So, the truth has finially come out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result. This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker
Seriously, has science died? What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information? What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?
Thoughts?
--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---
Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)
Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.
- Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...
- More errors in report?
- Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'
According to GW alarmists we are the problem.
It seems true like Fuzzy Logic suggests with his post on the possible change of the gulf current that there will likely be a lot of unforseeable changes to weather patterns but with more energy in the thin biome we inhabit there will most likely be oppurtunity for a greater abundance of both plant and animal life.
Also JuleTron perhaps we our doing are descendants a favour by unlocking the hydrocarbon that the earth has sequestered in inanimate form. All this carbon is now available to the biome so will make more likely that there will be a greater abundance of living mass that the increased energy may allow. Thus new forests may flourish in the future that are more abundant than any in recorded history.
What I do not understand is why scientests fear an increase in the total thermal energy of 6 degrees centigrade. For at the time that this is estimated to possible occur it is easily forseeable that everyone could live to the living standards of the west. And that a significant part of employment could easily be from correctly stewarding the enviroment.
The biggest problem about this Global Warming debate is that to have an informed opinion one must make a sustained effort to be informed.
What I was getting at in my post was that Australia puts a reasonable upperbound on co2 emissions according to its circumstances. A large land area, a sparse population, lots of ocean that acts as a natural co2 sink. And most importantly also will likely sequester co2 in plant life at the rate that is emitted.
To the op, the link in the first post is to nytimes.com requiring registration to view. I assumed that the content of the page was the stolen emails. I do not think they invalidate the notion that co2 emissions from fossil fuels may alter the climate. As you will infer from this post I am not worried about the maximum estimated extant of global warming. We will thrive to point of controlling the ph of the ocean if required.
I'm a regular on Treehugger.com and one of the most popular topics is how do we, as a species encourage either our gradual extinction or at the very least, a massive decline in our population to help "the environment".
At various times in our planet's history, there have been species that have "polluted" far more than humans have. It's worth pointing out that the free oxygen in out atmosphere is, itself, the result of pollution from organisms.
People worry far too much about "the environment". The "environment" will be fine. What the fate of the species known as human will be I cannot say. One creature's pollution is another creature's treasure. Without the pollution of other species, we wouldn't have things like limestone or oil for that matter.
Perhaps the whole point of our species was for us to produce plastic for some future species to make use of.
Ooh I bet someone here has. I bet I've spent a fraction. We're doing green server farms. More teraflops for less wattage. I admit, though, saving the environment may not be the primary incentive. Our electric bill runs--well--let's just say we could buy a number of servers for what we're spending in electricity. The TCO makes sense. Getting to tell our surrounding community that we're doing our part is a bonus.
Anybody with logical thinking could tell global warming is a hoax. It's just an engineered propaganda machine to further tax the worlds population, that's why its all over the schools now teaching kids the sun is bad and carbon is evil and should be taxxed and that carbon is destroying our atmosphere....They chose carbon for a reason, everything in existance has carbon, emits carbon or consumes carbon, it's the best resource to tax! Anyway, illuminati etc tldr.
Aye, I made that exact point a few pages ago but it went unpicked. It's a very unpopular idea that one, though I've never quite understood why...perhaps it has to do with the idea of the tree falling in the woods...that it truly cannot exist without a sentient audience, and that this will remain a privelage reserved for humanity.
I don't think that's it. I think that humanity as a whole doesn't want to believe that we will ever go extinct, or that anything "better" than us will ever come around. Because if we accept that, then the entirety of our history, our culture, out very existance is meaningless. No one would ever want to believe that our "purpose" is to die and become oil for some far-off civilization.
I still cannot understand how people can be in denial about global warming. If you don't believe scientists, look at the information for yourself.
In ice cores dating back 750,000 years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been greater than 280ppm. It is currently 386ppm.
Ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate. The western ice shelf of Antarctica is reducing (though the eastern is increasing) and the north polar ice cap is smaller than has ever been.
Glaciers are melting all over the world. I've been visiting the pasterze glacier in Austria for the last ten years. It has shrunk by a noticable amount in that time - I have photographic evidence! Glacier National Park has 27 glaciers where it used to have 150; the actual reduction in ice mass there is 83%.
And the 'hockey stick'. Well, here are my own trends taken from records I've been keeping since 1976 - look familiar?
WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN YEAR LONG TERM TREND Ave °C RAIN Ave °C RAIN Ave °C RAIN Ave °C RAIN Ave °C RAIN 1976 +1.1 N/A -0.1 76% +2.4 24% -0.8 128% +0.2 75% 1977 -1.7 175% -0.5 90% -0.6 85% +0.5 97% -0.2 114% 1978 -0.5 107% -0.2 94% -0.8 108% +1.8 56% -0.2 102% 1979 -3.1 164% -1.0 211% +0.4 76% +0.4 85% -0.7 128% 1980 -0.4 146% -0.1 65% -0.9 197% -0.2 100% -0.3 118% 1981 +0.1 123% +0.1 183% +0.1 75% +0.0 118% -0.4 130% 1982 -2.0 64% -0.1 73% -0.4 173% -0.0 118% -0.3 104% 1983 -0.4 91% -1.3 165% +1.3 76% -0.1 117% +0.0 117% 1984 -0.1 157% -0.8 64% +0.6 71% +0.3 149% -0.1 103% 1985 -1.3 48% -0.8 102% -1.4 121% -0.5 64% -0.9 86% Average 13 years to 1988 1986 -1.6 113% -1.4 137% -1.4 99% -0.4 83% -1.2 113% 1987 -0.6 94% -0.4 95% -1.0 141% -0.7 117% -0.6 103% Ave °C RAIN1988 +0.9 115% -0.2 99% -0.8 151% -0.7 100% -0.1 117% -0.4 109%1989 +2.5 57% +0.2 110% +0.7 112% +0.6 66% +0.8 97% 1990 +1.8 170% +1.4 42% +0.4 74% +0.1 89% +0.9 93% 1991 -0.9 114% +0.4 73% -0.3 83% +0.2 73% -0.1 78% 1992 +0.9 45% +1.2 73% -0.0 138% -1.2 101% +0.1 89% 1993 +0.7 57% +0.5 86% -1.0 98% -2.1 97% -0.4 92% 1994 -0.1 126% -0.1 96% +0.4 49% -0.0 129% +0.2 95% 1995 +1.3 119% +0.2 69% +1.6 32% +1.1 68% +0.7 69% 1996 -1.3 77% -1.3 67% +0.1 70% -0.4 94% -0.7 80% 1997 -0.1 79% +1.2 67% +0.8 154% +0.3 65% +0.8 91% 1998 +2.3 66% +0.9 122% -0.6 110% -0.2 126% +0.6 103% Average 13 years to 2001 1999 +1.3 69% +1.5 114% +0.4 99% +1.0 101% +1.0 104% 2000 +1.2 103% +0.6 138% -0.0 84% +0.2 181% +0.6 125% Ave °C RAIN2001 +0.3 105% -0.2 93% +0.3 99% +0.9 78% +0.2 86% +0.4 92%
Records for the early part are close to the long term average for my local official station, records for which go back to 1890.
You start out talking about global warming and then talk about CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Green house gasses trap eat. We all agree on this.
That doesn't mean going from 280 parts per MILLION to say 500 parts per million is going to have a noticeable effect on worldwide temperature.
There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 at 1000 parts per million would be able to affect global temperatures.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't. Heck, for all we know 350ppm is the tipping point to switch the earth's climate into a permanent long term temperature increase.
But then again, that's the difference between skepticism and "denial".
I'm not a religious person. I'm not religious because I'm skeptical about the evidence that there is a sentient super being. And yet, I get less abuse from "true believers" about being agnostic than I do from climatists about being skeptical about AGW.
Whatever religion you want to adhere to whether it be Christianity or Climatism, I say more power to you. Where I start to object is when you want to get your hands on the levers of political power to force your views on me and access to my wallet.
However the fact that it was reasonable and fair made the biases that were introduced that more subtle and insidious. Take for example the introduction of the graph early in the article that shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA). The article doesn’t discuss much specifically about this graph however anyone looking at the graph would notice the large temperature increase during the MWP and corresponding decrease during the LIA.
Of course nothing is mentioned about the fact that although pretty much everyone agrees that there was a MWP it’s also true that everyone pretty much agrees that the MWP was not a global event but was in fact limited to only some regions of the northern hemisphere, predominately costal regions surrounding the North Atlantic ocean.
A similar argument applies to the LIA which again was a regional event, not a global event. The regional graph of temperatures with exaggerated MWP and LIA is simply presented as factual with little discussion so when the MBH1999 graph listed right after this shows virtually no corresponding MWP increase or LIA decrease the uneducated reader’s automatic response is “how can this be right”?
