Global Warming Total Fraud

[+DieChecker]

Question is: who is going to pay for it?

Probably no one. It probably won't happen. Well within our technicial ability, but doomed due to politics and finances.

[Elfin]

It seems there are all sorts of solar cycles, which is exactly what would be expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Hypothesized_cycles

Periodicity of solar activity with periods longer than the sunspot cycle has been proposed. Some of these proposed longer cycles include:

87 years (70–100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990),[30] Braun, et al., (2005).[31]

210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. "de Vries cycle"). Braun, et al., (2005).[31]

2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle[32][33]

6000 years (Xapsos and Burke, 2009).[34]

[Guest]

I'm not going to try to deny that he has sponsorship from these groups but I'm pretty sure he didn't have them when he first published the results of his research. If you're a lobbyist and discover someone with solid science to support your view, you're going to solicit them. Why do you think the AGW proponents are going crazy with support from one world government type lobbyist groups?

I'm not the one bringing up the political card. In fact you are by bringing Ward into this. First off, you claim that I'm not acknowledging how deeply politically motivated Carter is. I do acknowledge it but it doesn't affect the points he makes and that is where my focus is. Now no one is perfect, but his data is hard to ignore. And then there is Ward that spends three or four pages trying to defend that the IPCC is not a political entity and yet states that it was established by UNEP. Anything that is established by the UN is political, based on the concept of one world rule. I do believe that the world should be united but as a collection of individual nations and entities and not cogs under the yoke of some central government.

AGW is a political device to create enough anarchy for a certain ruling elite to gain more power. It is right out of Alinski. Climate Change presents not necessarily a problem for today's world but a set of challenges of how we will govern ourselves in the future. There are two different mindsets with different solutions to these challenges. One mindset wants to create fear and blame Man for Climate change. The idea is to use that to siphon the wealth of this nation and throw it at questionable actions. And when these don't work, just throw trillions more at the problem. Then when the wealth of the nation is exhausted, all that is left is the ruling elite controlling people's lives. The other mindset acknowledges that Man affects his environment but he is not the cause of natural cycles but that we can always be better custodians of our environment and learn how to adapt to the changes these cycles bring. We still would be spending trillions, but it would be spent wisely and correctly the first time. And the bottom line is that everyone retains their independence from government.

Anyway, I've got the state games this weekend and I won't have the time to delve further into this. Although I did find some interesting things that I will share probably next week. So after that, if you still believe in AGW, then I'd suggest that you renew your membership to the Flat Earth Society.

Unfortunately you still haven't actually defended any one of Carters statements. I cannot discuss his gish-gallop of flawed science - one at a time please

I am not remotely interested in the political aspects of AGW - just the science.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The point is we are in a cycle, possibly more than one judging from your reply which has shown a warming every 100,000 years...so the earth gets warmer regardless of any help from us, the temp spikes and regularity match those found in the current warming, but I'll say it again for those who missed it earlier

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like - but pulling the natural cycles card without identifying it is not meaningful in any way. Every climatre scientists knows about natural cycles and could identify any number of them which are currently influencing the climate - but they do not account for current warming.

If you really believe what you are saying - name the cycle and identify its cause.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Not exactly correct.

There has been recent studies that show the sun actually does have a very long cycle that encompasses the usual maximum and minimums...The terms that were used were "the Grand Maximum and the Maunder Minimum".

I didn't just make that up....they "say" it is an approximate 400 year cycle but they are not sure as it is a relatively new discovery. This was postulated in discussion as to why this "maximum" hasn't been much more than a popcorn fart...they are theorizing we may be heading into another Maunder Minimum....which they "think" is what caused the Big Chill or otherwise known as "the little ice age"...

Edit to add...

http://www.princeton...er_Minimum.html

We perfectly know the case of the second chill and that it affected mostly the Northern hemisphere... a volcano on Iceland. BTW, in the bigger context one could claim that it responsible for the French Revolution. But that type of small dips are common in climatic history.

Edited August 19, 2013 by questionmark

[Jeremiah65]

Well, I will agree that it was a rare combination of geologic and solar occurrences that led to "the big chill" and yes, the collapse of agriculture in France due to climate is considered a primary reason for the French Revolution.

