suck when it comes to energy, doesn't fly on planes, house is completely off the grid and solar paneled out, donates all his extra money to the cause, et fucking c.

If you can take the time to write out a book on global warming, you better be repping the message hard.

Now the shitty truth: nothing is going to change, certainly not in our lifetime, so while I give you props for pushing something you believe in, it ain't gonna do shit you are just wasting the precious time you have on this earth.

brb gonna go jump in my M3 that sure as fuck wouldn't pass an emissions test and drive 30 miles for an ice cream cone.

[linking]

Originally Posted by tspesh

Only idiots debate this.

Are you familiar with Google AdWords?