Of course no mention is made of the fact that what MBH1999 and all similar graphs display is a “global average temperature.” Clearly you can’t point to the temperature in the Sahara 40 years ago and say that because that’s warmer than the temperature in Boston last Tuesday that therefore proves that the Earth is not warming. Neither can you simply take the temperature in Boston 40 years ago and compare it to the temperature in Boston on that same day 40 years later and make any reasonable conclusion. Global warming is a global problem not simply a regional problem and while temperature streams from any one region are useful they are by no means the complete story.
Add to that the fact that the MBH1999 chart is introduced with the caption, “Wow!” Science-y!” Hardly a neutral introduction of a chart that is in fact accepted as the scientific consensus opinion of working scientists in the field.
Before leaving the regional graph of temperatures with exaggerated MWP and LIA I want to point out two lies that further mislead. One is the implication by the regional graph that temperatures in the MWP were warmer than they currently are today. Again what you’re comparing is the temperature from a specific region to a global average temperature; this is comparing apples to oranges.
In fact based on MBH1999 along with dozens of other reconstructions we know that it is warmer today that it was during the MWP.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/mwp/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg/image_large
The second lie that is mentioned in conjunction the regional graph is that the LIA ended in 1950. In actuality the accepted end of the LIA is that it ended in 1850. That’s only 100 years different which is not all that big a deal on the timescales being discussed here but it does plant the seed in the readers mind that their own anecdotal experience that it’s warmer today than it used to be during their childhood is merely the result of the climate returning to it’s nominal values after being so recently depressed by a temporary event.
So the article goes on from there. For one thing the article is tainted with all sorts of derisive comments way too numerous to fully recount. Such phrases as “settled science”, “foul play”, “a delicate, wobbly, equilibrium balance”, “silly you”, “J-school stunted math skills”, “brainiac”, “puny simian mind”, “au contrarie!” and “garbage data” permeate the discussion.
Of course he also adds a snide comment or two related to other standard and debunked skeptic talking points to further muddy the issue knowing full well that it would take another full paper or two to fully address but will add just that much more doubt into those that haven’t heard these claims before.
Then the article gets down to the real work but at each step it pretty much derides the step with the unspoken but well illustrated idea that there’s something untoward going on and/or that it’s unnecessarily complex. What’s particularly interesting is how the author introduces the idea of Principal Components, casts doubt and incredulity on it but then finally mentions that there’s nothing nefarious about it.
Similarly in the conclusion of the article he says the following.
“Is there anything wrong with this methodology? Not in principle. In fact there's a lot to recommend it. There's a strong reason to believe that high resolution proxy variables like tree rings and ice core o-18 are related to temperature.”
But then he immediately follows this statement with the many times debunked McIntyre and McKitrick arguments. He then goes on to imply that this process is “rife for manipulation” with no proof whatsoever of any such manipulation.
In other words there is no new data or analysis in this article. Although it may have been written recently it could easily have been written in 2004 because nothing in that article other than the existence of climategate occurred after then.
Therefore my listing of several post-2004 “hockey stick controversy” debunking articles was entirely appropriate.
Also I did know that you had mentioned the RealClimate site and in fact fully acknowledge that your knowledge of the subject exceeds mine.
However you certainly know that you’re not arguing for my benefit just as I know that I’m not arguing for your benefit. Each of us is set in our opinion and there is nothing that either of us can say that will change the others opinion.
The real reason I posted those links was not because I was trying to change your mind or that I thought that you were unaware of them. I posted those articles for those that might read the thread that may still have an open mind. I assume that’s pretty much your intent as well.
As far as what to do about global warming I fully agree that's a perfect place for reasonable discussion. Just because I accept AGW that doesn't mean that there aren't wide variation in what the effects of it might be or what we can and should do about it.
I've gone on record as not being particularly in favor of Cap and Trade nor do I support anything that results in payments from developed countries to developing countries on the basis that we have been allowed to pollute and therefore should pay for them to not pollute.
I simply think it's far more productive to argue against these policies directly instead of making attacks against the basic science.
Hopefully this gets read having just discovered what TL;DR means.
Or we could switch over to the bio-fuels that were meant to be used in the first place. Go bio-degradeable plastic!
I read this post thinking it was a respectfully objective objection (lol) to Anthropocentric climatic shifts (global warming) but it turns out it's just your typical American blogger/poster that Screams "FOUL!@#!" citing pseudo-scientific claims by less-than reputable scientists.
