Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CyberKen

Show me the correlation. It fails you know - no tracking between the sun and temperatures since the 1970's and only weak tracking before that.

Fail.

Br Cornelius

Don't ignore the sun. Don't ignore El Nino....geothermal heat. Mankind is innocent.

It was never about saving mankind from global warming.

No power without control. No control with fear.

The crazy liberals showed children "An Inconvenient Truth". The children actually believed Al Gore and started crying.

Job well done. :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Don't ignore the sun. Don't ignore El Nino....geothermal heat. Mankind is innocent.

It was never about saving mankind from global warming.

No power without control. No control with fear.

The crazy liberals showed children "An Inconvenient Truth". The children actually believed Al Gore and started crying.

Job well done. :td:

El Nino is a real internal cycle - but doesn't account for 150 years of global warming - since it varies on a biannual basis.

Show me the correlation and keep the political bull**** for your friends.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Show me the correlation and keep the bull**** for your friends.

Br Cornelius

Correlation: Give Us Funding - We Will Alter The Computer Models For You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Correlation: Give Us Funding - We Will Alter The Computer Models For You

I am sure you would :tu:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I am sure you would :tu:

Br Cornelius

In fact, he either already is funded or he does it for free (as shown in another thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

I am sure you would :tu:

Br Cornelius

They sure did at the IPCC. .....year after year after year.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

They sure did at the IPCC. .....year after year after year.......

Care to prove that.

Proof isn't that important to you though is it. Rhetoric will suffice to make your dubious points :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Advance copies of the new IPCC report reveal.....they were wrong.

They decided there is no reason to deny the obvious.

The IPCC left out other variables that just got in the way of their agenda.

Agenda : Fear mongering

The last sixteen years is not enough. You need to look at the model across several decades, and the findings reveal that the IPCC models have matched ave. temperature observations.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1378431/contrary-to-contrarian-claims-ipcc-temperature-projections-have-been-exceptionally-accurate/

What about the last sixteen years? It turns out that the IPCC models look at surface temperatures:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

For more details, see the references after the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

You are so disingenuous. You're the one touting that 30 years are needed for any meaningful trend. Well, I selected several 30 year periods and you call it straw man. You are full of it. Long term is at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of years and long term disproves AGW. That was Carter's point.

You will find more details on that in the NAS final report:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/

That is, Vostok data and ave. temp. The NAS concludes that CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor, and it was more the latter than the former for hundreds of thousands of years. But given very high CO2 ppm, likely the former will prevail, especially in light of positive feedback factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

It's not me that doesn't understand the scientific method. I've been bringing it up over and over again. That is what Carter was stating using cores. The IPCC overreacted and got caught up in their own fear mongering.

That's not what they were doing. Even you were doing it.

That is not science. That is emotion. All the science tells us is that climate changes and Man attempts to predict that change. It does not make moral judgments. When it does, it then gets painted into a corner like now. The IPCC will be publishing an updated model using science that will say that things just weren't as bad as originally thought, which should kill any vestige of AGW. That is if the IPCC has a solid foundation in science, it will. But let's wait for the 27th. We'll see if it sticks to science or continues being a political tool?

The NAS assessed the IPCC data and more, and gave its conclusions in a report linked in my earlier message.

Skeptics decided to support an independent study of the matter by funding BEST, and findings are found here:

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

Finally, if there is any point regarding a "political tool" in this issue, it's that the IPCC has underestimated the effects of climate change:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change

The reasons are obvious and explained here:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

That is, findings have to be conservative because governments essentially work for businesses, and not the other way round. This explains why there has been no agreement on dealing with global warming or even peak oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Uhmmm….did you read the WSJ article Diechecker pointed out? The article you pointed out from the SA was from Dec 2012 and it will more than likely be superseded by the IPCC report on the 27th. At least that is what the previews have been alluding to. Something about the unpredictable effects of cloud cover??

The article looks at past data and determines how the IPCC underestimated climate change. I don't see how a future report will supersede that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

That should go over really well with the captains of those yachts that traveled all the way up there only to run into a Titanic Nightmare.

Tell the captains "Ice is an empirical measurement!"

Response from the captains "You told us the ice would be gone. It has increased 60%."

You have zero credibility.

BTW, the Earth has been warming and cooling for millions and millions of years.

When the population of the Earth was - zero - it was warming and cooling.

Stop blaming evil mankind and stop ignoring the sun.

Indeed, the Earth has been "warming and cooling," as Vostok data and the NAS explains. The problem is that during the same period CO2 ppm tracked ave. temp., and it is now higher than in the past.

