Global Warming Total Fraud

[CyberKen]

No, no confusion, those were the words of the news paper article...and evidence, that depends on your willingness to seek doesnt it....and in point of fact, I am not offerring theories at all or posting my opiniopns on the matter, I am offering food for thought, another snippet you may accept or discard at your pleasure...

Cheers

I think the IPCC works in reverse.

1st : They determine the outcome : Ice melts 100% and it's all because of evil mankind

2nd :They collect a few computer models and make changes accordingly to back up their predictions.

3rd : They sit back and think up smears for those who disagree with them

4th: They daydream about the funding they will receive NEXT year.

[Guest]

If you had watched Carter's clip or actually read what I wrote, you'd know this is not true. There are only basically two locations to get ice cores (the polar regions). I suppose that you can argue that there are exceptions and that is fine, but I don't think you are going to be pulling many ice cores from the Bahamas. These proxies is all scientists have to peer into the past.

I would tend to agree but I haven't heard any of the world's scientists come out and claim that any ice core locations (or even the deep sea cores) as a bad back window. And what happens at the poles controls the rest of the planet. Isn't that what AGW apologists use to defend it? If not, then melting ice packs are nothing more than that back window. I asked you if you accepted these ice cores and you never expressed any exceptions. Or did you not read anything I wrote?

That's real disingenuous. There are many reasons to only use Greenland and cherry picking isn't the only one. But what is missing then is a side-by-side comparison with any of the other cores. Can you provide that without cherry-picking yourself? If they turn out to be very similar, then it would be for convenience to use only the Greenland cores. If it is inconclusive, then it still doesn't matter in that he found data that torpedoes AGW. Again, all Carter has to do is disprove one instance of AGW to find the whole thing false. So what you call cherry-picking is really only being focused and observant. And hence, calling Carter's point dodgy does not counter it. Where is your science that counters ice & deep sea cores?

Carter doesn't have to address the totality of AGW. Do you not understand that? Parading AGW and then calling it climate change is disingenuous as well.

Again, that's all the science community has. His claims had better support the graphs since they are an objective reporting of the data. You see what you are doing? You can't counter the science that Carter uses, so now you are just simply attacking science in general.

Carter has to address the totality of what the theory predicts. Picking one piece of data, such as a single ice core, and using it to attempt to explain global temperatture trends is dishonest. Not to address the other physical aspects of AGW is also dishonest.

There are multiple ice core which can be compared, and only by combining them all - along with as many other proxies as available, can tell you what the global climate has been like in the past.

There have been hundreds of differnt ice cores taken at this atage and all of them are available for comparison and comilation into a paleoclimatic series.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

I think the IPCC works in reverse.

1st : They determine the outcome : Ice melts 100% and it's all because of evil mankind

2nd :They collect a few computer models and make changes accordingly to back up their predictions.

3rd : They sit back and think up smears for those who disagree with them

4th: They daydream about the funding they will receive NEXT year.

yep, only that it is very little different from the methodology of the so called skeptics, only they have more certainty in point 4, Enron will keep on funding them and creating new professor chairs at Georgia Tech once they lost all credibility (not that most of them teach anything afterwards either).

[RavenHawk]

See my subsequent answer which addresses Carters cherry picking of cores which supports his case but do not counter AGW. You should have spotted this gross deficiency yourself, the fact that you didn't rather proves my point.

It’s not a gross deficiency. You have to prove that it is cherry-picking. And to date, you haven’t. Can you present multiple cores in a side-by-side comparison? What does Carter say about this *gross deficiency*? Surely someone has confronted him on it.

[CyberKen]

I gave you the exact quote made y a single scientist to the BBC and it specifically stated that he predicted the arctic summer icew to be gone by 2016, give or take 3 years. That represents a period of 2013 to 2019 for his prediction to come true with the most likely year been 2016. That is one mans opinion, but the majority of experts in the field predict a summer ice free arctic by 2040.

By any stretch of the imagination the article is disingenous to the original quote and grossly off the mark of the generally held position of the body of scientific experts. As they say, you can believe who you like, but thats not going to change the likely outcome.

Br Cornelius

Sounds good. Cornelius, you should email all of the captains of those yachts stranded up there.

Tell them all that "the article is disingenuous".

Then sit back and see if you get flamed by the captains.

Global warming has become a religion. Some people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way to the truth.

You should be made aware that it was never about saving mankind.

The goal was to use fear as a tool to gain power over the general public.

Al Gores hockey stick graph was a convenient -zoom- on a much larger big picture graph.

