|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is it all Leftwing Conspiracy/Massive Scientific Fraud? |
| Of course it is |
|
35% |
[ 14 ] |
| Very likely |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
| No real opinion |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Probably not |
|
22% |
[ 9 ] |
| What madness! |
|
17% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
the fascist-socialist political hacks have coopted the scientists and are using global warming to promote their own evil agendas.
However, when I describe them as fascist-socialists it is not name calling. It is an accurate representation of the ideology they espouse and the position they occupy on the political map, and reflects exactly the evil intent they harbor for all mankind. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
Speaking of fruitbats: ontheway is a case in point. Denies climate change is happening, denies healthcare reform is good...does he deny evolution is real too I wonder? |
He maybe a fruitbat but most ideas are considered nutty right up until 5 minutes before they become common wisdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
All of these were found in seconds.
Memo:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/gop-says-epa-official-buried-critical-global-warmi/
Orszag is asked to deny that it came from the White House. He is unable to do so. He instead tries to obscure it and paint it as potentially coming from another source, while never actually denying the origin.
| Quote: |
"These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration." |
First-hand Accounts:
Kiminori Itoh, inside the UN IPCC: "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.�"
James Hansen, the "father" of the global warming debate, stated "The burning of fossil fuels produces a pall of particle haze that reflects as much of the sun's energy back into space as the release of carbon dioxide has trapped in the air."
The father of climatology, Reid Bryson, has come out against it:
"...there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time,"
He goes on to explain that AGW is a business.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
(Perhaps calling people "fruitbats?")
(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12)
These people have publicly come out to say that the issue has been co-opted and politicized...and that the proponents are wrong.
The renowned (and hard-core leftist) Claude Allegre changed his stance from man causing climate change to the cause being "unknown."
His view of the AGW proponents?
Accusing the �prophets of doom of global warming� of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"
The guy who did the Carbon accounting the Australian government:
| Quote: |
�And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,"
|
Hacked Emails:
Detailing, among other things, that Jones requested his colleagues destroy data under a pending FOIA request (illegal, as it was the CRU station data set that the IPCC was using, not the other way around), that graph models they were using applied an uptick even when using null units, and statements from the programmer saying, among other things:
"As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless."
(Station counts the EPA stated it "relied on most heavily" out of all it's data http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001.pdf)
Other great lines from the guy programming the data sets:
Altering numbers: "we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"
Straight-up fabricating them: "Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!"
"There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates"
What about their scientific process? It's reproducible, surely?
"The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost."
"we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that."
"I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. "
At least these are isolated data incidents, right?
"rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was."
I'm not saying that people who believe in AGW are "fruitbats."
I'm saying they are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
the fascist-socialist political hacks have coopted the scientists and are using global warming to promote their own evil agendas.
However, when I describe them as fascist-socialists it is not name calling. It is an accurate representation of the ideology they espouse and the position they occupy on the political map, and reflects exactly the evil intent they harbor for all mankind. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
Speaking of fruitbats: ontheway is a case in point. Denies climate change is happening, denies healthcare reform is good...does he deny evolution is real too I wonder? |
Privateer, you should read something, or learn to read, before you post ignorant drivel:
1) I have never said that climate change is not happening. In fact, I have said that it is happening, it is natural, and that it will continue to happen. We cannot stop it and we should adapt to it. There is, however, no evidence of any man-made link for Global Warming. Local pollution, yes. Heat islands in urban areas, yes. But a global scale warming due to man, especially caused by CO2 gas emissions, no. There is no proof of this whatsoever. The few dozen so-called scientists in the narrow field of selling AGW/CO2 snake-oil have been discredited now - they were only political, pelf pilfering, fraudulent hacks.
Global warming has been proven by science to exist and it is happening. It is a natural cycle between ice ages. We are in a cycle that is within the normal range historically. There is no evidence for any man-made deviation from the normal cycle. We should heat up a bit more, then an ice age will follow. That will be a bit harder for man to survive than a couple more degrees in natural temperature increase.