Hungry, desperate people will do just about anything...and why not? You figure your going to starve to death anyway...might as well go out fighting instead.

[Frank Merton]

We are not having a big chill now, and there are plenty of revolutions about. In other words, I think attaching historical events to one thing like that is gross oversimplification.

[Guest]

A factor which most people never consider when thinking about recent historic climate is the invasion of America and the consequent decimation of the advanced agricultural civilizations which existed there. many millions of people died from common western illnesses and vast tracks of land were abandoned to regrow forest. This will have contributed to the Little Ice age.

Such population collapses accompanied the colonial era across the world and cannot be ignored as factors in climate history.

Most people are far to Eurocentric when they consider climate and civilization.

Br Cornelius

[Jeremiah65]

Of course we are not having a "big chill" now....it's a "thing" that scientist are discussing.

The elements are in place though and is a distinct possibility.

We have the volcanic element that could pop off at anytime...it's not like volcanism is at an all time low...

We also have this "puzzle" of our current solar maximum cycle. It was expected to be a very active cycle and it has not been near as active and violent as they thought. Some scientist have began to look at the solar history and have speculated we might be entering a new "minimum"...that would explain why this "maximum" cycle has not been what was anticipated.

Gross oversimplification? You do know that people revolted in France because they were starving and the Crown didn't do squat....Remember the famous line "Let them eat cake"...??? Might have been propaganda, but it reflects a basic truth...hungry people will fight.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

I think Enlightenment philosophy and the example of the American revolution and the bankruptcy of the French treasury in mercantalist times (when economic management was flatly stupid because of the ideology) and a series of scandals and the movement that had been going on for some time about the special rights of the aristocracy, and a lot of other things played a part. As a general rule starving people don't engage in revolutions; it is when there are large injustices that you get them. I get the feeling people have been watching Hollywood's version, or maybe reading Dickens's version and taking it too much to heart.

[Jeremiah65]

Economic disparity...fact...period. You say starving people don't fight...we can agree to disagree. Hunger is a symptom of economic disparity.

The French revolution

The Bolshevik Revolution

The Revolution of the People's Republic of China

The Cuban revolution.

All driven by economic disparity. The question is...where is the line? At what point do people say "enough is enough". We are witnessing the growth of a huge disparity here in America...how long? Who knows?

Will the elite catch a clue from history and throw some scraps to the masses before they revolt? I doubt it...

[Frank Merton]

I can think of lots of countries where there is significant starvation and deprivation, and nothing much happens. Revolutions are far more complicated than such simplistic views permit. Starvation may lead to riots, but for it to become a revolution requires many more things.

[+DieChecker]

Economic disparity...fact...period. You say starving people don't fight...we can agree to disagree. Hunger is a symptom of economic disparity.

The French revolution

The Bolshevik Revolution

The Revolution of the People's Republic of China

The Cuban revolution.

All driven by economic disparity. The question is...where is the line? At what point do people say "enough is enough". We are witnessing the growth of a huge disparity here in America...how long? Who knows?

Will the elite catch a clue from history and throw some scraps to the masses before they revolt? I doubt it...

According to some sources the US still has 40+% of the population living in the Middle Class. And what constitutes Poverty in the US would be Rich in many other nations.

The offical poverty rate in the US is actually around 15%, and according to various sites, the poverty rate amoung those nations you just mentioned was over 50% (A majority of citizens living in poverty).

So, until rates for the Middle Class and the Poverty line switch places, I suspect there will not be any uprisings.

If people in the US are mad at 15% poverty and 40% middle class, imagine when it is 50% poverty and 10% middle class??? That is how mad people have to be before there is a revolution.

[Jeremiah65]

You are both correct, it is not that bad ...yet. I'm just afraid it is getting worse day by day.

It just seems that things are sliding down at at an ever increasing rate. Something like 45 million Households are on Government subsidy. This is alarming to me. That is not 45 million people, that is 45 million households...so the true number of people in dependence and servitude to the government dole could be anywhere from 45 million to (assuming 3 per house) 135 million...that is around 30% of the population. That is depressing to me.