You have been deceived.

[RavenHawk]

Carter has to address the totality of what the theory predicts.

No, he does not.

Picking one piece of data, such as a single ice core, and using it to attempt to explain global temperatture trends is dishonest.

Well, he doesn’t use just a single core. He uses several, including deep sea cores which he identifies as his field of expertise. He doesn’t use it to explain global temperature (that is in the graphs); he uses it to punch holes in AGW.

Not to address the other physical aspects of AGW is also dishonest.

No, it is not. It just isn’t required.

There are multiple ice core which can be compared, and only by combining them all - along with as many other proxies as available, can tell you what the global climate has been like in the past.

Maybe, maybe not. Only a comparison will tell.

There have been hundreds of differnt ice cores taken at this atage and all of them are available for comparison and comilation into a paleoclimatic series.

Good, and where are they? Are you going to present them?

[+DieChecker]

Resources which are in limited supply are water, phospherous, rare earth's (batteries which are the basis of many of our modern technologies and are fundamental to a sustainable future), Uranium, wood (can be overcome with good planning - but we are not managing it sustainably).

I thought I had heard that "rare earth" metals are not actually rare, but are simply hard to process.

Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated as rare earth minerals in economically exploitable ore deposits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

[Guest]

It's not a gross deficiency. You have to prove that it is cherry-picking. And to date, you haven't. Can you present multiple cores in a side-by-side comparison? What does Carter say about this *gross deficiency*? Surely someone has confronted him on it.

They have, but he has his own audience who really don't care about the facts behind his presentation.

What is unique about the Greenland cores is that they show the most abrupt and dramatic changes in temperature of all the proxies - which is just perfect if you are trying to make the point that abrupt changes are the norm.

Let me correct myself - Carter has to address the totality of the theory if he isn't to be accused of cherry picking and grandstanding.

Let me illustrate the point with an analogy, a man goes to the doctor with shortness of breath and the doctor performs a chest x-ray. He discovers dark spots on the lungs but is unable to decide what is causing them. It could be pneumonia, TB, Cancer or a number of other things. The only way he can find out what it is is by performing more tests, blood, biopsy, etc. In this analogous case the x-ray is the temperature record and the follow up test are the details which allows him to attribute the symptom to the cause, ie AGW and its fingerprint. Ignoring the temperature spike without finding out what is causing it would be like the doctor saying - lets just wait and see if those spots clear up by themselves as the patient will probably be dead. Carter logic.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2013 by Guest

[RavenHawk]

They have, but he has his own audience who really don't care about the facts behind his presentation.

He does present the facts. He doesnt pull things out of thin air. He uses the data that all scientists have access to. His facts are about as basic as you can get.

Im not privy to a side-by-side comparison. I assume that there must be a link to one somewhere and Im asking that you present it if you know where it is. I would think that this would be an invaluable tool. And the ultimate counter to Carter, provided that the side-by-side indicates it. But then why hasnt it been presented already? Maybe it isnt a counter??

What is unique about the Greenland cores is that they show the most abrupt and dramatic changes in temperature of all the proxies - which is just perfect if you are trying to make the point that abrupt changes are the norm.

Well, Carter isnt making a point about abrupt changes. He is showing steady changes in the past and there are steady changes going on today. And he doesnt use only the Greenland cores. I think Carter did the side-by-side already and saw no major inconsistencies as he went from one core to the other showing that the increase in temp is not beyond the norm.

Let me correct myself - Carter has to address the totality of the theory if he isn't to be accused of cherry picking and grandstanding.

No, he doesnt. He just needs to show one little chink in the armor. He does that on about 8 different points. If that is cherry-picking then that is a non issue. AGW is an all or nothing proposition. If AGW is real then it can be shown throughout all time that Man is the driver. Otherwise events like volcanism and asteroids which youve skipped and ignored, then are some of the drivers. Because Man has not reached a Type I civilization, he does not have the power to outdo volcanism or asteroids. And that is what is needed for an abrupt change to climate.

Think of it like a kiddy pool. You romp around in the pool but no matter how hard you try (other that actually tipping over the pool) you never seem to ever be able to empty the pool. Well, that is Man at his current stage of development.

Edited September 11, 2013 by RavenHawk

[MonkeyLove]

The assertion that the world is running out of resources is not proven and almost certainly a mirage. All of the argument of the fall of economic systems is, then, based on an utterly faulty premise.