2) There is no question that the US has the best health care system in the world. The current bill will make things much worse. Socialized National Health Care has been shown to kill thousands of people annually in the countries that have it. It's a terrible, evil scheme that kills the innocent, rations care, destroys incentives for health care improvements, denies advanced treatments and advance drug therapy to its citizens, even though they are forced to pay.
Science has proven that socialism always fails. Socialism kills. Socialism is evil. But, since socialists have taken over the education systems of the world, the masses, including you, live in a dream world of lies and disinformation and are unable to learn the truth.
3) Evolution has been proven by science. It is a scientific fact. This is just as AGW has not been proven or disproven by anyone, and the CO2 nonsense as the cause for global warming will soon be another idea in the dustbin of history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
-but this is easily rebuffed in the same article:
| Quote: |
An EPA spokeswoman noted that the memo's author, Alan Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist, and denied the claims of suppression.
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said Tuesday.
"The document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding," Ms. Andy said.
But liberal watchdog groups have said the memo repeats false claims made by global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels and have noted that much of the report was drawn from blogs and reports that had not been peer-reviewed. |
Note that the organisation behind the accusations, The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is a conservative think tank" funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, General motors and so on.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
Further investigation reveals this is just another front group paid to try and attack science and push the needs of big business.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
The vast majority of propaganda infecting your sources, the internet and certain affiliated media can be traced to the door of the fossil fuel industry. Surprise surprise. They are at war with nature and the environment itself.
The fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas is not a novel idea recently put out by the EPA. It was shown to be so by scientists well over a century ago.
Oil companies know that if they pour millions into spreading their lies, funding campaigns, suing scientists and politicians then they can at least buy themselves some time. They know it takes a long time to clear up their misinformation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
-but this is easily rebuffed in the same article:
|
ORLY?
You say:
| Quote: |
An EPA spokeswoman noted that the memo's author, Alan Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist, and denied the claims of suppression.
|
Not a rebuttal. By the way, a quick search of Carlin confirms that Carlin did indeed work for the EPA at the time.
| Quote: |
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said Tuesday.
|
Not a rebuttal...in fact, consistent with the accusation that it was tossed aside because of political reasons.
| Quote: |
"The document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding," Ms. Andy said.
|
Translation: "We stuffed it under a pile of papers and shuffled it far away.
But you can see that we took it into consideration, because of my use of the word 'some.'"
...Some ideas from the House Health care bill are included in the Senate one. But for some reason, The staunch liberals hate it. Some themes from Islam are found in Christianity, but they are hardly the same religion. An argument of "some" is not an argument. What does it even mean? Where are the specifics?
| Quote: |
But liberal watchdog groups have said the memo repeats false claims made by global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels and have noted that much of the report was drawn from blogs and reports that had not been peer-reviewed. |
Are the claims false, or do the liberal groups say they are false? Seems to be the latter. Also, since the article itself was peer-reviewed (previous quote) that should not be an issue.
The man was in the Employ of the EPA when he wrote the article.
Organizations using the article are irrelevant. It's like saying that Ayers' contributions to Obama make Obama a terrorist.
| Quote: |
The vast majority of propaganda infecting your sources, the internet and certain affiliated media can be traced to the door of the fossil fuel industry. Surprise surprise. They are at war with nature and the environment itself.
The fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas is not a novel idea recently put out by the EPA. It was shown to be so by scientists well over a century ago.
|
Ah, so big oil is at war with nature. I assume they want to kill all the seals and polar bears, and finish by spitting into a volcano they make erupt. If you want to talk about propaganda infection, you should look to yourself first.
Also, who said Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas? You seem a bit confused.
| Quote: |
Oil companies know that if they pour millions into spreading their lies, funding campaigns, suing scientists and politicians then they can at least buy themselves some time. They know it takes a long time to clear up their misinformation. |
And calamatists put in billions. Among the quotes I posted that you refused to address were the fathers of the climatology and global warming movements (and other prominent scientists either employed by the IPCC or other "Green" programs) talking about the money.
Those who believe that the money is on the side of big oil are deluded.
For years, up until a recent resurgence of skepticism, the only way to get a grant was to champion AGW. The millions that companies such as Exxon have shelled out over the years are nothing compared to the BILLIONS of dollars in grant funding and propaganda put out by governments each year. If you are truly wary of the influence of money, then how can it be that you refuse to see your "green" train as the greenback train?
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/08/climate-money-big-government-outspends-big-oil/
Here are the govt's own numbers, showing climate change spending in the billions...per year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf
What makes billions of dollars spent with a clear prejudice towards a predetermined conclusion a neutral factor in a scientist's decisions?
The answer is "nothing."
What happens to the funding if scientists announce that the role of Co2 is insignificant? If we discover a simple solution, say dispersing sulfur into the upper atmosphere, or if we determine that the period of warming is indeed in line with planetary history and that we should only worry about an ice age in the next few hundred/thousand years?
The funding is cut. Scientists have every reason not to come out of the global warming closet. Multiple that motive by billions of dollars, and consider that carbon trading is projected to be the largest single traded asset in the world, a multi-trillion-dollar industry.
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aLM4otYnvXHQ)
Certainly no motive.
No, you've done nothing to disprove the one thing you were even able to attack. You've just managed to equivocate and regurgitate "oil-companies-hate-mother-earth" bile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
the fascist-socialist political hacks have coopted the scientists and are using global warming to promote their own evil agendas.
However, when I describe them as fascist-socialists it is not name calling. It is an accurate representation of the ideology they espouse and the position they occupy on the political map, and reflects exactly the evil intent they harbor for all mankind. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
Speaking of fruitbats: ontheway is a case in point. Denies climate change is happening, denies healthcare reform is good...does he deny evolution is real too I wonder? |
Privateer, you should read something, or learn to read, before you post ignorant drivel:
1) I have never said that climate change is not happening. [He then proceeds to deny climate change is happening. Sorry, that's *anthropogenic* climate change. Normal people don't need to have this pointed out.]
2) There is no question that the US has the best health care system in the world. [There is of course a very large question].
Science has proven that socialism always fails. [Glad that's settled] Socialism kills. Socialism is evil. [Your ideological purity is impressive] But, since socialists have taken over the education systems of the world, the masses, including you, live in a dream world of lies and disinformation and are unable to learn the truth. [I guess I should take the red pill. Wait, surely not the red one.]
3) Evolution has been proven by science. [We agree on something then] |
I see it's considered objectionable to label people fruitbats but it's perfectly fine to call them fascist-socialist political hacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Privateer has failed once again to comprehend the written English language. His government school education has obviously resulted in a limited lexicon and diminished capacity to comprehend.
| Privateer wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
the fascist-socialist political hacks have coopted the scientists and are using global warming to promote their own evil agendas.
However, when I describe them as fascist-socialists it is not name calling. It is an accurate representation of the ideology they espouse and the position they occupy on the political map, and reflects exactly the evil intent they harbor for all mankind. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
Speaking of fruitbats: ontheway is a case in point. Denies climate change is happening, denies healthcare reform is good...does he deny evolution is real too I wonder? |
Privateer, you should read something, or learn to read, before you post ignorant drivel:
1) I have never said that climate change is not happening....
|
[He then proceeds to deny climate change is happening. Sorry, that's *anthropogenic* climate change. Normal people don't need to have this pointed out.]
. |
Privateer, you have now confirmed that you have some kind of learning impairment.
I said that Climate Change is happening. There is just no evidence that it is caused by humans. Lots of claims, but no proof. AGW vs GW. Your statement that I deny it is happening is just stupid, as the words do not match, and are in fact opposite of what I said.
If your reading comprehension is this poor, it is obvious that you understand nothing about any issue that you write about. Anything you get correct is obviously a result of random chance.
Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "Anthropogenic." It means it is caused by the actions of human beings.
GW and AGW are two differed things. It is possible to have climate change and GW without having AGW. In fact, that has been normal for the Earth for billions of years.
So, Privateer, sometimes I will write for you.
Just for you.
I will write easy things for you.
This means they are "simple."
I will try to write with very, very, little words.
Little words that you might have learned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
Also, who said Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas? You seem a bit confused.. |
So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
ie, that it causes athe earths atmosphere to warm and trap heat?
Therefore you have to concede that more CO2 will result in warming?
And you concede that humans have been pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate every day for the past 150 years?
Congratulations!
Welcome to the brotherhood of sanity.
can you please tell this news to mises, ontheway, visitorQ and whoever else doesn't grasp this basic concept. And also the numerous exon-funded "think tanks" who are paid to tell everyone that we should "make even more CO2 as it has no effect". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Privateer has failed once again to comprehend the written English language. His government school education has obviously resulted in a limited lexicon and diminished capacity to comprehend.
| Privateer wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
the fascist-socialist political hacks have coopted the scientists and are using global warming to promote their own evil agendas.
However, when I describe them as fascist-socialists it is not name calling. It is an accurate representation of the ideology they espouse and the position they occupy on the political map, and reflects exactly the evil intent they harbor for all mankind. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
..Do you have any memos? Accounts from people involved? statements by co-conspirators who defected? Hacked private emails that detail the conspiracy? footage of conspirators meeting and discussing their plot?
Anything at all? |
Speaking of fruitbats: ontheway is a case in point. Denies climate change is happening, denies healthcare reform is good...does he deny evolution is real too I wonder? |
Privateer, you should read something, or learn to read, before you post ignorant drivel:
1) I have never said that climate change is not happening....
|
[He then proceeds to deny climate change is happening. Sorry, that's *anthropogenic* climate change. Normal people don't need to have this pointed out.]
. |
Privateer, you have now confirmed that you have some kind of learning impairment.
I said that Climate Change is happening. There is just no evidence that it is caused by humans. Lots of claims, but no proof. AGW vs GW. Your statement that I deny it is happening is just stupid, as the words do not match, and are in fact opposite of what I said.
If your reading comprehension is this poor, it is obvious that you understand nothing about any issue that you write about. Anything you get correct is obviously a result of random chance.
Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "Anthropogenic." It means it is caused by the actions of human beings.
GW and AGW are two differed things. It is possible to have climate change and GW without having AGW. In fact, that has been normal for the Earth for billions of years.
So, Privateer, sometimes I will write for you.
Just for you.
I will write easy things for you.
This means they are "simple."
I will try to write with very, very, little words.
Little words that you might have learned. |
Did you take your pills today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
ie, that it causes athe earths atmosphere to warm and trap heat?
Therefore you have to concede that more CO2 will result in warming?
And you concede that humans have been pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate every day for the past 150 years?
Congratulations!
Welcome to the brotherhood of sanity.
can you please tell this news to mises, ontheway, visitorQ and whoever else doesn't grasp this basic concept. And also the numerous exon-funded "think tanks" who are paid to tell everyone that we should "make even more CO2 as it has no effect". |
You see, this is where the breakdown happens. Somewhere between "Co2 is a greenhouse gas" and "More Co2 will result in warming" you veered off the track of the sensible. My guess is that it was
| Quote: |
| Therefore you have to concede that more Co2 will result in warming?" |
The answer is an emphatic "no." Co2 Is indeed a greenhouse gas, but climate change is not based on single variables. The ordovician period had Co2 levels of 4400ppm...that's TWELVE TIMES the co2 levels in the atmosphere today...yet it was dramatically colder all across the world. It's ridiculous for someone to think that Co2 is the main contributor to climate change, or even the major greenhouse gas. Heck, water vapor is infinitely more prevalent in the atmosphere and accounts for far vastly more warmth than Co2. Of course, the largest factors that influence climate are Planetary Orbit, Solar variations and atmospheric aerosols.
Co2 is not among these factors...so no, an increase in Co2 will not necessarily result in an increase in global temperature. Far too many live factors are active in this equation.
A simpler explanation would be: If humans have pumped increasing amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere, Co2 lasts in the atmosphere for hundreds of years (and 25% lasts indefinitely), and this has been accumulating...why was 1998 the hottest year on record? Why has warming dropped over the past 10 years so dramatically? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html)
Even those now overexposed hacked emails revealed the scientists admitting that it was a "travesty" the they "couldn't account for the lack of warming."
How can we be expected to ascribe to a theory that cannot account for it's apparent invalidation?
The wiki page should have all the links you need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
(The "Greenhouse Gas" page as well)
Thought experiment:
Of the Greenhouse Gasses, Water vapor / clouds accounts for the dramatic lions-share of warming effect (85+%).
Co2 forms .004% of the atmosphere, and 95% of THOSE emissions are independent of human presence.
So we are dealing with 5% (Human emissions of total) OF .004% (total carbon concentration in atmosphere) OF A maximum of 15% (Co2's estimated atmospheric warming contribution.)
= .00003% of current warming resulting from human Co2 emissions.
You can correct me if I've done the math wrong (it's 6am over here and I need some sleep), but it appears to me that that is the correct result.
There are for more pressing issues than the carbon religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Therefore you have to concede that more Co2 will result in warming?" |
The answer is an emphatic "no." Co2 Is indeed a greenhouse gas, but climate change is not based on single variables. The ordovician period had Co2 levels of 4400ppm...that's TWELVE TIMES the co2 levels in the atmosphere today...yet it was dramatically colder all across the world. |
This chestnut has already been comprehensively destroyed by Manner of speaking already.. in the other thread.
Short answer is that at that time CO2 was proportionately less than is now. There may have been more, but it still made up a smaller % of the atmosphere.
Apples and oranges dear boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Therefore you have to concede that more Co2 will result in warming?" |
The answer is an emphatic "no." Co2 Is indeed a greenhouse gas, but climate change is not based on single variables. The ordovician period had Co2 levels of 4400ppm...that's TWELVE TIMES the co2 levels in the atmosphere today...yet it was dramatically colder all across the world. |
This chestnut has already been comprehensively destroyed by Manner of speaking already.. in the other thread.
Short answer is that at that time CO2 was proportionately less than is now. There may have been more, but it still made up a smaller % of the atmosphere.
Apples and oranges dear boy. |
So MOS has come up with a theory the scientists at CRU couldn't figure out?
They themselves said that they couldn't account for the lack of warming over the last decade. If it really was that simple, then that's what they would have said.
Sorry, but that doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
So MOS has come up with a theory the scientists at CRU couldn't figure out?
They themselves said that they couldn't account for the lack of warming over the last decade. If it really was that simple, then that's what they would have said.
Sorry, but that doesn't work. |
No, they did not say that. This is a problem with taking emails out of context.
What Trenberth was lamenting (the guy you are actually quoting) is this:
Scientists know from the satellite data that the Earth has continued to warm. However, it's difficult for climate scientists to track the flow of energy. Where is it going? They can account for some of it, through various observation systems. But they can not account for all of it.
i.e. - They KNOW this energy is in the planet from satellite observation - but where exactly on our planet is the heat that they can not account for?
Trenberth expressed his frustration at the limitation of their observation systems. One problem is that they can only measure the heat in the ocean to a certain depth. We have not yet the means for direct observation in the very deep ocean. So once the heat flows down past a certain depth, it can no longer be tracked. Trenberth suspected that the heat (the remaining heat that they can not account for) may have flowed deeper down to places where it can not be measured.
That was his 'travesty' - that he has no current means of confirming what he suspects.
This is the problem with you virtual scientists - you really are a clueless bunch.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clueless. Ha. Well, guess what. We're winning. Suck it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