For more details on the possible effects of such on the climate, read the NAS report. You can also look at BEST, which was funded by deniers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Stop ignoring the sun.

Mankind is innocent.

There are multiple factors involved in climate change. The question is the effect of CO2 emissions on ave. temp, especially in light of several positive feedback factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Don't ignore the sun. Don't ignore El Nino....geothermal heat. Mankind is innocent.

It was never about saving mankind from global warming.

No power without control. No control with fear.

The crazy liberals showed children "An Inconvenient Truth". The children actually believed Al Gore and started crying.

Job well done. :td:

Actually, the children believed the denial machine:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

That's because the global economy relies on increasing use of oil for manufacturing and food production, and governments rely on the same for tax revenues. The catch is peak oil. Hence, the IEA report from 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

There are multiple factors involved in climate change. The question is the effect of CO2 emissions on ave. temp, especially in light of several positive feedback factors.

Many have already read the new IPCC report.

No surprise. Mankind has "little effect" on global warming.

99% is controlled by solar events, solar wind and geothermal warming : El Nino.

Yes, that is correct. Al Gore waved around a huge hoax.

All people suggesting that the sun is the primary factor for global warming were immediately labeled " deniers ".

Isn't that wonderful ?

This is another dark page in our history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Many have already read the new IPCC report.

No surprise. Mankind has "little effect" on global warming.

99% is controlled by solar events, solar wind and geothermal warming : El Nino.

Yes, that is correct. Al Gore waved around a huge hoax.

All people suggesting that the sun is the primary factor for global warming were immediately labeled " deniers ".

Isn't that wonderful ?

This is another dark page in our history books.

Show us the part of the report which shows solar represents most of the warming. Thats a simple challenge which will either prove your point or shut you up.

Go ahead show us the money. I predict your going to have egg on your face and your going to go strangely quiet.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Many have already read the new IPCC report.

No surprise. Mankind has "little effect" on global warming.

99% is controlled by solar events, solar wind and geothermal warming : El Nino.

Yes, that is correct. Al Gore waved around a huge hoax.

All people suggesting that the sun is the primary factor for global warming were immediately labeled " deniers ".

Isn't that wonderful ?

This is another dark page in our history books.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not the "little effect" that matters "on global warming." Rather, it's the "little effect" on positive feedback loops.

That's the "surprise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Repost:

"Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

That is, positive feedback loops amplify the effects of CO2 emissions, as pointed out in the NAS report and others. Meanwhile, the oceans are absorbing heat, which means warming has not slowed down. Rather, much of it is not being measured by studies that look at land, ice, and atmosphere temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Applying some intuition to this, it seems to me it can be absolutely true that the sun contributes more than 99 percent of the earth's temperature and that be irrelevant to this discussion. Based on the sun's output, earths average temperature could be anywhere between close to absolute zero and maybe a few thousand degrees.

The global warming discussion, on the other hand, is concerned with less than ten degrees. Other factors could be involved here even though the sun is overwhelmingly predominant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Its a simple fact that if you do one thing it has consequences.

Absolutely!

Science predicts those consequences, in relation to climate, in as factual a way as possible

Correct!

and then tells us what might be done to avoid them.

Wrong! We can only make a prediction as to what might be done. There is no proof that one way to avoid something will work over another. That is politicizing the scientific method.

Those are cold hard facts - not emotions.

Facts are facts but incorrectly trying use facts to say that something must work only one way is politics driven by emotion. This is why AGW apologists attack scientists like Carter. It’s not that he’s wrong, which he isn’t. But because AGW apologists are emotionally attached to their little theory and Carter destroys that theory.

it is the political right who have been indulging in emotional fear mongering, not the climate scientists.

Really? Who is it that is crying that the sky is falling down or yelling fire in the theather? Or Man is destroying his environment. Fact is, is that Man started destroying his environment at the moment he first stepped out of the cave. No doubt that we can become better custodians of our environment but trying to change the climate isn’t the way to do it.

The same tactics are been used as those which were used to defend the "safety" of smoking - and the same libertarian think tanks are doing it.

Personally, I think smoking is the most disgusting habit. And just as those AGW apologists that support their position are wrong, those that think that smoking is safe are just as wrong. If you want to smoke, fine. Just don’t do it around me and don’t expect me to pay for your healthcare.

You have spent a whole thread indulging in politically motivated fear mongering :tu:

I’ve been speaking against politically motivated fear mongering. I don’t think you pay attention too well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You should wait for that report before passing ill informed opinions on something which has only been propagandised about so far.

