Global Warming AKA Climate Change

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
I didn't know where to post this but I definitely wasn't going to post it in a "Science" section. Not the biggest hoax in the world, but definitely one of the biggest. Anyway, I had a debate with someone about Global Warming (he calls it Climate Change now) and I figured I'd post my parts up here.

You can read my debate through my blog also, here:
http://420trader.net/?s=global+warming&submit=Go

As usual, I'll start off with quotes:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
.
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”
- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”
- Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”
- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.”
- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,”
- Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”
- Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.”
– Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”
- Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
- South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”
-Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”
- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the PaleontologyDepartment at the University of La Plata.
.
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.”
- Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.”
- Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.”
- Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’”
- Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?”
- Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.
.
.

These quotes were taken from a US Senate Minority Report.
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;eScDfYzMEEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw[/video]

So is there a consensus for Global Warming and is it something that our children should be learning about?

Anthropogenic Global Warming (man-made global warming) is the belief that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing temperature changes and is a threat to humanity and the globe. Global Warming has become a religion and is resulting in horrible policy changes around the world, cap-and-trade being a big one.
Is Global Warming real? Is it as bad and unprecedented as the media and politicians make it out to be? Is there really a “consensus” on Global Warming amongst all the scientists? These are some of the questions I addressed in an email to a friend; I figured I might as well share some of the information I sent.
.
Yes, it is true. The climate changes, the earths temperature fluctuates. Some periods the aggregate temperature is colder and some periods it is warmer. These vacillations are due to the sun – not cows farting and people breathing. For example, the Mideival Warming Period (MWP), which was between 950 and 1250 when Greenland was actually Green, and the Little Ice Age after the MWP. Even recently, we have been in a warming period but we are currently in a cooling period and have been since around 2000. This is why we no longer call it Global Warming, but now label it “Climate Change” – reminds me of the name-changing for depressions, recessions and downturns as well as the definition change for inflation and deflation. So is it true that Global Warming can cause an ice age that can kill us all?
.
Global Warming alarmists claim that high levels of CO2 are to blame for the increase in temperature on Earth, yet when they all gather together for a Climate Change summit at Copenhagen (CO15) they arrive in 140 private planes, 1200 limos and produce as much CO2 as an African country or a town the size of Middlesbrough. If Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is true, sometimes I think the best solution to stop this is for all the smart people who are aware of AGW’s reality go kill themselves – would this not be the best solution since these conspiracy kooks who believe AGW is a scam won’t do anything to help Gaia planet Earth?
.
The AGW alarmists will have to explain how other planets in our solar system are experiencing warming when no documented human being lives on any of them – and there are no documented SUV’s on them either:
.
Pluto Warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
.
Jupiter Warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02470.html
.
Mars Warming:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm
.
Triton Warming (Neptunes Moon):
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
.
Global Warming alrmists like to use pictures and sensationalize them. We’ve all seen the images of the stranded polar bears, the melting ice caps, glaciers and poles. Besides good marketing, are these actually real?
.
Here is a video clip explaining the polar bear picture and how it was a big lie:


[video=youtube;WKAC4kfHruQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ[/video]


Al Gore, the crusader of AGW, took the photo and said:​
“Their habitat is melting. Beautiful animals literally being forced off the planet. They’re in trouble, got nowhere else to go.”​
Meanwhile the original photo-taker, Amanda Byrd, had a much different caption:​
“Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.”​
Interesting use of the image and a creative one at that. For some reason, those people who were crying about stranded polar bears don’t understand that polar bears know how to swim.


.
And what about the polar ice caps that are melting? The fear that ALL of the ice may melt and dissapear?
According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on August 12, 2007:
“The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer – with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.”

[video=youtube;cKLiHWRaJU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLiHWRaJU4[/video]
.
The ice in the Antarctic is growing, not shrinking:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html
.
The Dutch prove Gore wrong again. Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste (leading molecular paleontologist and winner of the Spinoza Prize) made new findings on the “melting ice cap” of the Kilimanjaro (African mountain that Gore used as a symbol for man-made global warming):
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/
.
US meteorologist Anthony Watts breaks down this polar ice nonsense very well here:​