IF...the climate continues to change and we have these bouts of extremes more and more often...then I see a time when the food and water supply is going to be pushed to the limits. I can see the effects of last summers droughts in the food prices today...fortunately there was a bit of a reprieve this year...but what of next year or the year after? The problem with random weather extremes is...well...they are extreme and unpredictable.

I have a plan to deal with that, but it is not a solution to all the possible scenarios. Water retention and delivery systems. Lakes, ponds, reservoirs and an aqueduct and delivery system from the places with an overabundance of rain to the places that are in drought. These things can not only be there to alleviate shortages of rainfall in drought stricken areas, but they can aid in flood control and management in the places getting record rain levels as well...not to mention just having stored fresh water might not be a bad idea in the coming decades...

Oh well...I have a strong gut feeling that one of these days I'll be able to sadly say..."I told you so..."

Edit to add...

Last year, most of Georgia was in drought. I saw a report this morning that the Atlanta area has already gotten it's average rainfall for the year...this is August. Something like 48 inches a year is the average...they have already gotten 50+ inches this year. Perhaps storing that excess water would not be such a bad idea rather than letting it run out to the salty oceans and be lost...

Just an opinion...

Edited August 19, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Kowalski]

Will the elite catch a clue from history and throw some scraps to the masses before they revolt? I doubt it...

They already do, it's called welfare.....They give people enough money so they don't starve, but don't give too much so they can get ahead.

[Jeremiah65]

They already do, it's called welfare.....They give people enough money so they don't starve, but don't give too much so they can get ahead.

Ouch...you got me on that one.

That is not living, that is enslavement....in my humble opinion. You do what yer good ole Uncle Sam says or you are off benefits, in the streets and going hungry...

Economically...I am a Libertarian to the bone ( well I am a Libertarian to the Bone on most everything...philosophy of Freedom baby!...yeah!)...get the Gov the hell out of the way and let people do whatever they do best. I have said it a hundred times...people can be amazingly clever if you just let them....The laws and regulations...the licensing, registration and municipal fees are strangling the life out of would be entrepreneurs...

Oh well...that is a discussion for another thread...

Edited August 19, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

Giving people money is a trap: why take a boring job and have to ka if you have an adequate income already? A little more intelligence than that needs to be made to the problem of income distribution.

[+DieChecker]

Giving people money is a trap: why take a boring job and have to ka if you have an adequate income already? A little more intelligence than that needs to be made to the problem of income distribution.

Or even better, why work for for 40 hours a week, when you can collect 75% what you would have earned and just play video games all day? Some sources I've ready say that now is the easiest time it has ever been to get on Disability, Welfare or Unemployment. We have 50% more people on Disability now then we had when President Obama took office.

Anyway. I don't think any of that matters toward Global Warming or Climate Change. What matters is that humans wil naturally wait till 99% of their resources are gone before attempting to fix anything. And so we can expect that though the symptoms are within the range of fixable now, by the time the Human Race decides that it is critical, it will be nearly impossible to fix.

Regardless of poverty, revolutions and political ideology, this is generally true. As a species we are procrastinators.

[aztek]

They already do, it's called welfare.....They give people enough money so they don't starve, but don't give too much so they can get ahead.

it depends, if you got 5 or more kids, your welfare will be high enough so you will never have to work. we have generations collecting welfare that do nothing but create more generations that collect welfare. did i mention medicaid? the best insurance, even money can't buy it. guess where most fraud occurs.

[+DieChecker]

I thought Clinton (in a moment of brilliance) ended generational Welfare?

Or does it just take more paperwork now??

Edited August 19, 2013 by DieChecker

[Jeremiah65]

I thought Clinton (in a moment of brilliance) ended generational Welfare?

Or does it just take more paperwork now??

He did, but Obama has taken measures to repeal it (due to the current economic crisis of course).

Oh well...when the droughts return to the grain belt and we are punching each other in the face for a loaf of stale bread....just remember this could have been avoided with proper planning and investment....

