Wasn't the Earth, at one time, considered to be flat?|
Thanks, satguru. Keep us posted. While I may not understand it all, learning is the best part.
Reply #441. Aug 04 11, 10:11 AM
Thanks Daymare. I am not doing this to annoy, upset or confuse anyone. I have a legal background (not as in obeying the law, although that as well, but studying it) and as well as the principle of a fair trial, with the defendant being able to present their own defence fully and not be convicted with any reasonable doubts, I am only too familiar with the ins and outs of legal twists and turns as much as my mother was a barrister and judge and regularly discussed her cases.|
As a result, when I see the signals of a dirty tricks campaign as opposed to a fair trial, I investigate. Had this case been theoretical then nothing would have mattered, it would simply have been a new theory finding its limits. But the world has been gripped with new policies although there isn't a single way we know what is happening at the level of proof required. I know most people disagree, but most people haven't got the time, patience or experience I have to check further. Of course no one likes to think scientists are wrong, or worse still knowingly wrong and still prepared to continue. A few have already been caught out, and as lying is not a crime in itself unless in court or defamatory nothing could be done about it. No one has even been sacked or disciplined. But we know they've done it. Scientists don't lie normally, unless we simply haven't had the chance to find out till now. That rings alarm bells so loud people should listen but are deaf. Why would or should they dare to do it? These weren't mistakes as they were errors of fact and some had been informed and continued to publish. That is fraud in the non-legal term, and it shouldn't have to happen to convince the public.
I expect eventually I'll spend the time to present the conflicts on every front as they currently stand. Virtually every single area is in dispute, temperature, CO2 heat absorption and sensitivity, positive feedback, solar effects, sea levels, polar bear figures (which have now finally been agreed on as 25,000, an increase since 2000) and more or less every single other area besides the actual CO2 level itself, although one paper claims the Mauna Loa base can select certain times when it's higher each day which alone will skew the figures.
The BBC said in 2006 they weren't going to air both sides, so as the world's biggest broadcaster (I'd guess even the US source some of their news there as well) many are going to follow their example and have done. So no wonder most people assume it's a done deal. Behind the scenes the dispute is total, they can barely agree on a thing. In private (as hacked and leaked) many admit it's uncertain and struggle to maintain the trends as the data simply doesn't agree, but they do as there's no one to check it. The IPCC are judge and jury so can't filter what their panel offer them as the panel are the ones who filter it before and after. We've seen how melting glaciers and dead polar bears have been put through and included in international policy documents, and those are only the few that have been caught after the event.
The actual requirements for the sort of global warming disaster would be:
1) The sea would need to evaporate faster in higher temperatures, causing new clouds at levels which would block infra red radiation leaving (heat).
2) This positive feedback would have to be approximately triple the base level, so while CO2 adds 1C at 260ppm, the IPCC say that it would be safe as long as it only added 2C or less at 520.
3) There is as yet and no new studies likely to show it that extreme weather events will increase with temperature, the current state of the art is they will possibly even reduce, but may be more intense.
4) Despite historical and IPCC findings of the effects of a 2-4C increase, ie more food, fewer overall climate deaths as cold is the biggest killer, they would need to show a complex formula showing somehow more people would be worse off should this happen. This is simply impossible beyond past knowledge due to its complexity.
5) The latent heat in glaciers also means about a 700 year delay between the temperature rising above freezing and the amount above that required for them to melt. That means any melt in glaciers is more likely to be a reaction to rises 700 years ago, not a short term reaction.
Those are the minimum requirements for CO2 forced warming to be a live issue. As I said earlier the only current reasonably agreed indicators, sea and temperature averages, both demonstrate no feedback (the only simple arithmetic we can all follow) and a falling rate of rise.
The standard of the daily reports I read are nearly all either specifics, ie local reports, species declines, weather not climate, very short term changes and as always predictions. Every single time someone uses any like this to show the opposite they are quite rightly shot down in flames, but any mentioning even a single record hot day are carved into the data in stone. That is bad practice and total hypocrisy, as if you mention two extremely cold winters in the UK in a row (after the IPCC said snow would already be history) no one listens, but one hot summer in Texas and it's new trouser territory.
I can see it, why can't anyone else who hasn't already?
Reply #442. Aug 04 11, 11:34 AM
“I can see it, why can't anyone else who hasn't already?”|
Because you are obsessed with your side (whatever that is?) and others are sceptical of obsessed people and their theories.
In the past people who have used any platform to get their views heard were both “nut jobs” and absolute fanatics without the capability to comprehend that they could be incorrect. Or, have some sort of monetary reason behind their theories and as such only interested in gain (and with all due respect, and as you post so much about your life on line, you are not in that camp).
