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'
Whether you consider it reasonable or not, we are under no obligation to you to do anything. If we choose not to buy what someone is selling, we choose not to buy. We owe them no 'explanation' of any sort.
Then I am also a illogical nutcase with no intelligence. how sad for me
which is why you're called deniers rather than skeptics.
your reading comprehension is that of a 5 year old. That link says nothing about MY opinion, and is merely a collation of denialist movements in recent history, and what they have had in common.
Reading comprehension? So my reading comprehension where you said:
And then, after grouping creationists, 911 conspiracy theorists, and holocaust deniers in with global warming spectics, you said:
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.
So, after grouping these groups together and then linking to a link that said the same thing, you are saying that you aren't insinuating anything by what you said?
Because you certainly seemed quick enough to link to something that supported you when questioned about it.
Spare me your bullshit.
The insult is a cute touch. Somebody is struggling to make a point...
Im not “insinuating” anything. I am outright stating that those ‘movements’ (if we can call them that) have plenty in common with regards to their tactics when confronted with overwhelming evidence or a scientific consensus with which they disagree.
I said nothing about “people that disagree with me are nutcases”, which is what you originally stated. Are we following now? Wasn’t THAT hard was it!?
Nope. It's why you call me a denier. You can try to circumscribe the boundaries of the discussion & stereotype people if you wish, but doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to you.
So someone who is arguing the existence of global warming spent a lot of money on their house to make it 0-emissions?...although the correct term is to be "carbon neutral" seeing as most homes' emissions levels are already low and most emissions from home energy comes from their fuel source and not the home itself. Hence why we need government regulation in certain areas that public interest can't change. I'm not talking about putting a gun to peoples' heads. There is a big difference. Certain levels of regulation are needed. That doesn't make government big or socialistic or any of that. Sometimes it is simply needed. For example when CAFE regulations stay the same for 30 years and the auto industry does nothing to improve MPG for their fleets (then the auto industry collapses and begs for bailout money)...I digress...
Anyways, back to my point. You mention that you made your house "0-emissions". Why? Since you say that there is no scientific fact showing that carbon emissions cause harm to the planet, why go through all the lengths to reduce your emissions? I just find that odd, like you aren't telling us something. Why go through all these posts on a forum to dispute global warming, but then claim that your home is "0-emissions". Not "environmentally-friendly" or "made from recycled materials", but "0-emissions"...meaning that you claim there to be some benefit from reducing the emissions levels that people are putting out.
The correlation between CO2 and temperature is thus: When temperatures rise, CO2 follows.
Follows, not leads. Look at the core samples, each one of them says the same damn thing. The earth warms, life forms flourish, the oceans release more gases, and CO2 rises as a result.
Funny thing how there are a so many "expert" climatologists saying that exact same idiocy when the average dickface on the internet can find out it's wrong, isn't it? Gore went one better and flipped the graph, he really is a douchebag.
Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.
He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."
He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."
A report in the Mail on Sunday said that Latif's results "challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs" and "undermine the standard climate computer models". Monday's Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph repeated the claims.
The reports attempted to link the Arctic weather that has enveloped the UK with research published by Latif's team in the journal Nature in 2008. The research said that natural fluctuations in ocean temperature could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. In particular, the study concluded that cooling in the oceans could offset global warming, with the average temperature over the decades 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 predicted to be no higher than the average for 1994-2004. Despite clarifications from the scientists at the time, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, the study was widely misreported as signalling a switch from global warming to global cooling.
The Mail on Sunday article said that Latif's research showed that the current cold weather heralds such "a global trend towards cooler weather".
It said: "The BBC assured viewers that the big chill was was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming. The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view."
Not according to Latif. "They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."
He said the ocean temperature effect was similar to other natural influences on global temperature, such as volcanos, which cool the planet temporarily as ash spewed into the atmosphere reflects sunlight.
"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it." Other scientists have questioned the strength of the ocean effect on overall temperature and disagree that global warming will show the predicted pause.
Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions."
The recent articles are not the first to misrepresent his research, Latif said. "There are numerous newspapers, radio stations and television channels all trying to get our attention. Some overstate and some want to downplay the problem as a way to get that attention," he said. "We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein's theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
I have quite a few problems with this line of thinking, Mumbles.
What was the "scientific consensus" back in the 1700's? The world was flat. You live in a country that scientifically shouldn't exist... How is that so?
Consensus means nothing. Truth through observation is the only realm of reason here. And my observations see that it is shaping up to be one of the coldest winters the northern hemisphere has seen for a long time. Not to mention "global warming" is no longer the term of choice, now its "climate change" Why are they blurring the lines?