Not intending to be rude man (seriously) but before you set the internet aflame with claims such as this, do your homework. There ARE reasonable objections or flaws that have been pointed out by many scientists, but in the end, Human-caused GBW is backed by numerous studies and findings that are easy to confirm are reproduce. Science.
The theory (theory being used in the scientific terminology) that the Earth is in the middle of a cooling cycle is generally accepted, due to it's testability and evidence. Dispite this, people argue that Earth's warming (by more than 5 C over 100 years) is caused by the cooling off after the KT extinction event, which is absurd. Clearly, this warming is the result of generally abnormal excesses in GreenHouse gasses (such as CO2 and Methane) created via volcanism, natural trans-mutation of elements, or man-made artifically-produced waste products. The previous two options did effect Earth in the past, and to some extent today, but the only reasonably large source of GHG's today is Human activity.
Before I cease ranting, one other pseudo-science claim needs debunking. Several people here have claimed that the sun is the cause of global warming on Earth...............lol. Guys, the sun's power output fluctuations are so negligible to Earth's climate, you may simply write them out of any equation to save time. The Solar maximum has to do with the natural shifting of the sun's magnetic fields as they spin around the sun's core, the temprature stays relativly constant. Even if the Sun were to increase suddenly in luminosity by 5% (a lot, considering that our star isn't a variable one) the global average temp would increase by about 5 Celsius. Yet no such change in the sun's luminosity has occured (aside from the natural gradual 10% icrease per 1.1 billion years) in recorded history, or in the past juding by rock and fossil samples, so there is no need to postulatre such things now.
Sorry 'bout the rant, but there you go
Biases tend to be in the eye of the beholder. When RealClimate.org started out, its left-wing ideology was much more on display but it hides it much better now but don't ever think it's some sort of objective source of data.
Re MWP.
The problem with the hockey stick graph is that it simply tries to hide the MWP. There is nothing remotely resembling a consensus regarding the mean average temperature in say 1200. The data we do have, however, indicates that it was warmer than it was today.
Moreover, as the article I mention shows as well as others have pointed out, biases has everything to do with figuring out what the temperatures were during that time. Which samples are used and which samples are tossed out are crucial.
As the Telegraph reported recently:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
The recovered emails showed that when it came to making use of tree rings for proxy data, CRU was very guilty of cherry picking which trees to use in order to get to the conclusion they wanted to show.
I thought that was pretty obviously a typo. I tend to be very wary of labeling people "liars".
And those articles, to me anyway, read much the same way as articles put up by Creationists that "prove" evolution is impossible.
The author took the actual data provided and demonstrated, step by step, how any user can create the hockey stick graph and decide for themselves whether it is valid or not.
AWG is not science. It's a hypothesis with a religious following.
Since 1998 when the infamous hockey stick graph came out, people have started to pay close attention and since then, surprise surprise, temperatures haven't been going up. Why is that?
The models produced in 1998 had temperatures significantly trending higher than they are now. I have some usenet posts from the early 1990s around here somewhere that argued that by 2007 there'd be no glaciers left at all.
Political kooks like myself were arguing this stuff 18 years ago (in college I did a fake ad for a global warming accelerator kit to speed up the process).
And here we are, 18 years later. CO2 is massively up but the predictions of doom haven't remotely come true.
I'm kind of glad global warming has gotten the attention it has because unlike past environmental crazes like running out of copper, tin, running out of food, etc. this one is likely to really be noticed when it turns out to be nonsense.
Kirbati was supposed to be overwhelmed by now. Remember Kirbati? The little Pacific island nation that, 9 years ago, was told would be gone by 2100 (according to the IPCC btw). They even had claimed that one of their islands was gone already. So people started paying attention. So how they doing? That's right, nothing has changed.
That's the pattern for climatists - they successfully got people to pay attention. And since then, every year makes it more and more obvious that there's a lot of nonsense involved with AWG.
It's been 11 years since the infamous hockey stick graph. How many years will it take to shake your faith? If by 2018 the earth's temperature remains pretty flat lined, are you still going to be amongst the faithful that the temperature is going to skyrocket, the icecaps will melt, the polar bears will die, the glaciers gone, tiny islands in the pacific under water?
Where do you draw the line on your faith?
Good post Frog.
Any if someone missed it, this is a good way to put things into perspective, and see how "unpreceeded" this warming is.
Thats part of the problem really, since the AGW hasnt setup any points which can be verified, it can never be falsified, something ALL science is based on. As such, it shouldnt even be classified as science!
