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

MiskatonicGrad

I asked for a correlated natural cycle as evidence that the forcing was natural. I asked for a natural cycle which can be demonstrated through data to have caused the recent warming. You have not done that and you failed to meet a scientifically meaningful answer to what is the natural cycle.

If you cant justify your belief with evidence - you are just another politically motivated dupe denier of the science of AGW.

Br Cornelius

But couldn't it be argued that anyone on the side of Global warming is a politically motivated dupe. considering the amount of legislation the left wants to pass in order too control our lives to stave off the coming end of the world?

given the lack of cause and effect data concerning humans and global warming how can anyone hypothesis how we can fix the "problem"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

But couldn't it be argued that anyone on the side of Global warming is a politically motivated dupe. considering the amount of legislation the left wants to pass in order too control our lives to stave off the coming end of the world?

given the lack of cause and effect data concerning humans and global warming how can anyone hypothesis how we can fix the "problem"?

Its a massively delusional state to believe that all global institutions are somehow leftist. these are the same institutions which support Neo-liberal economics across the world, which have facilitated the most liberal market economy which the world has ever seen. Isn't it just a possibility that they are well informed leaders who have been told the scientific reality and realize that if they fail to act on the evidence their economic gains will vanish in the blink of an eye. maybe its just reluctant economic self interest at play here.

Have you ever thought of that beyond your conspiratorial fantasies.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

No it only shows you have wild imagination, that is all, we can not affect climate, show me facts where we did.

There is absolutely no proof that pelage’s consequence did affect climate, it most likely a coincidence, and back in those times we did not even have any factories, and transportation, and such huge co2 emission, that is blamed for GW. A few years of no cultivation, is not a model to go by. Even if it was, the world today is way different from those days, and it is getting even more different with every year. and there is no turning back.

We can do something about pollution thou and I have seen examples, but climate, yea sure, tall that myth someone else.

we can change climate just as much as we can affect volcanos, and earthquakes.

we will continue to cut trees, and will continue to pump co2 in the air by factories and transportation, and it will only get larger. we consume earth resurses, and we can't live if we don't. may be if we didn't know all the things we have now are possible, we might, but than we would not have such a large population, modern medicine and progress increased our life span greatly, and now baby survival vs 100 years ago is increased by 8- 10 fold.

if you want to do anything about GW, prepare yourself, becouse there is nothinh we can or will do to change it, and reality is a ultimate proof.

It would take me far to much effort to convince you that man has been shaping his climate for at least 8 thousand years. Digging out obscure academic papers and data. I will just say there is undeniable evidence that man has and continues to influence climate across the globe. You are not a person who will be changed in your belief so I will save my effort.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiskatonicGrad

Its a massively delusional state to believe that all global institutions are somehow leftist. these are the same institutions which support Neo-liberal economics across the world, which have facilitated the most liberal market economy which the world has ever seen. Isn't it just a possibility that they are well informed leaders who have been told the scientific reality and realize that if they fail to act on the evidence their economic gains will vanish in the blink of an eye. maybe its just reluctant economic self interest at play here.

Have you ever thought of that beyond your conspiratorial fantasies.

Br Cornelius

It's nice to know they have the worlds best interest at heart? I think

It would take me far to much effort to convince you that man has been shaping his climate for at least 8 thousand years. Digging out obscure academic papers and data. I will just say there is undeniable evidence that man has and continues to influence climate across the globe. You are not a person who will be changed in your belief so I will save my effort.

Br Cornelius

Isn't it kind of arrogant on our part to think we puny humans could some how upset the balance of the earth or that we could turn back 8,000 yrs of screwing it up?

and really what are we looking at saving the planet or saving ourselves? do you really think the planet will notice when we go the way of the Dodo?

Yeah times may get tough we as a race may cease to exist but you know what the earth and life will continue and from what I've seen the earth will be a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Isn't it kind of arrogant on our part to think we puny humans could some how upset the balance of the earth or that we could turn back 8,000 yrs of screwing it up?

and really what are we looking at saving the planet or saving ourselves? do you really think the planet will notice when we go the way of the Dodo?

Yeah times may get tough we as a race may cease to exist but you know what the earth and life will continue and from what I've seen the earth will be a better place.

It really doesn't take much effort to demonstrate that man can have profound impacts on local climates - mainly through deforestation and its effects on albedo and water cycles. Its complacent to think that we couldn't impact on a larger scale as well.

That is undeniable, but I am personally reluctant to throw up my hands and say we ****ed up lets leave it to the next bunch. After all we are supposedly the most intelligent life on the planet - so we could do better if we at least tried.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I asked for a correlated natural cycle as evidence that the forcing was natural. I asked for a natural cycle which can be demonstrated through data to have caused the recent warming. You have not done that and you failed to meet a scientifically meaningful answer to what is the natural cycle.

