Mountaingoat is alright! He's just misunderstood, the poor chap! :(|
Reply #641. May 20 13, 12:02 AM
Global warming hypothesis in a nutshell: people are burning a lot of fossil fuels. This is causing an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, if we do not take drastic steps to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emmissions, global temperatures will increase dramatically, with dire results from mankind.|
Now, I think that's a pretty fair description of what global warming advocates believe. Based on this hypothesis, if it is correct, we should see several things happening. Global tempertures should be rising every year, more or less in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has not happened. Rising temperatures should result in the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, causing sea levels to rise, flooding low lying islands and coastlines. This has not happened. Increased ocean temperatures should spawn large numbers of typhoons and hurricanes. This has not happened.
Global temperatures depend on many, many factors. Increases in CO2 in the area of a few parts per million mean nothing in the big picture. We know that many millions of years ago CO2 concentrations were much, much higher than they are today, and the planet did warm significantly. This whole global warming theory nonsense has been thoroughly discredited. It's a nice theory, but it does not match observable facts. It is a shame that if you repeat misinformation often enough, large numbers of peple will believe it. Some will believe it passionately, especially if you illustrate the misinformation with computer-generated pictures of dying polar bears and baby seals (forget the fact that the polar bears are eating the baby seals).
I've got to live on this planet, too. If I thought there was any truth in global warming, I'd want to do somethng about it. But there isn't.
Reply #642. May 20 13, 7:40 AM
That should read "did not warm significantly."|
Reply #643. May 20 13, 7:41 AM
I will add that the two official sections are 1) the actual warming was never expected before at least 2050 minimum and 2) To reach such a level we needed an average rise of 0.2C a decade.|
#1 is not scientific as making predictions in open non-linear systems is reckless and not capable of forming the basis of current policies, while #2 simply isn't happening. CO2 has risen rapidly, little else has responded. If people look for short term and local examples of trouble they'll always find them, but never look at the total figures to see how they fit in, eg the record low hurricane figures. No other extremes have either increased or expected to so people who quote them aren't even looking in the right places.
As Dave said, we need a sharp temperature rise capable of breaching 2C by 2100, and consequent land ice melting into the sea, combined with thermal expansion to make the sea level rise. It's not happening, the rise is the same as it was 150 years ago and slowing.
Reply #644. May 21 13, 1:46 PM
Kaddarsgirl I hear what you are saying. I get so frustrated that the evidence is so overwhelming and the arguments against are so feeble that climate scientists are almost embarrassed to have to answer to people who do not have even the basic grasp of scientific method. There are so many sites on the Net that answer the questions asked here, but no one on here wants to be educated. I also get a bit miffed because we are talking about the future of the goddamn planet and people are cherry picking data and being conned by media owned by the oil giants. I think you are a bit biased yourself as I think I have copped a fair bit of sneering at and belittling.|
Reply #645. May 22 13, 1:29 AM
The one thing that really gets up my nose is the accusation that all of these scientists who went into a low paid profession to better mankind are corrupt liars in a conspiracy against the world. This and the dumbing down and attacks on science generally are a total and unforgivable disgrace. Of course there are bad scientists but to smear them all is unforgiveable.|
Reply #646. May 22 13, 1:39 AM
I don't know where the overwhelming arguments come from. Scientists are gradually coming round to the fact there is very little sensitivity to added CO2. This was a totally new area, and one which needed a long time to watch and assess in real time, not invent in programs running 100 years into the future.|
They did know CO2 added 1C per doubling, as they could measure somehow the amount already there. Any more than that would come from oceanic evaporation causing humidity in levels which would stop heat from passing through the atmosphere. It could equally cause clouds, something they both admitted they had no data on, and something doing the exact opposite by blocking the sun reaching the surface.
Why you believe there is a serious problem, something which is now being overruled by actual observations over the last few years, bearing in mind things are now becoming clearer and way below the phenomenal guesses of the 90s and early 2000s I cannot say. There are inside rumours the UN's latest report due out in a year or so are going to reflect these changes, and if so then the total picture will have moved on with ultimate authority. Until then the new data can speak for itself. These disaster scenarios simply aren't happening and after such a large rise in CO2 already clearly unable to. That's the foundation of the entire picture, quoting local records and weather events isn't helping at all.
Reply #648. May 22 13, 8:33 AM
As for the conspiracy, assuming no one knew much about global warming at all and were on a jury looking at these items, what would they think? Firstly hacking is always a possibility when using a computer, so it's no longer possible to guarantee a private conversation. Here's a short one about dealing with graphs not showing the warming they needed to:|
“Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”
"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."
"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline)"
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.
But way above hacking a number of authorities involved in promoting global warming (George Soros owns MoveOn.Org, Environmental Media Services and one other alone) have outright stated it is a means to an end and absolutely nothing to do with the climate. These are figures right at the top of the pile stating clearly it is the case, yet as the media do not let anyone know they remain floating around the fringes of the internet with one person at a time picking them up, which would take hundreds of years to make a difference.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
This was restated in 1996 by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
“...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more...”
Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC chief economist.
These statements are direct, self evident and from the highest levels of authority. How can anyone dismiss them?
Reply #649. May 22 13, 8:46 AM
Next question. Is mountain goat a troll or a shill?|
Reply #650. May 22 13, 9:48 AM
Neither, just someone who represents the majority of the world's view, especially 5-10 years ago when there had been little work done to learn more about the unknowns- solar and geological influences, and new satellite measurements discovering what actually happens in the atmosphere directly. They show a highly complex system, far more than simply add CO2 for a rise like a recipe. It was only from the rise in CO2 that they bothered to look at all, as till then climate was something we always lived with and dealt with as and when it happened.|
The media have barely helped (let alone the politicians, who unlike the scientists are 97% in agreement) although this year they are gradually coming round to publishing some of the other material, simply as there is so much of it. But ours is the minority view and without more reporting of the new data, plus a few more years watching the temperatures it's unlikely to change very much.
Here's a new report on a fraud which was only published today. John Cook, of the University of Queensland Climate Communication department (why would anyone need one of those?) has just put out a report saying 97% of the latest papers support the consensus view. Except the authors were not consulted and after publication are challenging his classifications. He also included all the neutral papers (in his own findings) as positive which is not just a schoolboy error, but dishonest. It's quite common if anyone wants to look at www.retractionwatch.com
Reply #651. May 22 13, 2:55 PM
Love your "hobbies," Joe!|
Reply #652. May 22 13, 6:39 PM
Not ONE scientific organisation in the world supports climate denialism and I am the troll. LMAO|
Reply #653. May 24 13, 3:50 AM
Legal / Conditions of Use