Global Warming -- greatest scam in history

[Michelle]

You can read New Scientist in an hour, people are just too lazy to bother, that is the real problem, scientific literacy levels are extremely low

Thank you...you just reiterated my point, so why you are arging with me is beyond me.

[Mattshark]

Thank you...you just reiterated my point, so why you are arging with me is beyond me.

I'm saying they don't have to be.

[eqgumby]

Erm, no, it is straw man because it was claimed that this is in relation to the US. No one is claiming the US is warming.

Secondly, it is ignorant of satellite data which corroborates with the ground data.

Sorry but it is a straw man argument.

A straw man would imply a new topic has been introduced, which it has not.

So if the US isn't warming in relation to global warming, what is?

[Michelle]

I'm saying they don't have to be.

I'm begining to think you are being deliberately obtuse. That, or you have no empathy for people that haven't had the opportunities that you've had in a college education. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and you think that they should invest the time and effort it takes to try and understand exactly what all of this entails, as if it would do any good in the grand scheme of things. Well, people have a lot more than that to worry about, no matter the scare mongering.

[Mattshark]

A straw man would imply a new topic has been introduced, which it has not.

So if the US isn't warming in relation to global warming, what is?

Well no, the straw man was the claim that climatologists are saying the US is warming and then using the video to say it is not. That is a straw man.

Lots of different factors affect climate. The one most familiar to me is current, but there are many of factors too. One of those factors is at present having a stronger effect on North America. However the average global temperature is increasing.

[Mattshark]

I'm begining to think you are being deliberately obtuse. That, or you have no empathy for people that haven't had the opportunities that you've had in a college education. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and you think that they should invest the time and effort it takes to try and understand exactly what all of this entails, as if it would do any good in the grand scheme of things. Well, people have a lot more than that to worry about, no matter the scare mongering.

You think the future is also nothing to be concerned with? That is very shorted sighted, that is not me being obtuse, that is me actually caring.

I had the opportunity to go to university because I worked for it, it wasn't handed to me.

You really think an hour of reading is that infeasible for most people in westernised nations? I don't.

[Michelle]

You think the future is also nothing to be concerned with? That is very shorted sighted, that is not me being obtuse, that is me actually caring.

I had the opportunity to go to university because I worked for it, it wasn't handed to me.

You really think an hour of reading is that infeasible for most people in westernised nations? I don't.

When parents barely have the time to spend with their kids each evening...yes. It's not that people don't care and it is naive to think that an hour of reading could reconcile all of the conflicting information.

[Mr Honeybadger]

How about just putting the straw man away and agree to the fact that the science isn't settled. And that this would be the absolute worst time to pass this type of legislation. With people losing their jobs, business going under, and people living paycheck to paycheck.

[Michelle]

How about just putting the straw man away and agree to the fact that the science isn't settled. And that this would be the absolute worst time to pass this type of legislation. With people losing their jobs, business going under, and people living paycheck to paycheck.

I totally agree...

Crap...another one that changed names that I'm going to have to get used to.

[ninjadude]

All of these taxes that are being lobbied against people and especially small businesses, due to the possibility of fraud,

Source? What taxes? A carbon tax has not been passed to my knowledge? A fraud tax?

[ninjadude]

So if the US isn't warming in relation to global warming, what is?

the rest of the world.

[Professor Buzzkill]

We now have a carbon tax, the ETS (emissions trading scheme) starting 1/1/10 in nz. Which means more tax on gas and power, the money of course will go to poor countries to keep them from any polluting industry.

Does anyone else see the irony of paying a scumbag like Robert Mugabe to do what he's doing already? Which is preventing any industry from thriving in his country.

oh and btw our ETS includes a tax on farmers for cow farts. Yes, the one building block our ecconomy is built on (dairy and meat) is now disadvantaged. And the reason we are given is because the rest of the world is going to do the same soon, and if we don't our products would be boycotted in foreign markets.

[Moon Monkey]

I know it is, but raw data is of little value and the scale is different.

Ok, see how the temps are around a 0 point?

I am not on about any data or graphs, I'm talking about trends.

It clearly has increased, in the period you mention (21500 bp) it has rose by 10°c

Just to add, this is why blank graphs are useless

TBF means Tail Beat Frequency: So what exactly is this graph saying (and this graph isn't even raw data)?

I have got no idea why you are being obtuse, is it deliberate ?. It is quite simple really, remove the means from the raw data and plot with years BP on your x-axis, you can scale as you wish as it makes no difference...end of story thats how you see a time series trend. You do not need to calculate temperatures at all as there is a linear relationship with deuterium.