This is a good point to show how dishonest you are or how mislead you are. It’s the kind of strawman argument that one can’t refute because of the way you understand it and state it. And this is why.

By saying that Man is the cause of Climate Change is like that whenever I go outside it rains and then saying that therefore I am the cause of it raining. This is the low hanging fruit. Billions of dollars have been spent in research to state the obvious. That man causes an increase in CO2 levels, maybe 100ppm in the last 200 years. But all life produces CO2. 95% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. In the times past, there has been far more life than there is now. In all of the previous eras, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now.

I gave you examples of cycles that occur on this planet. The point being that Man is but one cycle of thousands. Man cannot be the only source of CO2. All of these cycles are not independent of each other. And they are starting to do research into looking deeper into the relationship and history of these cycles. And the result is “not so fast” as far as still blaming Man for Global Warming. Being one of many cycles on a planet, there are checks and balances that keeps the system running optimally. Even at the planetary level, innate intelligence regulates that system. When one cycle changes others change to accommodate it. One cycle doesn’t throw an entire planetary system into a greenhouse environment. This is what more realistic research is finding out and what common sense already knew.

There has been something like 5 different supercontinents in Earth’s history. Plate tectonics creates volcanoes that spew out more CO2 than Man can ever do. Several times during these events that lasted 100s to 1000s of years raised CO2 levels to above 1000ppm. The Cretaceous was the last period when that happened. The average planet temp was about 10 degrees higher than it is today. Rainfall increased and life exploded like it had never before. As a civilization, we are approaching Type I. That means that we would no longer be dependent on fossil fuels. I think we’ve been estimated at being currently at 0.8 which means within the next couple hundred years we’ll be harnessing other forms of energy. Hardly long enough to destroy the culture of Man. Things change and usually change for the better. We need to be prepared for that.

Jeremiah brought up the point that none of us are experts, but we rely on the experts to tell us what is happening. But that doesn’t mean that we check our ability to critically think at the door. Just because the experts have more letters after their name doesn’t mean they are more aware. It is a matter of understanding what they are saying and then realizing if it is one sided or objective. Anthropomorphic Climate Change is politically one sided. We should be doing what we can to reduce our carbon footprint and we will be during the next 200 years but we need to take reasonable measures and not be coerced by the fear mongering of the Left.

If you cant justify your belief with evidence - you are just another politically motivated dupe denier of the science of AGW.

Yes I can and I have. And the following clip is all that I need. I’m not the one politically motivated but I do have a pet peeve against those that are. And you are quaffing the Socialist koolaid hand over fist. The following is the first part of 4. If you are not going to watch to whole thing and learn from it, just don’t watch any of it. It basically shoots down the whole concept of AGW or what Carter uses is torpedoes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Bob Carter :clap:

I can go into detail as to why you are a dupe, but would you listen ?

Here's a response to one of his papers on climate change to cut your teeth on;

http://www.eap-journ..._i2_02_ward.pdf

Again I repeat - every natural cycle has an identifiable cause and until you can show what it is you are speculating beyond the facts which is wish fulfilment.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Bob Carter :clap:

I can go into detail as to why you are a dupe, but would you listen ?

I’m not surprised that you’ve found some dirt on Prof. Carter so that you can convince yourself that you don’t have to listen to the evidence. Just as I pointed out, you’ve already checked your ability to critically think at the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm not surprised that you've found some dirt on Prof. Carter so that you can convince yourself that you don't have to listen to the evidence. Just as I pointed out, you've already checked your ability to critically think at the door.

Read the response and address the shortcomings in his scientific understanding of climate change. Judge him by his failings :tu:

Bob Carter is the ultimate paid schill with a list of right wing think tank sponsors as long as your arm.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Read the response and address the shortcomings in his scientific understanding of climate change. Judge him by his failings :tu:

Br Cornelius

Now give the guy a break, would you go to a proctologist because you have a brain damage? Well, Carter's adherents evidently do.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Heres a question, why is it always the geologists who become global warming skeptics ?

Maybe its because most geologists are employed by the petrochemical prospecting industry - just a thought.

Carter was recently let go from his tenured university position (quite an achievement in itself) because he was spending to much time on his paid advocacy and neglecting his minimal academic duties. A sad end to an otherwise respectable academic career, but I suppose you have to think about your retirement package.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I have a simple reason for thinking global warming is a real thing and is being caused by human activity -- namely that all the major truly scientific publications think so, at least as far as I have access to them. This includes "Scientific American," which I generally follow and understand, as well as "Science" and "Nature."