In addition to the ice caps actually increasing and not decreasing in size, here are a few (but not all) glaciers that have been increasing in size. You will notice that almost every article says that it is increasing in size DESPITE global warming or that the specific glacier may be the ONLY glacier growing in size on earth, LOL:​
Himalayan Glaciers:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html
.
Alaska’s Hubbard Glacieris growing (at 7 feet per day!):
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/AlaskaHubbardGlacier.htm
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1890.html
The US Army Corp of Engineer’s monitor this glacier, you can see images of it here:
http://www.glacierresearch.com/
.
Norwegian Glaciers growing:
http://www.dailytech.com/Glaciers+in+Norway+Growing+Again/article13540.htm
.
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cda7b596-d5e8-4a50-bf5d-66a42c45ab0c&k=47765
.
North to Alaska and more growing glaciers:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21685.shtml
.
Glaciers growing in…California:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html
.
Active Volcano Mt. St. Helens, in Washington, has glaciers growing:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html
.
Glaciers growing in France and Switzlerland:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-blanc-glaciers-refuse-to-shrink/
.
New Zealand’s largest glaciers (Fox, Franz Josef) are surging:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Franz_Josef_Glacier.htm
.
Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is growing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31363631/ns/us_news-environment/
.
Iceland’s Breidamerkurjokull glacier? Growing. But this is the best article out of all the glacier articles. The article is clearly FOR man-made global warming and it’s titled “How global warming is changing the face of the northern hemisphere”, but all of the pictures shown present a completely different scenario. The pictures clearly show the glacier growing but the article is about the threat of Global Warming and how glaciers are melting away – the first line of the article says “Slowly but surely the Breidamerkurjokull glacier is melting away”. See for yourself, fucking hilarious:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203500/In-pictures-How-global-warming-changing-face-northern-hemisphere.html
.
Glaciergate:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/20/lorne-gunter-first-climategate-now-glaciergate.aspx
.
Glacier scientist for IPCC says “I knew data hadn’t been verified”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
.
.
A consensus? We hear often that there is a consensus on Global Warming; however, clearly there is not a consensus:
“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
“The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.”
.
.
The UN claims that the 2,500 UN scientist reviewers of the UN IPCC Reports support the IPCC conclusions that “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In actuality, a mere 62 out of that 2,500 actually reviewed that conclusion from the chapter of the IPCC Report. Many of them actually spoke out against the Global Warming report and it can be found in Senator James M. Inhofe’s US Senate Minority Report, but a small sampling of the report can be found here:​
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf
.
Here is the original US Senate Minority Report, titled “More than 700 International Scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims”:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
.
And how many of those “climate experts” at the IPCC who keep telling us what to do and what to prepare for are actual climate scientists? According to William Schlesinger (another Global Warming alarmist), in a Global Warming debate with John Christy, after stating that the IPCC has an authority for its position, he tried to defend himself and the IPCC and ended up revealing that “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” So not only is the leading Global Warming front, the UN IPCC, filled with a mere 20% of climate “experts”, the president, Rajendra K. Pachauri is an economist who had originally trained as a railway engineer.
.


Prominent scientists push to revise physics society climate statement; eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environment business leaders called on the American Physical Society (APS) to change their policy statement on climate change:
http://www.examiner.com/cobb-county-conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-scientists-push-to-revise-physics-society-climate-statement
.
Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled” (2008):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277
.
Japan Geoscience Union symposium 2008 survey “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report”:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
.
John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, tried to sue Al Gore for fraud alongside 30,000 scientists:


[video=youtube;O82w8dBoNkA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O82w8dBoNkA[/video]
.
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
Global Warming alarmists will have to answer for all the data manipulation and errors that have occurred on their own front. I will post several links here on different examples because this has all been pretty well documented and there’s no need to rewrite everything (in other words, I’m a lazy bastard).
.
.
“Climategate”:
No doubt you have heard about this one. This was a major blow to the Church of Global Warming, though there was barely any news coverage on it. Basically hackers hacked into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the British University of East Anglia and rummaged through their files. The information released (Thursday, 19th of November, 2009) revealed how top scientists conspired to falsify data because declining global temperatures did not fit the hoax that man-made factors drove climate change. It also showed how these “climatologists,” affiliated with IPCC, launched a campaign to shut down climate skeptics and utilize their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in journals and using the typical cronyism to avoid compliance to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These people are the people who control the Hadley Center, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit. These people also control the IPCC. As usual, this scandal ended with an phony investigation led by the very same people and …well, nothing happened.
.
You can read through the leaked e-mails at this website:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
.
In case these “scientists” claim that their e-mails were somehow taken out of context, you can look up the coding behind them to see that there’s no way to take them out of context. US meteorologist Anthony Watts did just that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065
.
Here is the information on the infamous “Mike’s Nature Trick”, also known as “HIDE THE DECLINE!”:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike’s-nature-trick/
.
Here is a simple but good article on Climategate by meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo (I will write more about him later):
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-somethings-rotten-in-denmark-and-east-anglia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/
.
.
Climategate – Peer Review System:
From the leaked emails at CRU:
Dating back to 1996, emails show that US/UK scientists refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”, “misinformation”, “crap” that must be kept out of public domain:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt
.
Deliberations amongst scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the IPCC include their own research and exclude all dissenting scientists. Director of CRU, Phil Jones even suggests to Michael Mann (Mann et al) “we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (it is interesting to note that Jones and Mann, as climate scientists, have the authority to review papers and destermine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
.
And in this email, they suggest how to destroy a journal that have published articles against global warming:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
.
British climate change scientists “conspired to keep skeptics in the dark”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html
.
.
Another Climategate style scandal:
Back in the 1970′s, GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the globe but by 1990 this number dropped to 1500. The 75% drop in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations. Computer programmer E Michael Smith (AKA Chiefio) was first to jump on this:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
.
An excellent example of Chiefio’s findings with Bolivia:
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live.
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.

Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know?

.
In addition, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo also wrote about this and released a great analysis of the scandal:
In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” .
.
.
Another Climategate style scandal. This one is from New Zealand’s NIWA and it is similar to the CRU’s type of temperature data manipulation:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
.
Another one of the Climategate style scandals, this time NASA and GISS (Columbia University) were caught manipulating climate data for Australia:
http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data
.
.
More deception:
UN exaggerating global warming 6-fold:
Article:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html
PDF Report:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
.
Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels – another embarrassing error:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology
.
More mistakes and errors in IPCC report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
.
This is a good and funny one, another mistake in the IPCC reports based on fraud science. The IPCC states that 40% of the Amazon’s rainforest can disappear and sourced it to “Global Review of Forest Fires” from another WWF Report in conjunction with the ICUN. The two writers Andy Rowell and Dr PF Moore are not Amazon specialists but rather a freelance journalist and green activist and a policy analyst, respectively:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/
.
Nobel-prize winning committee make FIVE mistakes in ONE paragraph in IPCC Report:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/153130/Climate-change-experts-say-sorry
.
UN IPCC based claims on student dissertation and magazine article – the UN IPCC based claims on ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
Global Warming alarmists must explain several charts that completely debunk the main clause of their religion.


The first and foremost is the idea that temperature increases because of carbon dioxide (CO2). Similar to Keynesians, Global Warming alarmists reverse cause and effect. It is temperature that precedes CO2, not the other way around. How does the Church of Global Warming explain this chart (besides Al Gore’s method of just flipping it upside down)?:


View attachment 1220204


Taking a quick glance at the chart, we can see that the concentration of carbon dioxide (purple line) during the Permian Period (within the Paleozoic Era) is below 210 ppmV and the change of atmospheric temperature (blue line) is 10 °C. In the present day, the concentration of carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV and the change in atmospheric temperature is only 0.52 °C. If carbon dioxide truly precedes and determines the change in temperature the change of atmospheric temperature should be atleast 10 °C.
There is no direct correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.
.
.
Another chart Global Warming alarmists must answer for is the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset. The CET dataset is one of the oldest in the world, holding 351 years of temperature records. The people at Climate Cycles Change (C3) explains clearly:


View attachment 1220205


The first characteristic of the graph to note is the green trend line. That line indicates an overall warming of 0.26°C per century rate since 1659. So, for some 350 years central England, and the world, have been warming. No big surprise there since Earth has been continuously warming since the end of the Little Ice Age; and, at the end of that 350 year trend line of warming is the first decade of the 21st century.
The second characteristic of the graph is that temperatures just seem to have this habit of going up and down, for extended periods. What’s really amazing is that they did this consistently before the large increase of human CO2 emissions, pre-1946. Okay, maybe that’s not so amazing since this is called temperature variability and represents the natural, dynamic nature of our climate….That variability, as displayed by the CET data in the graph, has experienced temperature changes as much as 2.5°C from one year to the next. A change of 2.5°C in a single year! Keep that figure in mind as we further analyze the dataset. Please note, the graph also reveals very similar temperature variability post-1946, after the huge atmospheric input of human CO2 emissions.
Czech physicist Lubos Motl also did an analysis of the CET and came to a similar conclusion as C3. Motl applied the same model that the Global Warming alarmists used on the last 30 years (because AGW alarmists make such a big deal out of the last 30 years) to see if the recent warming trend is as dramatic and unprecedented as ManBearPig worshippers try to make it seem:
In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is nothing exceptional about the recent era. Because I don’t want to waste time with the creation of confusing descriptions of the x-axis, let me list the ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends:

1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century
1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century
1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century
1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century
1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century
1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century
1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century
1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century
1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century
1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century

You see, the early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends over the “sufficient” 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most recent 30 years.
Back to C3; C3 also comes to a similar conclusion to Motl’s findings:
What about all the 40 and 50-year temperature change periods, which have been influenced by all those human-made CO2 emissions since 1946? Glad you asked. The ten largest 40-year period temperature changes did include year 2002 in 8th place. But alas, the largest 50-year temperature changes did not include any years from the ‘oughts’ decade. (See below the years with the largest 40-year and 50-year changes.)