So, my friend, no matter how many pages of fact /counter fact you post on various sites...
People will (thank goodness) stay sceptical, and with or without your liking, will not (and may never) see, what you "think", you see already!
Reply #443. Aug 04 11, 12:32 PM
I'm not "sceptical of obsessed people and their theories".|
Socrates, Plato, Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, Joan of Arc, Abraham Lincoln, Lister...the list goes on regarding those who believed in something that was not a popular concept at the time.
What does concern me is people who wish to silence those who speak their minds even if it is a topic they understand not all will agree with or even comprehend.
I can just imagine what happened when Newton told about the apple falling and what he believed was the reason it fell.
Back to you, satguru. I apologize for the side trip. :)
Reply #444. Aug 04 11, 1:55 PM
I love when this post gets the occasional ripple from the heat. Daymare, I thank you, for not having to put my coat on.|
Reply #445. Aug 04 11, 2:52 PM
You said it well S-M-W. Some will even deny that the stove is hot when they touch it.|
Reply #446. Aug 04 11, 2:59 PM
boxjaw - huh? My element is fire but how did you know?|
Trigger - and some will touch a cold stove and state it is hot.
Reply #447. Aug 04 11, 3:28 PM
It appears if I express my opinion, I am to receive the same attitude as those who go against the norm.|
I like being a free thinker. It means my mind is open to new, innovative ideas like fire, cooking, electricity and automobiles and so on.
Reply #448. Aug 04 11, 3:32 PM
Best is the man who chooses to speak up while all others are silent.|
Bearing that in mind, I can't quite see how a discovery that a theory which has taken over the world in an unprecedented manner, probably second only to the South Sea Bubble (which nearly everyone believed as well, worth checking that if you haven't read the details), is not reliable and having the time and patience to explain why is either obsessive or wrong. If anyone feels it's a bad thing not to give up when they see people heading off a cliff then you need to damn well wake up.
Reply #449. Aug 04 11, 4:01 PM
Re Reply #440 – satguru|
Just to recap, satguru, you originally said that interglacials meant no ice and therefore polar bears have survived without ice. I pointed out to you that in fact interglacials don’t mean no ice and that we are currently in an interglacial and that there is a good probability that polar bears have never had to survive an ice free pole, with some possibility that it was warm enough for the pole to be ice free briefly during the summer and that we would have to go back about a million years to find a period warm enough before that could be said with certainty. You then accuse me of claiming that there haven’t been periods without ice caps in contradiction to what I actually said and provide a link that contradicts nothing that I said?
To clarify, we are in an interglacical period, which is part of an ice age, which is defined by the fact that there are ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic. An ice age is divided between cooler glacial periods and warmer inerglacial periods. The current ice age started about 2.58 million years ago, well before polar bears evolved and making your point about ice free periods in history irrelevant to our discussion regarding polar bears. So yes there have been periods where the ice caps were ice free but you were claiming that they occurred during the evolution of the polar bear and there is no good evidence to support this as I have already pointed out.
I’m well aware of the idea of geoengineering the planet. My problem with your geoengineering post was the ridiculous conspiracy theory website link you provided. If you wanted to make a point about geoengineering why didn’t you just post the wikipedia link in the first place? Surely even you can see the huge gulf between geoengineering as described in the conspiracy article you linked to and the wikipedia article? The fact is no one is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere in order to geoengineer the planet and personally I can’t see it being used as a means of mitigating global warming unless we allowed warming to reach a point where significant harm was occuring to life on Earth.
Reply #451. Aug 08 11, 4:17 AM
The problem with most Warmists is that they do not have a clue about how the scientific process works. To have a valid theory, you make observations, see what is happening, and then come up with a theory that will explain your observations. Your theory should also be able to predict what will happen in the future. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The global warming theory sounds pretty good on the face of it. We know that the build up of certain gasses in the atmosphere - so-called greenhouse gasses - causes temperatures to rise. People are producing large quantities of greenhouse gasses. Temperatures have risen slightly over the past hundred years. Ergo, it must be manmade greenhouse gasses that are causing global temperatures to increase. If we do not stop producing greenhouse gasses, there will be disasterous consequences for everyone. Sounds good on paper, but empirical observations do not support the theory. The average global temperatures have not increased as they should have according to this theory. In fact, they have started decreasing again. Temperatures should be at their highest point in recorded history, and they aren't. There are so many other factors that affect climate that manmade greenhouse gasses, even at many times higher concentrations than at present, have a negligible effect on global temperatures. The people behind this theory have been PROVEN to have altered or even faked their data in a desperate attempt to prove their position. It's a very different thing than Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Newton would have easily been able to defend his thoery, and devise experiments to show that it was correct. He wouldn't have had to fake photographs of polar bears drowning in the open sea, or claim the moon was going to crash into the earth if people didn't believe him. There are two types of people who believe in global warming: the abysmally ignorant, and crooked scientists who want grant money. Actually three, if we count people like Al Gore, who make billions frightening people into believing this nonsense.