The best course when there is economic or other disagreement and one does not personally have the resources to form a good opinion is to go with the experts, certainly not the popular press nor propaganda movies or the opinions of celebrities or politicins.

One other thing to consider when looking at this issue: the potential or possible consequences. They are scary. My government is convinced enough of the reality of ocean rising to have adopted clear land-use policieis to minimize the loss of life when storms come along that do far more damage than history would predict -- because of a higher level of the ocean. Most countries are doing this except of course the US. To me this says the bueaucrats, no matter what they say to the public, are worried.

That many may have various vested interests that influence how they think about this issue is not hypothetical. Even if they persuade themselves that what they say is true, we have seen so often how people almost always manage to convince themseves that what is in their interest is also in the nation's or world's interest. Many studies of voting patterns have shown this too. We need to try to be objective, keep our political and personal reactions out of it, and go with the best experts we can find.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Heres a question, why is it always the geologists who become global warming skeptics ?

Maybe its because most geologists are employed by the petrochemical prospecting industry - just a thought.

Maybe because they *see* things in the right perspective. Maybe because you can’t attack his evidence – just a thought. And who are you employed by? Who pays you off?

AGW Religion – Rule 1: NEVER discuss the science. Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.

Carter was recently let go from his tenured university position (quite an achievement in itself) because he was spending to much time on his paid advocacy and neglecting his minimal academic duties. A sad end to an otherwise respectable academic career, but I suppose you have to think about your retirement package.

No doubt that he was fixated but again, you haven’t shown anything that counters the evidence in the clip. The first 12mins is perhaps the most damning of AGW. You’ll have to be specific as to which response to read. There was one talking about him cherry-picking, but I don’t consider specific examples as cherry-picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Maybe because they *see* things in the right perspective. Maybe because you can't attack his evidence – just a thought. And who are you employed by? Who pays you off?

AGW Religion – Rule 1: NEVER discuss the science. Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.

No doubt that he was fixated but again, you haven't shown anything that counters the evidence in the clip. The first 12mins is perhaps the most damning of AGW. You'll have to be specific as to which response to read. There was one talking about him cherry-picking, but I don't consider specific examples as cherry-picking.

The man? Tell me which part of Carter's "science" is accurate and where he does not cherry pick. Then we might have a base for discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Maybe because they *see* things in the right perspective. Maybe because you can't attack his evidence – just a thought. And who are you employed by? Who pays you off?

AGW Religion – Rule 1: NEVER discuss the science. Attack the man – Repeat the mantra.

No doubt that he was fixated but again, you haven't shown anything that counters the evidence in the clip. The first 12mins is perhaps the most damning of AGW. You'll have to be specific as to which response to read. There was one talking about him cherry-picking, but I don't consider specific examples as cherry-picking.

I gave you a link to a discussion of the science - which you have failed to address.

I am an independent person who has no paid advocacy roll of any sort. I am an informed environmental scientist.

When you can discuss the shortcomings in his science which I directed you to - we can start the dicussion of the science and leave the flawed individual out of it. Since you show no interest in discussing the "science" I will get my kicks by showing the sort of person you choose to believe.

Here's another discussion of the inadequacies of Carters science to cut your teeth on;

http://www.skeptical...fic-denial.html

I think you will find that both references address all of the points which Carter raises in his little skit. it unfortunately takes a considerable amount of time and effort to address the mish mash of cherry picked evidence which Carter raises in his video, but fortunately people have already forensically analysed his work for us. If you want to pursue any single claim that he makes we can do so - but dumping a huge load of hogwash in one go stretches the entertainment value of the discussion - especially when you refuse to get specific about what you actually believe to be the facts.

Yours going to have to play the game and pull your weight if you want a real discussion of Carters science.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I gave you a link to a discussion of the science - which you have failed to address.

I am an independent person who has no paid advocacy roll of any sort. I am an informed environmental scientist.

This is another good example of your dishonesty. When I first read your post, I could have sworn you didn’t have a link there. Seeing that you edited tells me that you added something. I went back to my file and it wasn’t in the copy I made but I did see it when I went back to the post. I am currently looking over Ward’s paper. I’ve just started it, but I think I already see a problem with it and I will get into it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

This is another good example of your dishonesty. When I first read your post, I could have sworn you didn't have a link there. Seeing that you edited tells me that you added something. I went back to my file and it wasn't in the copy I made but I did see it when I went back to the post. I am currently looking over Ward's paper. I've just started it, but I think I already see a problem with it and I will get into it later.

No dishonesty, just the way I post, a sort of evolving stream of consciousness as my thoughts develop on a subject. However the edit was within 5mins of the original swo I fail to see how you could have missed it.

Get back to me when you have a specific point to raise and we can look at the underlying science behind Carters claims.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ciriuslea

If the temperature rises consistently enough to cause alarm, then when man and his effects on environment can be included as a factor however small then no matter how people try to argue for and against simple facts are hard to ignore, I tend to think studying a little on this phenomena is that earth temps fluctuate in cycles so its more likely we are experiencing a natural temp change which has been either strengthened and or hastened by the effects of man, I don't however believe we have singularly caused global temp rises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

If the temperature rises consistently enough to cause alarm, then when man and his effects on environment can be included as a factor however small then no matter how people try to argue for and against simple facts are hard to ignore, I tend to think studying a little on this phenomena is that earth temps fluctuate in cycles so its more likely we are experiencing a natural temp change which has been either strengthened and or hastened by the effects of man, I don't however believe we have singularly caused global temp rises

No one here, certainly not me and certainly no climate scientists, have ever denied the existence of natural cycles. However you have to identify the cycles and their causes before you can attribute the changes to them. No one here has done so in any meaningful way. Its magical thinking to believe that there is some causeless effect changing the climate. To my certain knowledge all the natural cycles which have been proposed by skeptics of AGW do not fit the data in any meaningful way. It really is like invoking GOD to explain something which has a perfectly reasonable and supportable cause.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ciriuslea

No one here, certainly not me and certainly no climate scientists, have ever denied the existence of natural cycles. However you have to identify the cycles and their causes before you can attribute the changes to them. No one here has done so in any meaningful way. Its magical thinking to believe that there is some causeless effect changing the climate. To my certain knowledge all the natural cycles which have been proposed by skeptics of AGW do not fit the data in any meaningful way. It really is like invoking GOD to explain something which has a perfectly reasonable and supportable cause.

Br Cornelius

I wouldn't have thought they would if we are to believe we are having an influence on the environment, the only cycle we can study realisticly is the 100k yr cycle which has shown higher CO2 and temperatures and we are within time frame being the last high temp and CO2 spike was 100k yrs ago, the problem arises because science is saying CO2 rose after a warm period and not as they say current warming is a result of higher levels, but we are in a current natural warming cycle regardless of proposed AGW

which was what brought me to my opinion that we cant just ignore a natural warming cycle and use high CO2 levels as the singular cause of warming, If man was pumping out CO2 at a time when a natural cycle was occuring the data could look like it was the cause..which many suspect is whats happening

I tend to think every influence is a contributing factor

Edited by ciriuslea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

There are natural cycles that happen over tens of thousands and more years. The time frame of what we are doing is measured over the centuries. Natural cycles are slow enough for ecosystems to adjust. What we are doing may be entirely too fast.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I wouldn't have thought they would if we are to believe we are having an influence on the environment, the only cycle we can study realisticly is the 100k yr cycle which has shown higher CO2 and temperatures and we are within time frame being the last high temp and CO2 spike was 100k yrs ago, the problem arises because science is saying CO2 rose after a warm period and not as they say current warming is a result of higher levels, but we are in a current natural warming cycle regardless of proposed AGW

which was what brought me to my opinion that we cant just ignore a natural warming cycle and use high CO2 levels as the singular cause of warming, If man was pumping out CO2 at a time when a natural cycle was occuring the data could look like it was the cause..which many suspect is whats happening

I tend to think every influence is a contributing factor

My understanding is that the orbital cycles would cause a slow decline in temperature over the next 20Kyrs which would put us back in an ice age. This is the combined Milankovich cycles. The overall trend since the last ice age was a slow but steady decline in temperature until about 150yrs ago when the anthropogenic period began and the trend dramatically reversed.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

There are natural cycles that happen over tens of thousands and more years. The time frame of what we are doing is measured over the centuries. Natural cycles are slow enough for ecosystems to adjust. What we are doing may be entirely too fast.

That's not the case. Natural cycles can flip to a new equilibrium within decades. After the series of very bad winters and famine that brought the medieval warming period to an end in the 14th century the difference was noticed in the space of a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

My understanding is that the orbital cycles would cause a slow decline in temperature over the next 20Kyrs which would put us back in an ice age. This is the combined Milankovich cycles. The overall trend since the last ice age was a slow but steady decline in temperature until about 150yrs ago when the anthropogenic period began and the trend dramatically reversed.

Br Cornelius

So we've managed to avert an ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

That's not the case. Natural cycles can flip to a new equilibrium within decades. After the series of very bad winters and famine that brought the medieval warming period to an end in the 14th century the difference was noticed in the space of a few years.

And strangely, strangely according to geological surveys the carbon dioxide reduced with the temperature... go figure...

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.