Granted, but attacking the report before it comes out won’t change the content. I’m waiting to see not only the report but the stink it raises. After watching both sides go at it, I’ll chime in with who I think is correct. We’ll see who is ill informed.

I can almost guarantee that its conclusions will not chime well with your position or that of the WSJ article. All that article is doing is grandstanding to stake out the rights ground before it eats humble pie.

I can almost guarantee that the WSJ has hyped it with their own spin. And I can guarantee that the IPCC will spin the data they have. But that won’t change the fact that it sounds like the IPCC is dialing back on their doom and gloom prediction and that warming is not happening as fast as they thought. That in itself, shoots down AGW. But at the same time, you’ll see the AGW apologists still stay on message by claiming that it is still warming. Just because the IPCC over estimated won’t seem to give them pause. Well, of course it is warming; we are in a warming period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

150 years is the period of AGW so looking at a 1000yrs cannot disprove it since it falls outside of the period of influence.

150 years is just when Man started regularly recording temp. This is when AGW just magically appeared. There is no period of influence. 150 years is just too short of a period. If a 1000yrs is too long then Man cannot be the cause of climate change.

The critically important fact which you and Carter fail to explain is what is causing the climate to change. No change comes without a cause and for such a dramatic upturn of temperatures out of the blue to happen it needs a strong explanation. Simply repeating the tired mantra of "Natural cycles" without identifying what they are simply doesn't cut it. Its invoking magical thinking - invoking the Gods.

But there have been no dramatic upturn of temperatures. It’s still within 1.5° C per century. We have been in a warming period so the trend is upward. Carter showed that and now the IPCC will collaborate that on the 27th. It is the natural progression of *ALL* cycles. You have to prove that the temp is rising exclusively because of Man. That just doesn’t exist. There’s only a correlation between rising CO2 levels that also encourages the rise in temperature but there is nothing that shows how the environment reacts to that. And that is what this report from the IPCC will state.

My wife was telling me that she had seen an article that said that the intergalactic wind had changed its direction over the past 40 years. Really?? Well, there’s a correlation right there. I’m not saying that’s the answer but in a universe that we know little about yet that everything is linked in some way, explains that there are other causes at work. What causes climate change in the first place? You answer that and you’ll have the answer to your question of what other causes than Man is changing climate?

And Man is not changing his climate. He may affect it, but that is far different than changing it. As I’ve said before, Man is not yet a Type I Civilization. That means he is still susceptible to natural processes and that he doesn’t have the power to make catastrophic changes to the climate process. The only two things that I know of that can make those kinds of changes are massive volcanism and asteroid impact. If any of these things happen any time soon, the affects of Man will be literally blown away.

Every single climate change event has an identifiable cause.

And it’s called natural. And they are not new events; they are events that have existed since the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Ravenhawk - you don't understand the meaning of cause and effect do you. What is a cause ? What is the cause of current warming ?

Simple questions - please answer.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Ravenhawk - you don't understand the meaning of cause and effect do you. What is a cause ?

Gawd! Why don’t you ask me what the meaning of *IS* is? Why don’t you even answer any of my questions?

What is the cause of current warming ?

What is the cause of past warming? Or are you claiming that climate change didn’t occur prior to 1850?

Simple questions - please answer.

It should be simple, you are just refusing to accept the doubt I’ve presented to AGW and you’re trying to find any little thing you can to attach me with. It just won’t work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

You will find more details on that in the NAS final report:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/

That is, Vostok data and ave. temp. The NAS concludes that CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor, and it was more the latter than the former for hundreds of thousands of years. But given very high CO2 ppm, likely the former will prevail, especially in light of positive feedback factors.

Very interesting report. But I see that it is from May 2011. For all practical purposes, reports like this are on hold until the IPCC report comes out on the 27th. I find that a lot of reports like this present good data, but politically motivated conclusions.

However, perusing the NAS report, under Key Messages, it states: Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities. For one, climate change has never been in question and two, this doesnt sound very absolute that Man is the cause.

NAS concluding a forcing and feedback effects seems to be more of a copout when they really arent sure and I think the IPCC report will reflect that. That the positive feedback just isnt as positive as it once was thought. Our system fluctuates in order to reach equilibrium. Forcing and feedback work together to keep stasis. Once we become a Type I Civilization, then we will begin to have the ability to terra form. Well be able to freely increase or decrease the CO2 levels.

Edited by RavenHawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.