Reply #452. Aug 08 11, 11:48 AM
Dave has basically done the work for me. It's so easy picking apart minutiae, but if the theory stinks then analysing polar bears, little changes (as they are) in ice cover which changes constantly and can freeze in months after they've shrunk, other worthless irrelevances like species distribution (ie a flea on a flea on a flea, each step requiring the proof of the one before it, ad infinitum), ocean acidification (it's alkaline!), trying to discover the effects of complex cloud variations, solar influences (just mentioned yet again by a top climatologist after the profession claims they're irrelevant), and all the associated internal details. If you look for trouble your perception becomes tuned to finding it, and that is the exact opposite of how science should work. You try and disprove your theories and change as new data arrives.|
The BBC, by claiming it can't report any data going against global warming in 2007 as it's already settled is not just a political move totally against their own charter as well as the rules of common knowledge and investigation, but this is the attitude of the UN and IPCC itself. If there were no taxes and bogus carbon trading involved I'd never even have given this theory a second look, it's simply a vague observation which became a total way of life for many people in science and politics, and now bankers now Rothschilds have entered carbon trading in Australia. Buying and selling nothing isn't going to change the climate back to how it was even if that was a problem and it was possible, but that's the result of supporting bogus theories, bogus actions.
Forget all those tax supported studies simply created to collect the money in advance and provide the required answers. They cannot ever be consistent or relevant to the big picture Dave just described, the case for man made warming is something I've learnt is based on a couple of school level science equations which have then been used to extend to an open system (first mistake, gas cannot trap IR like glass), and secondly not use existing drastic changes which never existed outside Michael Mann's discredited diagram, but the IPCC's imaginary projections which with error margins around +/- 400% would never have got through any other system besides a political one. If such vague graphs were offered by an economist or accountant they'd probably be struck off, but these literally rule the world.
What scares me the most is due to the common 2100 maturation of most of these scare stories I won't be there to say 'It was all BS, we're cooler than 2000' and no one else will besides a few babies currently alive. A pig in a poke at the grandest scale. Doesn't that bother anyone even if they believe the science?
Reply #453. Aug 08 11, 3:25 PM
Bother me? Nope! Quite happy sitting on this fence,watching all the links in christendom whizz by. Or trying to follow three hundred word sentences,without a full-stop (period) in sight. I might get the odd splinter in my backside,but my blood pressure isn't getting any worse. :))
But to describe anyone that has the temerity to disagree with one side of the the argument as "abysmally ignorant" or "crooked" I do find a tad offensive. Smacks a little of petulant panic,Dave. It's been my experience that name-calling never wins an adult intellectual debate. With grown-ups,anyway.
Reply #454. Aug 08 11, 5:08 PM
"Or their maidenheads, take it as thou list."|
Reply #455. Aug 08 11, 6:20 PM
Trademarc, considering all I'd seen you write was a Skeptical Science style debunking of every single item that casts doubt on AGW I was very surprised you agree with me 100% on the total lunatic danger of geoengineering. In fact the metal salts (barium, manganese etc) used to 'mop up excess CO2' are pollutants and poisons. But geoengineering is not a science based on curiosity and carried out in classrooms to write essays about, why on earth would they spend millions on a new branch of science purely in theory? That makes nearly as little sense as spraying poisons randomly over populated areas, as if anyone would dream of doing that.|
Now I don't quite know which is crazier- developing at great expense a new system which they never intend to use, or using it, I'll leave that to you all, but please look around before making such claims. I can't understand how I've found these in ten minutes flat you have claimed it's not being done at all?
"Geoengineering is defined as "planetary-scale enviromental engineering of our atmosphere, our weather, the oceans, and the Earth itself". The methods, schemes, that may now be used without public oversight, debate, prior public notification, U.S. Congress or any oversight are staggering in number and scope.
The Congressional Research Service released it new report on Geoengineering for members of the U.S. Congress on August 16, 2010. The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee released their Final Geoengineering Report on October 27, 2010. The U.S. House Science and Technology Committee on Geoengineering is working with the UK Parliament on Global Geoengineering Governance which has released its 5th Report (printed by the House of Commons), on March 10, 2010."
Click on the link below to read these reports:
I will just add while I'm here whatever links I post are usually one from many like them, as I prefer to wait till a few sites and preferably studies corroborate before I dare throw them to the lions (not here, anywhere believe me), and believe it or not a few have even been from warming sites themselves either pulling up another study or even admitting an error themselves. It's only because the media (TV and BBC in particular) do not debate this issue it's been forced onto the internet. The last thing I ever cared about was the weather or climate, besides when I go out in it, let alone the causes of it, but when I see the world gripped by a hysteria being acted upon to all our detriments (unless you rent land for wind farms and the like) what else am I supposed to do if the media won't dare to tread on toes or (in the case of the BBC) destroy their pensions, as they are partly invested in the Climate Change Investment Fund. Had it not already been real I'd have assumed someone was having a very big laugh but it's not a joke.
And I make no apologies for deliberately adding loads of links as if I don't I get accused of cherry picking and quoting dubious sites.
Reply #456. Aug 08 11, 8:33 PM
I wanted to post a link to Nobel Prize winner Al Gore's rant at the Aspen Policy Institute, but unfortunately could not find a recording with the profanity edited out. To see exactly what kind of people are leading the "global warming" charge, go to YouTube and type in "Al Gore Aspen." Guaranteed to make you laugh!|
Reply #457. Aug 09 11, 4:15 PM
Satguru, I said the fact is no one is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere in order to geoengineer the planet and not one of those links you provided contradict that. Those links only talk about concern and the potential harm they could cause and possible small scale experiments. None of that contradicts what I said.|
On a different note, here is the latest video by greenman3610, another youtuber well worth subscribing to if you are interested in climate change. This video covers some of the history of climate change research and claims of cooling.
Reply #458. Aug 11 11, 4:09 AM
Trademarc, unless you not only work for the government, but for the classified areas of high security please can you tell me how you know this? And also do you or anyone else honestly think they would have spent all that money on research and planning if they weren't doing it? Geoengineering is both crazy and also evil as it sprays poisons over everyone, including the families of the sprayers, but the only thing crazier would be to develop it at great time and expense and not actually do it.|
As for videos and papers on global warming (I never said it was cooling, I just said the warming had stopped) I will repeat one more time to say they keep on coming but are minutiae, unless the big picture changes, ie sharp rises in temperature followed by sea level (as that is the only order they can happen) we are wasting our time. The actual times required to prove beyond reasonable doubt a theory like AGW would always require geological timescales, 30 years minimum according to the IPCC spokesmen, and then that would just indicate a possible trend, and in normal science that would be observed over centuries by generations, and not acted on as soon as there was a whiff of cash, I mean warming.
So, it's a lose-lose situation. The sharp rises I speak of have happened in the past a few times, from proxy records, but clearly not man made. But otherwise they are rarer under any conditions and only really in Al Gore's disgraceful talk of tipping points, used to scare the bejasus out of schoolchildren and weak minded adults alike, and causes the scandal of children haranguing their parents to reduce their carbon footprints as if they were smoking. To equate simply keeping oneself alive on the same basis as smoking or drink driving is a political atrocity, and only based on such nonsense as extrapolating minute variations in temperature and related areas and blowing them into false wolves as the CO2 has risen.
Bottom line, without a proper temperature rise over maybe 100-200 years which is both consistent and high, and also corresponds with rising CO2 we should all go home and forget about it. It's a non-issue, the case simply can't be shown at a level even close to that required by science.
Reply #459. Aug 11 11, 9:38 AM
Oh, and to think I almost missed this gem...|
“What scares me the most is due to the common 2100 maturation of most of these scare stories I won't be there to say 'It was all BS, we're cooler than 2000' and no one else will besides a few babies currently alive. A pig in a poke at the grandest scale. Doesn't that bother anyone even if they believe the science?”
Am joining RV on that fence, but just a second...
What if “the deniers “are wrong???
I suppose they could give a shrug of the old shoulders and then reaching for their obligatory anoraks as they leave the room muttering something about corrupt graphs and how the hell were they to know that the bandwagon they jumped on was going in the wrong direction...rofl.
It’s like believing in little green men, the geoengineering threat, and that the government is out to get ya... it’s all as true as you convince yourself it is!
Oh, and Trademarc, the real bottom line is... if you happen to have a brick wall anywhere close, why not give your head a few bangs... its got to be less painful than arguing here.. lol
Reply #460. Aug 11 11, 10:56 AM
Legal / Conditions of Use