So what if 1998 is still the warmest year on record (some argue it's 2005 but whatever), the 11 warmest years on record have all been within the last 13 years. (This is a little dated since it's from 2007 but still)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
The fact that each year is not necessarily monotonically increasing over each previous year is meaningless. The slow but steady increase of average global temperature about which our local environments fluctuate is obvious. Viewed as decades the 00's as are the warmest decade on record, followed by the 90's then the 80's. The trend is undeniable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400905.stm
If you want to claim that all of these things are going to be on the low side of current projections then I may not agree with you but I can't say that you're wrong nor do I believe anyone else can say you're wrong either. On the flip side while I also don't believe that the direst of predictions spouted by the most extreme AGW alarmist are likely I can't say that they are wrong nor do I believe that you or anyone else has necessarily proven them to be wrong. Personally I believe that the likely outcome will be somewhere close to the middle of these two extremes, however I acknowledge that this does in fact get into the realm of belief over true science.
My belief in AGW requires two simple things. One, that the global average temperature is rising, and secondly, that human activity is a primary cause of that rise. In my opinion that's pretty much where the scientific consensus ends. Once you get into the details of what, when, where and how then that delves more into the belief aspect.
I've seen predictions of anywhere between 1C to 7C rise by the end of this century. If it is indeed only 1C then I agree, what's the big fuss all about. If it's really 7C then we're totally fucked and there's nothing we can probably do about it anyway. But if as I suspect that it's likely to be in the middle part of this range then it's more likely we can actually do something about it. Even then like I said I don't necessarily want to go back to the stone age in the attempt. I think *reducing* CO2 from current level back to 350ppm is stupid even if that *is* the magic tipping point. But I would like to make the effort to try and hold at 450ppm. I don't think those kinds of levels are necessarily going to "wreck our economy" but if in fact it seems like they might then nothing is cast in stone. A cure is not much good if it causes more damage than the disease itself.
But as to your question I would say that if we get to 2019 and we don't have another new warmest year on record *and* the decade of the 10's turns out to be no warmer than the 00's or less then I expect that my opinion would still agree with the scientific consensus because in fact if that occurs I would expect that the scientific consensus would indeed have to change. However if for some reason these things occured *and* the scientific consensus didn't change with it then I probably would have to start believing in some sort of conspiracy theory.
So how about the reverse? If by 2019 we do have at least one new warmest year on record and the 10's turn out to be the warmest decade on record then will that change *your* belief system?
No. Because Evolution is a theory.
AWG is a hypothesis.
Big difference.
A theory can be tested. Predictions can be made that come true.
AWG hasn't been tested and every prediction thus far as failed.
It doesn't help matters when AWG proponents play games with their data reporting. For example, look at the chart you provide above. Suddenly, line graphs aren't good enough. Why is that? Because they would show temperature decline since 1998. So instead, we get bar graphs with "temperature difference".
The data we have in front of us is not really that complex:
The measured global temperatures since 1976 have increased slightly. They topped out in 1998 and have started to decline.
There is a "consensus" by politically connected scientists that humans are the cause "because". Because why? Because CO2 has gone up and CO2 is a green house gas and humans are putting a lot into the atmosphere.
Really? That's your argument? Yep. Pretty much it.
Okay then, so what do the people who scream about it the most do about it? Personally I mean. I'm spending $500k on green technology this year and I'm a skeptic. Geothermal. Check. Solar array. Check. Foam insulation everywhere. check. Total conversion to LED lighting. Check.
What are they doing? Jetting off to Copenhagen in private jets. Taking limos to events. Doesn't sound like they think it's that seriously.
I'm all for reducing our impact on the environment. Live by example. But that's the rub isn't it? The church of AGW requires lots of money. Money taken from us in the form of cap and trade, new regulation, etc. that just happens to give money to the people woh have a vested interest in AGW.
This has been my stance on AGW since Al Gore cashed his first stock certificate from a "green" company.
Been my stance s well.
I'm not denying global warming. But, I'm not supporting it. However, being environmentally-concious is always good to be, and the 'big names' seem extremely hypocritical. In addition, the plans at Copenhagen will just result in more taxes and additional oppression (Reducing personal freedoms, in this case). And generally, oppression results in inefficienchy. What I want is that the green industry becomes more profitable, in order to drive the economy and make environmentalism both more wide-spread and profitable.
More efficient and affordable is what it needs to be, not merely more profitable. Heck, the profit margin is probably already fairly high.
Is there any particular reason you leave off at 2001? After all, that is 8 years ago...
Odd to me that people call skepticism 'lies' when we're talking about 'reconstructions.'
A: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are higher now than in (some periods of) the past.
B: The global temperature is somewhat warmer now than in (some periods of) the past.
The hypothesis is that A is the cause of B. But mere association does not equal causation. The evidence supporting the hypothesis is thin (perhaps as thin as a single tree in Siberia), untestable, and based almost entirely on 'reconstructions' using 'proxy' data & iffy math. It was the divergence of recent measured temperatures from the proxy data 'reconstructions' that Mann needed to 'hide' - the idea that he was trying to hide a decline in actual temperatures is erroneous. They've leveled off, but not declined - the proxy-based reconstructions, on the other hand, showed a decline over the same interval. If widely acknowledged, this would put the reliability of all the proxy data in doubt. With the original raw data gone, we can't know how the proxy data were 'adjusted' or how to 'fix' the 'adjustments.'
Bet the farm on that? Think not.
Somehow a set of trees in Siberia (for all intents & purposes, a single tree) is representative of 'global' temperatures but Greenland ice cores only represent 'regional anomalies.' Oh, please.
But, the governments will do exactly that.
And the result will probably be a global depression and chaos - all for the sake of trying to 'fight Mother Nature'.
Personally, I think it would be better to spend that money helping people relocate to higher ground.
Even if all the ice melted, the loss of coastline real-estate would not be that high a percentage. And, it would almost certainly be cheaper and less painful than trying to reverse AGW in time, what with more countries developing and populations getting ever higher.
Or, I guess we could go the '1 child per couple' rule that some want to put into effect to reduce the global population. But even that would not reduce the pollution levels fast enough, since it would take at least a hundred years to see any kind of noticeable decline. And by then, according to the AGW crowd, we will all be either under water or burned alive.
The whole purpose of 'evolution' is adaptation. Isn't it?
If we can't adapt to our changing environment (whether caused purely by nature or through our intervention), then we don't deserve to survive.
Adaptation can come from only two directions. The first is purely genetic, the second is through intelligence.
Adapting through pure genetics would have us moving inland. Through intelligence, I would think the same.
I really find it funny that so many of the temperature graphs stop at 2001-2003, even 6-8 years later.
Even Fuzzy Logic's stops at 2001. Why?
Is it because the real data shows that the global temps are leveling off, or coming down in general?
Even if Fuzzy were to amend the data presented I wouldn't believe it, because it was omitted in the first place - which tells me something. It tells me that Fuzzy either stopped recording at that point, or that Fuzzy omitted the data because it contradicted the argument.
I also find it funny that the EPA has declared not just CO2 as a harmful greenhouse gas, but 5 others as well - some at least 1000 times more heat-retaining as CO2. Yet, CO2 is the main focus.
The substance that actually helps vegetation growth and the production of O2 seems to be the most targeted.
And through all of this, there is only a single degree or two (C) or so of variance overall in the actual directly measurable years.
Maybe you will find this interesting, maybe not.
Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/fancy.html
Basically, it is showing climate change based on the calcium deposits in the ice core.
Here is another link you may find interesting:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gispinfo.htm
The higher the calcium spike, the colder the climate.
What you might notice is that the earth has warmed quite a bit in recent centuries - as well as maintained a more constant temp. Much of the past was much colder, and not much was warmer (if any).
What caused the changes? Was it us and CO2? No!
The climate changed drastically without any human intervention!
So, what about AGW? Not that much, I would think.
You’re making the incorrect assumption that belief in one requires the other and that is most definitely not true. I believe the science of what is occurring I don’t necessarily buy the proposed political solution. You insist on combining these two separate things as if they are one in the same, they are not.
Our posts are not that disimilar really, cultivation of meaning is after all a symptom of sentience. Though I take your point on wanting to believe in a greater purpose than pre-condition, personally though I am yet to decipher one. As a species, we certaintly can't remember a beginning nor can we percieve an end, why not concede to a part in the middle? We are merely fruit of the earth are we not?
Except for scientologists of course.
Isn't this in all honesty the same type of idea that the Nazis had? And most other hate groups? The general idea of supermacy, and certain groups of humans being bad, so they must be exterminated?
No matter what you feel about the environment, when it comes to ideas of exterminating other humans, ideas with that kind of attitude have done nothing but caused wars (and in some cases, completely destroyed the environment).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