As one resource goes, another comes. The world has thousands of years of natural gas and coal, probably a hundred years of oil, unlimited solar energy, a thousand years of nuclear. All that is needed is a high enough price (and doubling would more than do it).

More than likely other competitive sources will also appear, long before prices reach even those levels.

But what affects one resource will affect another. That's why we moved to crude oil from coal and other sources. That's also why we are now moving from crude oil to unconventional oil. The claim that resources are unlimited because higher prices will allow for more resource acquisition is contradicted by reality.

The problem is that our energy returns are much higher, and what we use for energy cannot meet them.

For solar energy, it is in terms of our perspective unlimited but the materials we need to capture and use it are not.

For nuclear energy, like many others we have an abundance of that. The problem is that what needs to be mined requires higher energy returns, doesn't provide petrochemicals, and creates more problems along the way. Look up "Fukushima."

Higher prices will not change physical limitations. That's why even as oil prices tripled crude oil production didn't.

[MonkeyLove]

Fine then... (sigh) economists....

I just supposed that resource depletion and the environment going to hell was based on scientific data, not economic opinions.

FWIW, my points were never based on economics but on physics. Economics ultimately involves money, and that creates a problem when we study this issue because we can create money easily, but that doesn't remove physical limitations.

We can see this in current circumstances. We believe that technology will allow for more crude oil production, but that didn't happen, even when oil prices tripled. Instead, we're now using unconventional oil, which has higher energy costs.

This is where the error involving economics comes in. Some skeptics argue that we are "saved" because crude oil production costs are now as high as that of unconventional oil, and that makes unconventional oil production feasible. The problem is that we need cheap oil no matter the source, which means less than $30 a barrel, and that means significant increases in crude oil production. In fact, this was the forecast given by skeptics backed in 2004 or earlier: by this time crude oil production will reach over 100 Mb/d and the price of oil will plummet to around $20 a barrel. Instead, we are now literally scraping the barrel by using unconventional oil to meet increasing demand and paying oil at three times the price of what we expected. Even Saudi Arabia, which boasted in 2009 that it could easily breach 15 Mb/d, is barely exceeding 10 Mb/d.

The second problem when economics is used involves peak demand. Skeptics argue that peak demand is a "solution" to peak oil because it will make oil consumption more efficient. But in global capitalist systems efficiency doesn't led to less consumption but to more, because oil producers and investors will obviously sell unused oil to those who need it.

This problem is related to another, i.e., assuming that the rest of the population is like the U.S., where consumption has reached a saturation point and where the middle class is large. The reality is, unfortunately, the opposite: most of the world's population need more resources and energy to meet basic needs, if not middle class wants.

How much energy and resources are we talking about here? The ave. global ecological footprint per capita is equivalent to that of Turkey, but the bio-capacity of the earth will allow only for conditions equivalent to that of Cuba. A growing global middle class, military forces, a financial elite, most businesses, and governments will obviously not want such conditions, and yet will have to accept the same. Worse, as population increases and the effects of environmental damage and global warming persist, then bio-capacity decreases further.

Thus, we have a global economy that has to deploy the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to meet the needs of a growing global population with more money, a financial elite that wants to make even more money by lending more money to the same population, businesses that want to make more money by selling more goods and services to the same population, governments that want businesses to make more money so that they can get more tax revenues, military forces that want to make sure that more money keeps flowing so that they get armaments, the same forces that need to be deployed and engage in "police action" to justify military costs (passed on to the public), oil production that can barely catch up with increasing demand, and the long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming that are taking their toll on human lives, property, and resources.

What will happen next? Can we find out by looking at what happened the past few decades, then factor in these additional predicaments?

[MiskatonicGrad]

What is the end game of the global warming crowd? are they trying to stop it slow it down help the rest of us cope? polar ice maybe melting I don't see any one building levees around major cities in the flood zone?

is it manmade or is it just the planet naturally warming up? how do you stop that?

It just seems to me we have study after study telling us it is happening but nothing on what it is all for. should I build a big boat and raid the local zoo?

hypothetically let's say everyone agrees the planet is warming up. now what? a little clarity on this would help me understand what the deal is.

[MonkeyLove]

"The New York Times Magazine has named him "America's most prominent Marxist economist"

http://en.wikipedia....ichard_D._Wolff

That capitalism desires growth and profits I agree with. But, you've never answered my question of... Isn't this true of all presently practiced economic systems? And not just of Capitalism? Why hate on Capitalism, when there is not any system practiced today that is better?