View attachment 1220206


Summary: Unprecedented warming did not occur in central England during the first decade of the 21st century, nor during the last decade of the 20th century. As the CET dataset is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and since global temperature trends follow a similar pattern to Northern Hemisphere temps, then the same conclusion about recent warming can potentially be inferred globally. Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear.
.
.
Finally, the Global Warming alarmists must explain their use of the infamous “hockey stick” chart. This was one of the key points in Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth” and in Mann et al (Michael Mann). This hockey stick chart was used to prove that Global Warming was a real threat and a menace to humanity and the planet Earth. Let’s take a closer, or broader, look at this hockey stick chart and put it into some perspective.



These are charts of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores from NOAA’s ice core data. This first chart is where we see a “hockey stick” like the one you might have seen in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and Michael Mann’s Mann et al:


View attachment 1220207
Moving back a bit in time, let’s look at this hockey stick:


View attachment 1220208
You can see that the MENACING “hockey stick” is dwarfed by the Medieval Warming Period (MWP).


View attachment 1220209
This Medieval Warming Period (MWP) is even more dwarfed by the warming period at around 1200 B.C.


View attachment 1220212
This warming now is quite cooler than the warming Earth experienced before.


View attachment 1220213
Here you can see the Ice Age the planet experienced and the warmth right now is quite a difference from Earth the past 10,000 years.


View attachment 1220214
Here is the real “global warming”. We’ve been in a long warming period since 10,000 years ago. Notice the “TERRIFYING” hockey stick from Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and Mann et al.


View attachment 1220215
Still terrified of Global Warming?



 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
to assume makes an ass of you and me. but here, mainly just you.
I made the assumption because there were no replies to this thread as opposed to the several replies and criticisms on my other threads.

So do you have anything to say relating to the thread?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I made the assumption...
your first mistake.


So do you have anything to say relating to the thread?
yes, i do. you should work on being more concise.

i do believe that when i was in college, we were not only required to meet a certain number of pages, but to also to stay below a certain number of pages.

you would do well to crystallize your stance that defies the overwhelming concensus of all climate researchers.
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
Concise? These topics can't be summed up in a few sentences. It takes a lot of research. If you read anything I wrote, you'd see that there is no "overwhelming concensus of all climate researchers".

Global Warming is a fraud.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Global Warming is a fraud.
please tell me, how many peer-reviewed research papers have you written on the topic lately?

because of those that have, 99% of them say man has a hand in climate change.

why don't you bullet point your most poignant arguments?
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
please tell me, how many peer-reviewed research papers have you written on the topic lately?

because of those that have, 99% of them say man has a hand in climate change.

why don't you bullet point your most poignant arguments?
Please read my posts. If you are too lazy to read it or don't feel like dealing with opposing ideals, that's fine. Just don't try and sabotage serious threads.

I have not written any peer-reviewed science research papers on the topic of Global Warming or Climate Change. How many have you read? And please back up the claim that 99% of those who have written research papers on the subject state that "man has a hand in climate change".

I will respond to the one point you've made so far (this is all in my post, but I'll cut them short so you are able to read them):


“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

“The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.”

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm


The UN claims that the 2,500 UN scientist reviewers of the UN IPCC Reports support the IPCC conclusions that “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In actuality, a mere 62 out of that 2,500 actually reviewed that conclusion from the chapter of the IPCC Report. Many of them actually spoke out against the Global Warming report and it can be found in Senator James M. Inhofe’s US Senate Minority Report, but a small sampling of the report can be found here:


UN Climate Scientists Speak Out, More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man Made Global Warming Claims - Continue to Debunk "Concensus":
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf


Here is a link to the original Senate Minority Report:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


And how many of those “climate experts” at the IPCC who keep telling us what to do and what to prepare for are actual climate scientists? According to William Schlesinger (another Global Warming alarmist), in a Global Warming debate with John Christy, after stating that the IPCC has an authority for its position, he tried to defend himself and the IPCC and ended up revealing that “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” So not only is the leading Global Warming front, the UN IPCC, filled with a mere 20% of climate “experts”, the president, Rajendra K. Pachauri is an economist who had originally trained as a railway engineer.