Edited August 19, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[RavenHawk]

Unfortunately you still haven't actually defended any one of Carters statements. I cannot discuss his gish-gallop of flawed science - one at a time please

I don’t have to defend Carter’s statements. You have to defend AGW. If you are a scientist, then you should know that all that is needed is to disprove one aspect to disprove the whole. Carter has done that. Ice cores and deep sea cores are not flawed science.

I am not remotely interested in the political aspects of AGW - just the science.

If you were truly interested in just the science, then why did you bring Ward into it? Ward lead with the political aspects. Carter saved his to the end.

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like - but pulling the natural cycles card without identifying it is not meaningful in any way. Every climatre scientists knows about natural cycles and could identify any number of them which are currently influencing the climate - but they do not account for current warming.

The fact is, is that we do not know all the cycles and how they interact with each other. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that there are holes in our understanding and at times, all you have is intuition to go on. This is very similar to the story of how the Periodic Table came into being. By the 18th Century, discovery of the atom opened up a change in the number of elements in the world. Scientists knew the existence of an element because of the hole it left in the Table, but the element itself remained undiscovered for years.

If you really believe what you are saying - name the cycle and identify its cause.

If there is a correlation between Man and CO2 levels, then show the absolute proof that Man is the cause of climate change?!

[Guest]

I don't have to defend Carter's statements. You have to defend AGW. If you are a scientist, then you should know that all that is needed is to disprove one aspect to disprove the whole. Carter has done that. Ice cores and deep sea cores are not flawed science.

Explain the particular science he used. Carter has proved something to you - what specific thing is it. I will discuss the proof in its aspects when you outline it for me so that i can understand what you understand he has demonstrated. I have personally spent about 5 years discrediting every claim that AGW skeptic have made on this board, so I am fully satisfied that AGW is proven science. What have you got which is new and proves your skeptism.

You seem to be either lazy or evasive of this simple request.

If you were truly interested in just the science, then why did you bring Ward into it? Ward lead with the political aspects. Carter saved his to the end.

More evasion, Ward discussed the scientific flaws as well as the IPCC. You have not discussed the science.

The fact is, is that we do not know all the cycles and how they interact with each other. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are holes in our understanding and at times, all you have is intuition to go on. This is very similar to the story of how the Periodic Table came into being. By the 18th Century, discovery of the atom opened up a change in the number of elements in the world. Scientists knew the existence of an element because of the hole it left in the Table, but the element itself remained undiscovered for years.

The effect of CO2 is well understood in the atmosphere and all the evidence correlates to that effect in the climate at the moment, it is both unnecessary and evasive to propose some other mechanism which has caused current warming. If you believe there is another mechanism - what is it ?? Be specific in what you believe.

I am really tiered of your evasion and the evasion of others like you who refuse to discuss your particular understanding of AGW. You seem to have all the time in the world to repeat yourself - but no time to engage with the actual evidence. Such is belief, it needs no justification. I begin to suspect that you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of discussing the technical aspects of carters presentation, and that is why you have been so easily fooled by Carters lies, prove me wrong.

I will be away until Sunday, so maybe you could pick an aspect of Carters science for us to discuss by then. Probably not though.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 20, 2013 by Guest

[RavenHawk]

Explain the particular science he used. Carter has proved something to you - what specific thing is it.

What do you think I’ve been talking about? The principle is called observation. This is an integral part of science. It’s not so much what Carter has proved to me, it’s that he has the data to back it up. That data shoots down AGW.

I will discuss the proof in its aspects when you outline it for me so that i can understand what you understand he has demonstrated.

I thought I have been. I don’t have the time to teach you basic scientific principles. But if it helps, I am referencing what Carter presents in his clip.

I have personally spent about 5 years discrediting every claim that AGW skeptic have made on this board, so I am fully satisfied that AGW is proven science.

Such a waste of your time then. And someone like Carter comes along and destroys your world. Well, this is something you can never discredit. I am not satisfied. I see the correlation but like low hanging fruit, it’s too easy to pick. Because of Carter it will only remain a correlation, not proof. I’ve asked you to show me the proof that Man causes climate change. And you have not done that.

What have you got which is new and proves your skeptism.

It’s not new. It’s the same data that there has always been. You just continue to refuse to see the evidence.