My intention is not to "hate" or "love" capitalism, or even to suggest something better, but to explain why it requires growth. The reason is obvious: businesses in capitalist systems need capital in order to increase production, and that in turn is needed to meet increasing needs of a growing population. For free market capitalist systems where competition is involved, the need to increase production is more pronounced. The capital comes from either profit or loans with interest, and both obviously involve increasing sales of goods and services.

Is it possible to have a capitalist economy that is static, i.e., no growth? Yes, but that requires a command economy, with no profits to be made and no interest on loans. Bear in mind that living conditions will also be static, that no untoward incidents (like a major natural disaster leading to destruction of significant resources will take place, or epidemics or pandemics, or groups of people who suddenly refuse to cooperate and start disrupting the system) take place.

Is it possible to have a capitalist economy with lower or negative growth? Definitely, and that has happened several times, but they occur in business cycles, with economies recovering and making up for losses. Trend-wise, the level of credit, the amount of goods and services, and the amount of resources consumed go upward.

But as the various technologies mature isn't the EROEI going to improve?

It improves to a certain point, after which physical limitations take over. That's what's happening to crude oil, and explains why we are now resorting to unconventional oil.

The need for petrochemicals is beyond doubt, that they are going to run out rapidly is still in doubt to me.

Keep in mind that the issue isn't running out of anything but production not meeting demand. That's why I am not surprised that skeptics are now hoping that demand will go down, even as a global economy requires oil consumption to grow.

I thought the current thinking was the population growth and economys of currently growing countries were going to start to mimic the US and Europe by 2040.

They have been copying developed nations since the early 1990s, but the effects of increased consumption appeared only during the next decade

In 20 to 30 years (supposedly) we'd see the global middle class decreasing, even if we did have unlimited oil.

The middle class will decrease when oil production drops. Also, there's no such thing as "unlimited oil."

"In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "renewable energy technology is becoming increasingly cost competitive and growth rates are in line to meet levels required of a sustainable energy future". The report also said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The renewable electricity sector has "grown rapidly in the past five years and now provides nearly 20 percent of the world's power generation", the IEA said."

http://en.wikipedia....l_Energy_Agency

It appears to me that the IEA says that Solar is a clear option for global energy.

It does appear that the IEA thinks that oil hav a limited future.

Obviously, we will be forced to use renewable energy, and that it will become "cost competitive." The problem is that we want higher energy returns, but renewable energy cannot assure us of that.

I'm sorry... I thought we were talking on a 20 year timescale.

We will need more than two decades for a transition to renewable energy, and that will require extensive cooperation and coordination between countries. The IEA argues that we should have started at least a decade ago.

I thought that decades ago when oil was $20 a barrel that a candy bar was 25 cents. That oil is five times as expensive really should be no surprise, everything is now five times as expensive. It costs $13 to go to a movie.

The price of oil did not triple because of inflation but because of lower energy returns. That's why oil production costs have also gone up.

Prices of various goods and services went up because the price of oil went up.

No. It supports that there will be a Global economic meltdown, not specifically a Capitalist meltdown. You are fixated on Capitalism, when Marxism (as practiced in the real world) would have to fail exactly the same.

The global economy is a capitalist one, controlled primarily by

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

You are fixated on the idea of capitalism and not the current economy.

Marxism will fail for the same reason because state capitalism has the same flaws as other types of capitalism.

My very point. And if it is practiced by an individual and he profits by it? Won't his neighbors and then his town and then his nation be practicing it also?

Which is a senseless point, because I am referring to the global economy in light of global warming.

[MonkeyLove]

So you're basically saying that the Extravagant Capitalism as practiced by the Most wealthy industrialized nations is going to come to an end? And thus send the global economy into a crash. So your problem really is not with Capitalism, but with flagrant excessive Consumerism and the damages that is caused by that consumerism?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Consumerism

But consumerism is the result of capitalism for painfully obvious reasons, as capital from profits cannot be generated unless there is more consumption.

[MonkeyLove]

My word so many find it so easy to predict doom.

Actually, it's easier to predict the opposite, especially when one has faith in technology, market forces, businesses, or government to save the day.

Predicting doom requires more data.

The evidence that the world is running out of energy is highly manipulated and not credible. The only thing we were apparently running out of was oil, and now it seems with new technologies (several of them, not just cracking), we will have at least twenty years worth. Also, although the Saudis and Norwegians both like to poor-mouth, it is obvious they have a lot more than they are letting on, considering their behavior.

Actually, it's the other way round: the evidence that oil production won't drop ("running out of energy" is incorrect) is, indeed, "highly manipulated and not credible" because Saudi Arabia and some OPEC members have refused external audits.