Prominent scientists push to revise physics society climate statement; eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environment business leaders called on the American Physical Society (APS) to change their policy statement on climate change:
http://www.examiner.com/cobb-county-conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-scientists-push-to-revise-physics-society-climate-statement




[FONT=times new roman,times][FONT=times new roman,times]A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."[/FONT][/FONT]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

Here is the link to the quote above:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311




.
Japan Geoscience Union symposium 2008 survey “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report”:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
In addition, I'll add just a few more things on something you touched upon - peer-reviewed papers. The "official" science establishment have waged a battle against any skepticism to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Scientists who do not follow the UN's IPCC Report conclusion are refused funding and grants. Furthermore, their papers are withheld from scientific journals and the mainstream. One example to back up this "claim" (in your point of view) is the scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the British University of East Anglia. I won't go into the CRU scandal but I will post a little about the leaked emails from the CRU (btw, you can read about the CRU scandal in my original posts):

Climategate – Peer Review System:
From the leaked emails at CRU:
Dating back to 1996, emails show that US/UK scientists refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”, “misinformation”, “crap” that must be kept out of public domain:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt
.
Deliberations amongst scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the IPCC include their own research and exclude all dissenting scientists. Director of CRU, Phil Jones even suggests to Michael Mann (Mann et al) “we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (it is interesting to note that Jones and Mann, as climate scientists, have the authority to review papers and destermine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
.
And in this email, they suggest how to destroy a journal that have published articles against global warming:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
.
British climate change scientists “conspired to keep skeptics in the dark”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
Bump.

Uncle Buck, I'd like to read your reply. You've done nothing but post short replies that have nothing to do with the post; you've made fun of me and tried to sabotage my threads. I'd like to see where you're coming from.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Bump.

Uncle Buck, I'd like to read your reply.
i asked you if you had written any peer reviewed research papers.

you said you had not.

that satisfies me. i will listen to the scientists whose research is subject to scutiny, unlike your conspiratorial driven accounts of the situation.

for citation of my concensus, i present the 2009 study by doran and zimmerman.

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
75/77 = 97%. sorry for overstating my case by 2%.

so tell me again, why should i listen to you when the much more intelligent people who quibble with their much more intelligent peers have reached overwhelming concensus?

oh, that's right, i forgot...you have nifty labels for those who disagree with you. "agents of disinformation"....perhaps someday i will be enlightened and will choose to worship at the altar of poonjoon.
 

^Psychonaut^

Active Member
Concise? These topics can't be summed up in a few sentences. It takes a lot of research. If you read anything I wrote, you'd see that there is no "overwhelming concensus of all climate researchers".
You basically answered your own question as to why no one has answered, it takes a lot of time to go over all that and I assume to also have an opinion on specific points you also have to have some good understanding of the subject already which I for one dont.

“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

I kind of felt this kind of sums up about how I feel, I think its such a complicated subject that I dont accept or reject either side, I am not sure how conclusive the science can be? In general though I am very happy with what I am seeing in that governments are starting to invest a lot of money into new technologies/research and people are starting to give a shit about the environment, 10-15 years ago most didnt give a rats ass and it has been a massive change.

Isnt the danger of sitting around and doing nothing just far too great? I honestly truly hope that it is totally blow out of proportion and that we have nothing to worry about, the concensus seems otherwise though.
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
i asked you if you had written any peer reviewed research papers.

you said you had not.
How many scientific papers have you read?


that satisfies me. i will listen to the scientists whose research is subject to scutiny, unlike your conspiratorial driven accounts of the situation.
Where do I state anywhere in my posts that imply I have "conspiratorial-driven accounts" of the situation? If you read my posts, you'd see that they're all strictly based on the science of anthropogenic global warming.

"for citation of my concensus, i present the 2009 study by doran and zimmerman.

75/77 = 97%. sorry for overstating my case by 2%."
I've read the Doran Zimmerman (2009) paper, in fact, I have it on my hard drive. The survey is misleading. In case you do not have the paper on hand, here is a link to the original:

http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdfhttp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf



The questions used for that paper are:

1) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


Answer to number 1, any scientist would state that mean global temperatures have risen from pre-1800 levels.

Question number 2 is a vague question that does not properly address the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Like I said earlier, this topic has a lot of information on both sides and cannot be simplified into one-liners.

The survey questions were sent out to 10257 people and there were 3146 responses to the survey (this was a online web-survey and that rate of return is average, 30%, Cook et al 2000 and Kaplowitz et al 2004). 5% of the 3146 anonymous respondents considered themselves climate scientists.