I am saying that the trend in CO2 rises over the last 21500, or 8500 years whichever, but the rise is not seen in deuterium levels. Do you agree this is correct ? If not please show clearly why it is not correct.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[pbarosso]

When parents barely have the time to spend with their kids each evening...yes. It's not that people don't care and it is naive to think that an hour of reading could reconcile all of the conflicting information.

look michelle,

stop making excuses for the poor and unfortunate. fortune comes from making sound and smart decisions, such as " oh look, i guess we really dont need that red boat and matching red truck in our driveway" or "geeeesh!!! im pregnant AGAIN!"

parents who cant spend an hour reading to their children are over their heads and need to downsize their lives or upsize their brains. i have one 7 month old and one on the way, i work and go to school, and my wife is a stay at home mom. i make below median income, and have health insurance. how do i do it? by not being a MORON! i have no revolving credit bills, just rent, utilities, and car insurance and food. oh my cars? i have four of them, all of which i have paid cash for over the past 5 years. who would have thought that a person could buy a nicer fuel efficient car for around 2500. i will tell you who; the people that think everybody is looking at them and judging them by what they have---materialists. when my cars need srvicing, i service them. i pay the registration. i buy groceries at cheap places cuz food is food.

so if people cant make smart decisions thats their problem. i mean hey, not everyone can be intelligent. if everyone was then the cost of a hamburger at mcdonalds would be $20 because those people wouldnt work for 8 bucks an hour. like it or not we need morons to keep our costs down at places like mcdonalds and starbucks, which is the biggest "image" waste of money there ever was i swear.

so i say hey(in a owen wilson sort of way), no, no look, dont worry about college! yeah its not for everyone, see, we mcdonalds is a great career, you could work your way up to drive through!

sorry for the tangent, but come on, we are heading into an ice age by all accounts of those graphs, we have had 6 or 7 thousand years of warm weather and now its time for the spikes on that graph to start dipping like the patterns suggest.

[pbarosso]

oh i forgot to add.... that reading to your kids really produces no real results when the data is paired. it is all about lifestyle. parents want to be part time parents out of selfishness. parents who read to their kids that are educated and have books in the house and use them have a better chance at having kids who grow up and have a higher IQ. this is because they sw the value of books being exploited by mom and dad for their entertainment or for education. parents that make reading worthwhile and fun always stand a better chance. --just some stuff they teach you when you are studying to become an elementary school teacher, you know, nothing much.

[Mattshark]

I have got no idea why you are being obtuse, is it deliberate ?. It is quite simple really, remove the means from the raw data and plot with years BP on your x-axis, you can scale as you wish as it makes no difference...end of story thats how you see a time series trend. You do not need to calculate temperatures at all as there is a linear relationship with deuterium.

I am saying that the trend in CO2 rises over the last 21500, or 8500 years whichever, but the rise is not seen in deuterium levels. Do you agree this is correct ? If not please show clearly why it is not correct.

And I'm telling that there is a 10°c temperature rise in that time.

[Moon Monkey]

And I'm telling that there is a 10°c temperature rise in that time.

You are telling me ? It doesn't work like that......data ? Thank you.

Oh and btw, again for possibly the 10th time, does the ice core data show a rise in CO2 levels than is not matched in the deuterium levels ? I gave you the ice core data, that you couldn't find for some reason, you only have to look at it.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Mattshark]

You are telling me ? It doesn't work like that......data ? Thank you.

Oh and btw, again for possibly the 10th time, does the ice core data show a rise in CO2 levels than is not matched in the deuterium levels ? I gave you the ice core data, that you couldn't find for some reason, you only have to look at it.

It is matched in temperature change. Do you not think going from -10°c to above 0.3°c is quite a significant change? I personally think it is.

[Moon Monkey]

It is matched in temperature change. Do you not think going from -10°c to above 0.3°c is quite a significant change? I personally think it is.

Oh my god....how can it be matched in temperature change if it is not matched in the deuterium levels.....temperature change is estimated from the deuterium levels and the relationship is linear. Forget about temperature, no-one had a thermometer taking readings for the last 800,000 years.

Does the CO2 trend match the deuterium trend in the ice-core data ? Yes or no

[Sweetpumper]

My favorite headline today:

"Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming..."

[Mattshark]

Oh my god....how can it be matched in temperature change if it is not matched in the deuterium levels.....temperature change is estimated from the deuterium levels and the relationship is linear. Forget about temperature, no-one had a thermometer taking readings for the last 800,000 years.

Does the CO2 trend match the deuterium trend in the ice-core data ? Yes or no

for god sake, you use the temperature.

That shows a 10°c rise in temp

My favorite headline today:

"Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming..."

Snow! In winter! OMG!

[Sweetpumper]

Yep. A normal winter.

[Moon Monkey]

for god sake, you use the temperature.

That shows a 10°c rise in temp

For someone who claims to be all about the science you seem to be, or are pretending to be to avoid the question, awfully thick.

1) What temperature are you going to use ? Where are you getting this temperature from ?

2) Does the ice core data show a rising trend in C02 not matched in the deuterium trend?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Mattshark]

For someone who claims to be all about the science you seem to be, or are pretending to be to avoid the question, awfully thick.

1) What temperature are you going to use ? Where are you getting this temperature from ?

2) Does the ice core data show a rising trend in C02 not matched in the deuterium trend?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt

From:

947 520.3 21482.3066 -443.7 -9.71

to:

13 6.6 38.37379 -390.9 0.88

Yeah, no change at all

I would suggest you have got you figures wrong.

[Moon Monkey]

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt

From:

947 520.3 21482.3066 -443.7 -9.71

to:

13 6.6 38.37379 -390.9 0.88

Yeah, no change at all

I would suggest you have got you figures wrong.

Do you even know what you are linking me to ? Do you understand what the -9.71 and 0.88 are and how they were calculated. This is getting ridiculous, you obviously will try anything to avoid answering the question, I will recall this thread when you start bleating to people about the science in future.

Again:

1) What temperature are you going to use ? Where are you getting this temperature from ?

2) Does the ice core data show a rising trend in C02 not matched in the deuterium trend?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey