Case closed:


Recommended Posts

Worthington

CO2 is just a portion of the climate change.

Deforrestation, destruction of natural ecological systems so on and so forth also play a critical role. They're also part of the CO2 greenhouse gas chain which help cause macro changes that eventually swing out to global changes.

Deforestation and ecological systems have nothing to do with temperature of the Earth, but I believe those things are being ignored because "climate change" can be attributed to EVERYBODY while only multinational corporations in bed with governments are responsible for actual landmass destruction.

Do you see now how you are being deceived?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin

Deforestation and ecological systems have nothing to do with temperature of the Earth, but I believe those things are being ignored because "climate change" can be attributed to EVERYBODY while only multinational corporations in bed with governments are responsible for actual landmass destruction.

Do you see now how you are being deceived?

Well now that's just not true.

Carbon in fixed form is generally better than not.

But then again, everyone has ignored my plea for rationalism and to stop debating about things that they aren't qualified to debate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
thejohnnyq

Just because a 'the Inspector General' cleared him doesn't mean anything. The Office of the inspector general has been nothing but a joke since the termination of Inspector Generals that did not agree with the administration. There have been 2 that were terminated, who raised issues and challenged the current administration, and immediate dismissals were demanded by the President. The integrity of the office has been compromised.

Second, making things up have never been scientific. They adjusted the older temps because the equipment was not 'capable' of being accurate as current thermometers (this has been proven wrong). Temps centers have moved, but they still use the numbers, (example Cincinnati original source of temps was at fountain square, then moved to Luken airport (about 2.5 miles east and down in a valley, then to CVG, about 12 miles southwest in KY, and raised about 500 ft higher than either spot).

Normalization of data to eliminate spikes is nothing more than faking the numbers.

Humans create only .1% of all global warming gases. The major Global Warming gase is not CO2, but H20, (H20 is several dozen times more effective at hold heat then CO2) but they discount its effect on the environment because it cannot be controlled.

I was always taught that when you a study have an open mind, yet Mike did not, and the only real outcome is the money he got for the studies and BS data he posted.

And honestly ICE CORE SAMPLE DATA was a joke, they made estimated on how old it was at different layers, and to top it off, there was aluminum from a crashed ww2 airplane found at the 1000 year mark. The missing B-17 in Greenland was also discovered under ?1500 years of ice and snow?. If they are that much off, how good can be the data, Garbage in Garbage out.................

Link to post
Share on other sites
spudtrooper

Of course there wasn't. The claim was never that he falsified any data, its that climate models are subjective -- many people disagree on how they should be built --- and the e-mail exchanges show that they weren't very interested in looking at the issue in a dispassionate, objective manner. They saw everyone who disagreed with them as "opponents" rather than just acting like professionals.

1. Do you have scientific evidence that supports the models are subjective?

2. Do you have valid scientific evidence that supports your disagreement or is it merely politically biased heresay?

3. Email exchanges refuting their findings are meaningless if those emails aren't based upon opposing scientific evidence.

I remember there were arguments during the Iraq war that Tony Blair's administration was guilty of "sexing up" the argument for WMD in Iraq, after have already deciding that they were in beforehand. Well, thats what conservatives are accusing them of doing re: climate change in this case. "Sexing up" an argument that isn't supported but was decided before hand. Nobody I know of is claiming falsification or anything that could be objectively labeled "misconduct". Just playing politics with science.

Not sure how science compares to iraq war... war is entirely political.

lastly, Where is your evidence of "sexing up" an argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DPyro

Right, global climate change is a conspiracy by the United States Government. :alien:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stup0t

Just throwing this out but would climate change effect earth quakes, seems to be a lot of them recently and even in england which I have never known it from birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spudtrooper

Just because a 'the Inspector General' cleared him doesn't mean anything. The Office of the inspector general has been nothing but a joke since the termination of Inspector Generals that did not agree with the administration. There have been 2 that were terminated, who raised issues and challenged the current administration, and immediate dismissals were demanded by the President. The integrity of the office has been compromised.

politics isn't science..

Second, making things up have never been scientific. They adjusted the older temps because the equipment was not 'capable' of being accurate as current thermometers (this has been proven wrong). Temps centers have moved, but they still use the numbers, (example Cincinnati original source of temps was at fountain square, then moved to Luken airport (about 2.5 miles east and down in a valley, then to CVG, about 12 miles southwest in KY, and raised about 500 ft higher than either spot).

Normalization of data to eliminate spikes is nothing more than faking the numbers.

So what you're saying is that you know more than 95% of the scientists that agree with climate change?

Humans create only .1% of all global warming gases. The major Global Warming gase is not CO2, but H20, (H20 is several dozen times more effective at hold heat then CO2) but they discount its effect on the environment because it cannot be controlled.

You're ignoring the measurements of pre-industrial & post industrial co2 emission measurements, the increase thereof and the measured environmental changes and impacts noted through these periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

I was always taught that when you a study have an open mind, yet Mike did not, and the only real outcome is the money he got for the studies and BS data he posted.

Open mind != ignorance, Open mind = acceptive of the data you collected.

And honestly ICE CORE SAMPLE DATA was a joke, they made estimated on how old it was at different layers, and to top it off, there was aluminum from a crashed ww2 airplane found at the 1000 year mark. The missing B-17 in Greenland was also discovered under ?1500 years of ice and snow?. If they are that much off, how good can be the data, Garbage in Garbage out.................

That is just plane wrong :) There were a few missing aircraft recoverd in greenland. My Gal Sal was on ice, just frozen since ww2 and there was a squadran of 6 aircraft lost that was under 260 feet of snow, but that was pre ww2 and figuring in annual snow fall, drift and accumulation, ice core sample data is irrelevent. Did you get your story from "answers in genesis" or something?

Just throwing this out but would climate change effect earth quakes, seems to be a lot of them recently and even in england which I have never known it from birth.

Nope..

Earth quakes happen a lot, our planet is very much dynamic. The only thing that has changed is almost instant global communications which means we know more about a little bit of everythingt han we could have ever known just 10 - 15 years ago. It only appears as if we have more earthquakes than normal because we know about them more and have more ways to collect and analyse them than ever before.

Statistically speaking though, we have been pretty lucky with how quiet things actually are (earth quake / super volcano / erruption wise)

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent

Just throwing this out but would climate change effect earth quakes, seems to be a lot of them recently and even in england which I have never known it from birth.

No plate tectonics drive earth quakes, always has and always will, Jupiter's moon Io is a prime example

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Again, has CO2 output from the ocean substantially increased in the past 200 years?

You are forgetting that the CO2 output of the ocean is roughly equal to the CO2 consumption, so the net CO2 "produced" from the ocean is null.

According to his own evidence graphic, the oceans absorb slightly more co2 than it releases, giving a net reduction of co2.

And honestly ICE CORE SAMPLE DATA was a joke, they made estimated on how old it was at different layers, and to top it off, there was aluminum from a crashed ww2 airplane found at the 1000 year mark. The missing B-17 in Greenland was also discovered under ?1500 years of ice and snow?. If they are that much off, how good can be the data, Garbage in Garbage out.................

And what happens when a plane crashes in ice ? First it sinks a little, then the sun, warms up the dark metal airplan and it sinks. Your anti proof is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spudtrooper

Deforestation and ecological systems have nothing to do with temperature of the Earth, but I believe those things are being ignored because "climate change" can be attributed to EVERYBODY while only multinational corporations in bed with governments are responsible for actual landmass destruction.

Deforestation and Ecological systems have absolutely everything to do with CO2 sequestration. They're part of the ecosystem that help even the oceans sequestor co2.

Do you see now how you are being deceived?

And you think climate change supporters don't see the issues of corporate and state mismanagement? hah

Link to post
Share on other sites
bj55555

GW deniers keep recycling the same cr@p that's been refuted over and over again as if they came up with some new angle that they think literally thousands of Ph.D. scientists overlooked in their research. When scientists propose a new hypothesis, they don't need mental midgets with high school science backgrounds to be the skeptic. It's the job of scientists to rip apart the work of other scientists. Anything you can possibly fathom to discredit the findings of the scientific community has already been considered by the scientific community, and they were the ones to consider it first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HSoft

..... 95% of the scientists that agree with climate change?

Where on earth did you get that figure from? Carbon Dioxide polluted air?

There are tonnes of scientists who don't agree with the global warming theories :-

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Over 31000 signed this petition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bj55555

Where on earth did you get that figure from? Carbon Dioxide polluted air?

There are tonnes of scientists who don't agree with the global warming theories :-

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Over 31000 signed this petition.

That's "scientists" in quotes. Frederick Seitz stopped being a scientist long ago. Any movement that cites material from the Discovery Institute loses any scientific credibility immediately and should be soundly ridiculed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spudtrooper

Where on earth did you get that figure from? Carbon Dioxide polluted air?

There are tonnes of scientists who don't agree with the global warming theories :-

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Over 31000 signed this petition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

oism.org pproject was founded by Arthur B. Robinson, a republican (hah), who also started a signatory against Darwinism.

ughhh.. fail fail fail fail fail

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent

Where on earth did you get that figure from? Carbon Dioxide polluted air?

There are tonnes of scientists who don't agree with the global warming theories :-

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Over 31000 signed this petition.

I worked across the street from the Discovery Institute for years in downtown Seattle, i watched them be humiliated in the dover trials and see them and michael behe go down in flames, they're a think tank of fundamentalists who cant bring anything to the table to support their beliefs. they're not science, they're idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HSoft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

oism.org pproject was founded by Arthur B. Robinson, a republican (hah), who also started a signatory against Darwinism.

ughhh.. fail fail fail fail fail

Just as much as anything from the IPCC is fail fail fail fail.

Their main goal is wealth redistribtuion from the west to third world countries.

Edit:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007?s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming ?consensus? -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spudtrooper

Just as much as anything from the IPCC is fail fail fail fail.

Their main goal is wealth redistribtuion from the west to third world countries.

Edit:

hahaah thanks, i needed a laugh..

You do realize that wealth is meaningless if the climate can't support our species right?

What are your reasons for denying climate change? and please, spare me the conservapedia talking points. Do you also deny evolution like the people you quoted before?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HSoft

hahaah thanks, i needed a laugh..

You do realize that wealth is meaningless if the climate can't support our species right?

What are your reasons for denying climate change? and please, spare me the conservapedia talking points. Do you also deny evolution like the people you quoted before?

I listed reasons earlier. planet is cooling, not warming according to NASA findings, Recent findings stating more heat escaping etc. etc. Read previous post.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

.

Quote from a scientist :-

What ordinary sensible people call "the air", environmentalists call "greenhouse gases." Carbon dioxide represents barely 0.038% of the atmosphere! The primary elements are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (20.95%).

Or how about this one regarding the IPCC :-

On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Z?rcher Zeitung (translated) that ?climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth?

This has nothing to do with "conservapedia" (is that even a word?) talking points. It's to do with the fact that Global Warming isn't recognized scientific fact. There are many who disagree with it. Kind of like the whole earth going into an ice age back in the seventies I believe it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin
What ordinary sensible people call "the air", environmentalists call "greenhouse gases." Carbon dioxide represents barely 0.038% of the atmosphere! The primary elements are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (20.95%).

This is a fairly crude analysis, but the numbers are more or less correct.

If you crunch the partial pressures and densities, you work out that the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approximately 3.2*10^15 kg. Fairly trivial compared to the rest of the atmosphere. After all, it's only 0.04%ish.

We produce approximately 3*10^13kg of CO2 per year.

Assuming none of it gets fixed (Forests are very good for fixing CO2, by the way. Someone above said something about deforestation and ecosystems having nothing to do with the climate. Hogwash.), we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1%, just from our own emissions, every year. That is actually fairly substantial, when you think about what that actual means.

Keep in mind that those emissions are on top of what naturally gets dumped into the atmosphere.

In one decade, we've emitted one tenth as much CO2 as there is in the atmosphere. That is a fairly huge number.

So, I don't know exactly what point you were trying to convey with that quote, but I'm not sure it is what you think it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bj55555

Quote from a scientist :-

What ordinary sensible people call "the air", environmentalists call "greenhouse gases." Carbon dioxide represents barely 0.038% of the atmosphere! The primary elements are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (20.95%).

Ozone makes up 0.000004% of the atmosphere. Are you going to deny the impact that that small percentage of the atmosphere has on the inhabitants of the Earth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakem1

Arguing with Worthington is like arguing with a brick wall.

Yeah, an incredibly stupid brick wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus

"conservapedia" (is that even a word?) talking points.

Yes, yes it is.

It's to do with the fact that Global Warming isn't recognized scientific fact. There are many who disagree with it. Kind of like the whole earth going into an ice age back in the seventies I believe it was.

There are relatively few who disagree with it.

"1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97?98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

That's 98% of people specialising in climate research in complete agreement. What, exactly, is your definition of a consensus? Because 98%, imho, would be it.

What ordinary sensible people call "the air", environmentalists call "greenhouse gases." Carbon dioxide represents barely 0.038% of the atmosphere! The primary elements are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (20.95%).

Lol,

. CO2: we call it life.

Hell, even I'm willing to admit humans have quite probably had an impact on the climate due to CO2 emissions and I don't give a crap about the environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amarok

Personally I don't deny climate change, and I don't even deny that humans have had some sort of impact on it, but I think that impact is grossly exaggerated.

I'm sorry, but scientific evidence has no relevence to political leanings.

In a perfect world this would be true, but the imperfect world we have sadly scientific findings are often skewed to fit a political agenda. Not even just a political agenda, it's done in advertising and marketing all the time. Scientific data by itself is pure and impartial but is often presented to the common person in a way that's very misleading. It's not a problem with science it's a problem with humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
s1k3sT
It?s not often you can actually say "case closed", but in this case it?s literally true: climatologist Michael Mann has been cleared of all wrongdoing by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

People actually think the National Science Foundation has no interest in perpetuating the agw theory?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihilus
Personally I don't deny climate change, and I don't even deny that humans have had some sort of impact on it, but I think that impact is grossly exaggerated.

A lot of people think this, I think mainly because it isn't a big deal right now. The problem is that it will be a big deal in the future, and there is a limit to the extent to which we could possibly adapt to survive.

http://www.pnas.org/...07/21/9552.full

To quote from the above article: heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation (...) Any exceedence of 35??C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals (...) With 11?12??C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed.

7.4?C is the upper limit for the median global temperature increase predicted by this MIT study, so by the end of this century parts of the world will be uninhabitable by humans. Since temperatures won't stop rising in 2100 I think that's a big deal, since this isn't something that can be avoided. Pretty big deal IMHO, given that "this study conservatively projected the survival limit for persons who are out of the sun, in gale-force winds, doused with water, wearing no clothing, and not working".

(I think that MIT study is the best current model, but I'm unsure. Also, it's counting economic factors and human CO2 emissions as variables, so that low 3.5?C increase is assuming that CO2 emissions are lowered.)

In a perfect world this would be true, but the imperfect world we have sadly scientific findings are often skewed to fit a political agenda. Not even just a political agenda, it's done in advertising and marketing all the time. Scientific data by itself is pure and impartial but is often presented to the common person in a way that's very misleading. It's not a problem with science it's a problem with humanity.

I think if you go to the effort of reading the papers that the articles refer to you can expect to cut through the political BS.

Personally I'm of the opinion that this change is somewhat unavoidable, and that trying to change it by personally cutting your carbon emissions is a futile and worthless act. Also, since I live in the UK, even a rise of 12?C would be unlikely to threaten me or any of my descendants, however it seems a little short-sighted of countries like America and China to ignore climate change issues when they could be hastening the rate at which large swathes of their country become inhospitable wastelands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.