Doran Zimmerman's paper was a simple poll of a sample (79 scientists being self-proclaimed experts on climate and having written over 50% peer-reviewed papers on the subject). 97% out of a sample of 79 does not represent a consensus, especially considering the information I've presented to you (last post, referring to there not being a consensus - read the senate minority report).

Since online polls are your source of "empirical evidence", I'll stoop to that level also. In terms of sheer numbers, the cases I have presented overwhelming outnumber what you've presented. The Senate Minority Report holds over 700 scientists fighting the notion that there is a consensus. 30,000 scientists have filed suit against Al Gore. Out of 51,000 scientists surveyed in Canada 68% stated that the scientific causes for climate change are not settled (only 26% attributed climate change to greenhouse gases, AGW). Eighty scientists pressured the American Physical Society (APS) to change their "official stance". The Japan Geoscience Union survey showed 90% disagreed with the official UN IPCC report. And while the UN claims 2,500 scientists have reviewed the IPCC report, it turns out only 62 out of those 2,500 have looked over the conclusion made by the IPCC report - the rest fighting to remove the idea that "there is a consensus."

One of the studies that came out against the use of marijuana found that long term use of marijuana can lead to psychosis; however, if you dig deeper into their "research" you'll find that every test subject has had mental problems prior to their marijuana usage. BUT it was the majority of this sample that ended up with psychosis - so does that mean marijuana leads to psychosis? Does this make it absolute truth? They are, after all, scientists.


so tell me again, why should i listen to you when the much more intelligent people who quibble with their much more intelligent peers have reached overwhelming concensus?
Once again, you continue to have a grave misunderstanding of why I post these threads. I never asked you to listen to me nor do I even want you to listen to me. I post these threads to spark a discussion or rekindle one's curiosity. This is a forum, not a scientific panel - and even if it were some scientific panel, conclusions are reached through research, discussion and debate. There is no spoon-feeding.

So you tell me, what about my posts make it automatic conspiracy-theorist talk?

oh, that's right, i forgot...you have nifty labels for those who disagree with you. "agents of disinformation"....perhaps someday i will be enlightened and will choose to worship at the altar of poonjoon.
Instead of patronizing me, how about you read my posts and debate me on the subject. If you don't want to and are completely satisfied with reading a few articles online and believing the mainstream, that's completely fine. Just don't post in these threads. If I wanted to have attacking, comical and nonsensical posts I would have posted in the Toke n Talk forum.

I'm not trying to convince (or in your case "convert") anyone. I'm here for discussion and debate.



Now, instead of going back and forth with "I have this many people on my side, you only have that many people on your side", why not address the issue? Present your case as to why you believe AGW is real and a threat. We can begin a real discussion from there.

If you want me to state my case first, I will. If you want me to simplify what I've written in the original post, I will.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How many scientific papers have you read?
a few.

Where do I state anywhere in my posts that imply I have "conspiratorial-driven accounts" of the situation?
here are your own words on the subject. is this not a conspiratorial account of acc?

There is a small upper echelon elite that control major aspects of the global theater....They want to depopulate the earth by 2/3's to make total control a more viable goal; hence the scheme of global warming.



2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Question number 2 is a vague question that does not properly address the issue of anthropogenic global warming.
really? that is vague? look at the question: it is a clear and direct query on acc.

30,000 scientists have filed suit against Al Gore.
your simple citation of something so bogus just dropped my respect for you, based mainly on your excellent grammar and spelling, down about 47 notches. i thought you were somewhat intelligent up until this point. but now i see you are just some dude with access to the internet.

Out of 51,000 scientists surveyed in Canada 68% stated that the scientific causes for climate change are not settled (only 26% attributed climate change to greenhouse gases, AGW).
you mean a bunch of geologists and archaeologists had a different opinion on the matter than climatologists whose papers were subject to scrutiny by their peers?

wow. alarming:-o

Once again, you continue to have a grave misunderstanding of why I post these threads. I never asked you to listen to me nor do I even want you to listen to me. I post these threads to spark a discussion or rekindle one's curiosity. This is a forum, not a scientific panel - and even if it were some scientific panel, conclusions are reached through research, discussion and debate. There is no spoon-feeding.
you were ready to conclude the debate before anyone even chimed in. you are simply trying to assert your viewpoint. you have your conspiracy-based account all figured out, you are simply waiting to tell us why we are all wrong, using bogus citations you find on the interwebz.

thus, i find you comical.