BTW, twenty years' worth is not a lot.

[MonkeyLove]

The one area where we should worry is the fact that all these new hydrocarbons becoming available is going to make dealing with CO2 emissions (and global warming) politically more difficult.

That was the point raised by IEA. The catch is that the production rate from "new hydrocarbons" won't be high, with total production resting on maximum depletion rates for crude oil production, which producers don't reach because profits are lower.

Thus, the IEA believes that we face both peak oil and global warming. Extensive government intervention and cooperation will be needed to deal with both, but we have not seen that in decades.

[MonkeyLove]

I think the Global Warming / Cooling should be blamed on the sun and geothermal heat (El Nino) not humans on Earth.

We also have a new technology to moderate the warming and cooling on Earth: Geoengineering

BTW, have you noticed that no hurricanes have hit the USA in 2013?

http://science.time....global-warming/

You have to look at the issue on a global scale rather than focusing only on the U.S.

[MonkeyLove]

The amount of ice over the Arctic has increased 60% in 1 year.

They had to cancel plans to send ships through.

Earth is cooling.

Ave. temp goes up and down, but trendwise....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

[MonkeyLove]

Yea -- that is something I notice; there is a distinct political aspect to this debate, on both sides. Look at just the scientific articles and ignore stuff in either The Guardian or the Daly Mail (US equivalents -- New Your Times and Wall Street Journal.

The scientific publications I trust are Nature and Science and Scientific American. They are unambiguous that human-caused global warming is real and presents a serious threat.

In that case, you should consider the NAS, which some consider the top science organization of the U.S.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12781

Or you can look at BEST, which skeptics support:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

[Guest]

What is the end game of the global warming crowd? are they trying to stop it slow it down help the rest of us cope? polar ice maybe melting I don't see any one building levees around major cities in the flood zone?

is it manmade or is it just the planet naturally warming up? how do you stop that?

It just seems to me we have study after study telling us it is happening but nothing on what it is all for. should I build a big boat and raid the local zoo?

hypothetically let's say everyone agrees the planet is warming up. now what? a little clarity on this would help me understand what the deal is.

The problem is discovered and described by scientists who are motivated by a search for the truth of a situation. The solutions can be described by the scientists/engineers, but ultimately they have no power to enact the solutions which is the remit of economists and politicians. Economists and politicians are experts in lying to themselves and others and looking for the solution which will best serve their interests.

There is a fundamental incomparability between the two approaches. The scientists have described what needs to be done to slow and ultimately stop global warming, but the politicians are to invested in their power structure to take those recommendations seriously.

Ultimately it will be the politicans who will win out, and when the consequences of inaction becomes to great to ignore they will attempt to implement some of the more easy solutions to save their political skins - but ultimately it will be to late and they will go the way of all "Great Civilizations" who over extended themselves and over exploited their environment.

Br Cornelius

[CyberKen]

You have to look at the issue on a global scale rather than focusing only on the U.S.

Not really. Focus on the -predictions- on many hurricanes will hit the USA in 2013.

So far, we have -zero-. OOPS!

Geoengineering is real.

[CyberKen]

Ave. temp goes up and down, but trendwise....

http://www.skeptical...tor-part-1.html

Trendwise........??? I prefer to look at real photographs. Arctic Ice Levels August 2012......August 2013......i wonder what the August 2014

photo will look like?

[Guest]

Lets just remind ourself of what that trend is before we jump up and down with excitement;

Photos can't show you that.

If you follow the trend line down to the X axis it hits at about 2040 - which coincidentally is the date that most experts predict an ice free summer arctic.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 13, 2013 by Guest

[CyberKen]

Lets just remind ourself of what that trend is before we jump up and down with excitement;

Photos can't show you that.

If you follow the trend line down to the X axis it hits at about 2040 - which coincidentally is the date that most experts predict an ice free summer arctic.

Br Cornelius

Lets just wait until August 2014. Then we will know.

It should make for a great photo album. August 2012 --- August 2013 --- August 2014

I predict another 25% will be added to the current amount of Arctic Ice. Time will tell.

The polar bears will have plenty of room to run and play.

[Guest]

Lets just wait until August 2014. Then we will know.

It should make for a great photo album. August 2012 --- August 2013 --- August 2014

I predict another 25% will be added to the current amount of Arctic Ice. Time will tell.

The polar bears will have plenty of room to run and play.

On what are you basing your prediction - gut feeling ?

Br Cornelius