You seem to be either lazy or evasive of this simple request.

I’m not the one being evasive. I’ve presented my evidence several times now and you seem blind to it. Ignoring the evidence is not proof that AGW exists.

More evasion, Ward discussed the scientific flaws as well as the IPCC. You have not discussed the science.

That’s right. But he started out with the political aspects, giving excuses trying to defend the IPCC. He failed there so where else has he failed? We haven’t gotten to other specifics. But what I’ve skimmed through so far seems weak and flawed itself.

The effect of CO2 is well understood in the atmosphere and all the evidence correlates to that effect in the climate at the moment,

Interesting term you use “at the moment”. Sounds like you have some doubt?? Where’s your evidence of “at the moment”? I thought you were stating that it “was written in stone”! No one is arguing the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. As with most of everything I’ve said, it seems to have gone way over your head. Going back to my “rain” analogy, we know the effect of rain on the atmosphere, but the correlation of it raining whenever I walk outside is not proof that I cause it to rain. Hence, because Man generates CO2 is not proof that he is the cause of climate change.

it is both unnecessary and evasive to propose some other mechanism which has caused current warming. If you believe there is another mechanism - what is it ?? Be specific in what you believe.

That’s not my purpose. Showing that Man is not the cause of AGW (actually that there is no such thing) just happens to bring up the thought that then something else is the cause. And that is what Carter is showing with his first torpedo. If you’re looking for me to say that I don’t have specifics will somehow defeat my point then you are not participating in this discussion. The specifics are not what’s important as much as what they imply. It’s not required for me to show the specifics of some other mechanism, just that there are other mechanisms. You’re the one being evasive. It is you that needs to prove that AGW exists. As in my Periodic Table analogy, Scientist knew other elements existed but they couldn’t prove it yet. I know there are other things at work here and that at this point in time of our understanding of our world; we don’t fully understand what they are. And because of that, it is very naïve and arrogant of us to say that Man is the cause. There is this fear, politically induced and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. This is as obvious as that 800lbs gorilla.

I am really tiered of your evasion and the evasion of others like you who refuse to discuss your particular understanding of AGW.

I’m really tired of your evasion and lack of comprehension or is it obstructionism? If I was refusing to discuss my understanding of AGW, then I wouldn’t have posted anything. You’re doing everything you can to distract from the thread. Well, that won’t work.

You seem to have all the time in the world to repeat yourself - but no time to engage with the actual evidence.

Carter’s evidence is pretty actual. If I’m repeating myself, it’s because you show no acknowledgement of understanding. This isn’t rocket science. Carter is straight forward. If you have something particular in mind then present it. Otherwise, I’ll assume that Ward is your response and I’ll get to each aspect one at a time. First up is the political aspect.

Such is belief, it needs no justification. I begin to suspect that you are scientifically illiterate and incapable of discussing the technical aspects of carters presentation, and that is why you have been so easily fooled by Carters lies, prove me wrong.

Kind of back peddling are you? I am not a trained scientist but that doesn’t mean that I am illiterate and incapable of discussing the technical aspects. I realize that that statement of yours is an attempt to hedge your bets. You don’t fool me. This just shows how deeply you are quaffing the AGW koolaid. Carter threatens your little world because he provides adequate doubt about AGW. You can’t attack the evidence so attack the man and call him a liar.

I will be away until Sunday, so maybe you could pick an aspect of Carters science for us to discuss by then. Probably not though.

There’ll be several here waiting for your return. But given your history in this thread, I doubt you will even acknowledge it.

As you say, you wanted to go one item at a time. I’ve got this reply and then one other covering the political aspects. Then I was planning on going over Ward’s next sections, which may include some observations I’ve made. But this is really redundant in my opinion as he shows his lack of comprehension of Carter or is it his political defense of AGW? Carter’s first torpedo is all that really is necessary. There is no special understanding needed to discuss Ice and deep sea cores.

[+DieChecker]

I thought the "explaination" of why the CO2 keep rising, but that the temperature raises in spurts is that there are "threshhold" levels of CO2, or some such. I don't believe in such things myself, but I thought that was the eco-tree-whale reason that was given.