So you tell me, what about my posts make it automatic conspiracy-theorist talk?
this:
There is a small upper echelon elite that control major aspects of the global theater....They want to depopulate the earth by 2/3's to make total control a more viable goal; hence the scheme of global warming.
how the hell am i supposed to take you seriously on this issue when you outright state that global warming is a scheme designed to depopulate 2/3 of the world's population?

the jury is still out on acc. i was previously more convinced than i am now after REPUTABLE sources like nat geo recently published new findings about it.

there are too many things that your account ignores completely. why are the plankton levels dropping would be my first question you should explain. remember, plankton is at the bottom of the entire food chain. we lose enough of our plankton, the res collapses. so answer me: why are plankton levels dropping? is that part of the conspiracy?
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
Fair enough.



here are your own words on the subject. is this not a conspiratorial account of acc?
I was referring to this thread and on the topic of global warming. If you read my original post on global warming, there is nothing to indicate I have a "conspiratorial account of the situation". I break down the premise of anthropogenic global warming and present viable facts to back it up.


really? that is vague? look at the question: it is a clear and direct query on acc.
It is vague. The theory of anthropogenic global warming states that CO2 emissions cause temperatures to rise. The question asks if mankind has a significant impact on delta global temperatures. The question in the online survey is not specific enough to be traced back to AGW. For example, in my original post I go through the manipulation of data and the manipulation of weather stations (in Canada and Bolivia via GISS and NOAA). This can also fall under the answer "Yes", though it does not prove AGW.

The main issue is that an online survey resulting in a 97% of a sample of anonymous, self-proclaimed climate scientists does not warrant a "consensus". I've presented my counter, please address them.



your simple citation of something so bogus just dropped my respect for you, based mainly on your excellent grammar and spelling, down about 47 notches. i thought you were somewhat intelligent up until this point. but now i see you are just some dude with access to the internet.
I was referring to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

I believe they filed an intent to sue but I'm unaware if the suit followed through.

It was not only a suit against Al Gore. CEI also attempted to file suit against NASA:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

And you are correct. I am just "some dude with access to the internet". I am not a scientist and I am not a science major.



you mean a bunch of geologists and archaeologists had a different opinion on the matter than climatologists whose papers were subject to scrutiny by their peers?

wow. alarming:-o
Geologists and geophysicists (not archaeologists) play a big role in climate research. In case you are unfamiliar with geophysics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysicist

Once again, if you are referring to to the Doran and Zimmerman paper: It was an online poll and the figure 79 you refer to consists of anonymous self-proclaimed climate experts. If you read my replies, you'll see that none of the figures are "anonymous" nor are they self-proclaimed.

"And how many of those “climate experts” at the IPCC who keep telling us what to do and what to prepare for are actual climate scientists? According to William Schlesinger (another Global Warming alarmist), in a Global Warming debate with John Christy, after stating that the IPCC has an authority for its position, he tried to defend himself and the IPCC and ended up revealing that “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” So not only is the leading Global Warming front, the UN IPCC, filled with a mere 20% of climate “experts”, the president, Rajendra K. Pachauri is an economist who had originally trained as a railway engineer."


You can look up the resumes and background of the members of the IPCC. A very small percentage of them are climate experts or climate scientists.

Please respond to the information I've sent about there being a "consensus".


you were ready to conclude the debate before anyone even chimed in. you are simply trying to assert your viewpoint. you have your conspiracy-based account all figured out, you are simply waiting to tell us why we are all wrong, using bogus citations you find on the interwebz.
I was not concluding the debate. That post you are referring to was actually just a "bump" because it was about to go the second page and long lost in the history of RIU forums lol.

I'm trying to present my point of view and get people who disagree to post theirs so we can have a legitimate discussion/debate on the issue. I don't have my conspiracy-based account all figured out. I continue to research and read. Like I've said before - learning is constant but knowledge is not. I don't think I know it all and I don't think for certain that what I believe is absolutely concrete and there's no way any alternative scenario can exist. I constantly question my own beliefs which is what leads me to research. I try to find holes in my own ideas. It is only through internal conflict that we can progress intellectually and I try hard to do so all the time.

I'm not "waiting to tell you you're all wrong". I'm waiting for intelligent replies and discussion because there may be many things I've missed in my research. I try to read both sides of every point of view, it helps strengthen your own. Which is why I actually have a copy of the "research paper" you presented on my hard drive. I am not afraid of opposing ideals; in fact, I cherish and welcome them.

Health discussion and debate is a great way to test your own "knowledge". There is so much I don't know and don't understand, and even the things I may think I "know" may be completely wrong. I embrace that fact and continue my learning. I don't find anything wrong with that, nor do I find anything wrong with people having differing opinions.

thus, i find you comical.
Well, I guess it's good that I'm giving someone a laugh :-P



this:

how the hell am i supposed to take you seriously on this issue when you outright state that global warming is a scheme designed to depopulate 2/3 of the world's population?
I presented my opinion on eugenics in another thread and included my opinion on why the idea of AGW was brought into the mainstream recently. You do not agree and you find it comical, that is fine. I also found the idea of this conspiracy very funny, which is what actually led me to research it (went out to prove them wrong).

However, in this thread, I specifically talk about global warming and global warming only. I do not talk about some inner councils going out starting wars and taking over America and killing freedom and destroying youth and cabals and all that other crazy talk. I created this thread specifically for AGW. My posts have only dealt with AGW and have been dealth with scientifically.

Just like one's religion should not interfere with a discussion on marijuana, one's beliefs should not affect their posts on AGW (especially since I make no reference to conspiracy or new world order). I simply take the premise of AGW and break it down with evidence.

the jury is still out on acc. i was previously more convinced than i am now after REPUTABLE sources like nat geo recently published new findings about it.
That's cool. It's good that you're interested in this stuff and taking the time to read up about it. I think we both share the same interest, only differing opinions and that's great. I think we could have a good discussion if it wasn't for all the patronizing and mocking. I welcome a good discussion. Neither of us are scientists and neither of us are experts on the subject. In fact, we can BOTH somehow be wrong - but who cares? There's nothing wrong with having a healthy discussion and I'm sure there's a lot you can offer to the table and a lot of stuff I have not covered in my own personal research. That's the joy of sharing ideas and embracing differing opinions.

there are too many things that your account ignores completely. why are the plankton levels dropping would be my first question you should explain. remember, plankton is at the bottom of the entire food chain. we lose enough of our plankton, the res collapses. so answer me: why are plankton levels dropping? is that part of the conspiracy?
How are you aware of what my "account ignores completely" if you have not even bothered to read my account? Before you ask your questions, can you please respond to my posts and take a look over my post if you decide to join in on the discussion? If not, that's fine too. We can start from a different aspect of the subject.

To be honest, I'm not sure why plankton levels are dropping. Can you explain how it relates to AGW? Are you saying that plankton levels have sharply dropped because of rising CO2? Or are you speaking of ocean acidity? Ocean acidity is a whole other topic, though for AGW champions it is related. I can go through ocean acidity and why CO2 cannot effect it (I studied this one in depth when I was studying chemistry on my own).

I understand that if we have no plankton, there can be serious consequences. But what is your point here? Are you saying that plankton are dying off because of rising temperatures? Or rising CO2 levels?

Anyway, we can start this discussion over and start from the beginning. Like I said, present your case and I will counter. I think a better starting point than plankton would be the correlation between CO2 and delta global temperatures since that is the main premise of anthropogenic global warming.

Edit: Btw, I've researched both sides of this argument (I used to think AGW was very real and a grave threat). Maybe it might be fun to switch sides and debate the issue. I used to do this with some of my classmates with economics (I am from the Austrian School of thought while most of my classmates were Keynesians and Chicago-ites). This always helps build, not only debate skills, but the foundation on which you accumulate "knowledge". If there is anyone else who thinks AGW is a fraud, I can take the side that AGW is very real - I think it may be fun.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
And you are correct. I am just "some dude with access to the internet". I am not a scientist and I am not a science major.
that makes two of us. the only difference is that one of us claims that acc is a scheme perpetrated by the powerful global elites as a means to eliminate 2/3 of the population.

i will leave the science to the scientists. ya know, the folks who can actually explain why levels of plankton are dropping at the rates they are. hint: think ice caps

thanks for the laughs. i am done for now. i will come back when there are more good lulz to be had.
 

poonjoon

Well-Known Member
that makes two of us. the only difference is that one of us claims that acc is a scheme perpetrated by the powerful global elites as a means to eliminate 2/3 of the population.
Ignore what I say about a conspiracy and focus on my points on why AGW is a conjured up idea. Every single post I make, you don't bother to read because I believe that there is a "conspiracy global in scope."

i will leave the science to the scientists. ya know, the folks who can actually explain why levels of plankton are dropping at the rates they are. hint: think ice caps
The information I've posted comes from scientists. Do you believe there is never any debate inside the scientific community? My replies have proven otherwise.

I have covered ice caps in my original post. Will you explain how shrinking plankton populations have to do with AGW?

thanks for the laughs. i am done for now. i will come back when there are more good lulz to be had.
No, no. Thank YOU for the laughs. Please, come back any time. Hopefully, next time prepared for an intelligent conversation.
 
Top