And what of this making money off a belief? What about making money off a theory?
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/05/05/al-gore-to-become-worlds-first-global-warming-billionaire/
Gore has made more money off this global warming crap than Madof stole from investors.... And what has he to show for it? What has he done to help?
I view this climate change "science" as a religion because it acts just like one, only worse.
A theory is only plausible until I myself have seen the evidence to support it. I simply cannot trust organizations, governments and scientists with hidden agendas. And I don't see the evidence, I only see numerous counts of fraud, mishandling information, or gross negligence.
ill add to this that its funny how CFC's and the Ozone Layer problem havent been heard from in many years...
im pretty sure ive asked this before and it hasnt been answered: we've been taking reliable climate data for what? maybe 100 years? and even then only in America and Britain and a few other places, not even the whole globe...
and before 100 years what happened?
we're basing all this fire and brimstone on 100 years of data... and like SivCorp said: in the 1700's the world was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth... consensus is just a more sophisticated version a schoolyard popularity contest, and its evident in everything humans do...
You're um... off... by centuries...
Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, it rhymes yah? Also, it's yet more misinformation in our schools that he was proving the world round. Everyone already knew it was round, that tard thought it was smaller and he could get to India faster the long way around.
The two above said it nicely.
What I was saying went straight above Mumbles and Raistlin, but by reading history, you'd find that people in the past fought tooth and nail over change. I wouldn't be surprised if the major scientists in the past had the exact same conversation with people who blindly followed a consensus.
lol, you DO know why this is don't you? because the world listened to the scientific consensus regarding CFCs (because getting rid of them was a damned-sight easier than getting rid of CO2) and industry/manufacturing started using different chemicals in their aerosols and refrigerators etc. the ozone layer is repairing because we don't use CFCs anymore.
this is common knowledge.
Why are you always wrong? I know you're running off things you've heard, but can't you at least have looked something up just once in your life?
The damage from CFC's continues big time, it was just so absurdly exaggerated that no one pays attention anymore. The impact from CFC's was at it's height in the late 90's, we're still up near peak damage right now, it wont be back down to 1980 levels for another 40 years. They take a very, very long time to circulate through the atmosphere, only a small percentage of the CFC's are taken up by the polar vortex over Antarctica. They only break down and become ozone depleters when exposed to high levels of UV, which only happens in the stratosphere to any real degree. That heavy molecule can't get up there in significant quantities any other place. Damage in the troposphere is limited to the ten percent of the ozone that's in it.
Do CFC's do damage? Yes. If we had done ten times the damage, we'd still not have accomplished anything drastic though. We'd just have a really big hole over Antarctica and a decent sized one over the North Pole. By the way, that's a good thing if you're worried about global warming.
Whoa there. This pretty much contradicts what you've said about "complicated science." Only the experts are fit to understand such complex phenomena.
how does that contradict anything that i said? we don't use CFC's anywhere near the rate we used to, and since then the ozone layer is repairing, albeit really slowly.
The rate of ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere is slowing, suggesting for the first time the global ban on the production and release of damaging industrial gases is having an effect.A team led by Professor Michael Newchurch, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA, analysed measurements of atmospheric ozone and greenhouse gases taken from three NASA satellites and three international ground stations.They found that ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere - the layer of the atmosphere between 35 and 45 km above the ground - has been slowing since 1997. Their results are to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. Ozone is a damaging pollutant near the ground, but in the stratosphere, it shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun and cosmic rays from space, all of which can cause skin cancers.In the 1980s, scientists detected for the first time an ozone hole forming over Antarctica each August, eventually breaking up by December or January. Another hole was discovered over the Arctic - both regions vulnerable to ozone damage. Scientists eventually showed that chlorine released in the upper atmosphere from chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs - chemicals used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants - were destroying this ozone layer. The three scientists - Mario Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland, and Paul Crutzen - jointly won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their finding.Released into the atmosphere, CFC molecules 'percolate' into the upper atmosphere. As they rise, ultraviolet light breaks them up, releasing chlorine which goes on to break ozone molecules down to its constituent oxygen molecules.The discovery eventually led to an international ban on CFC-based products, a ban which Newchurch said his findings show is paying off. "We can say that what we're doing is working, and we should continue the ban [on CFCs]," he said. But there is still cause for concern, he added.Ozone is still being lost from the stratosphere. And the amount of chlorine - the chemical that which does the damage in that layer of the stratosphere - has not yet peaked, though it has slowed down significantly. When chlorine levels do peak and then begin to fall, ozone levels should continue to rise, said Newchurch. However, the amount of ozone in the upper stratosphere - where the rate of loss is slowing - is small compared to the total amount of ozone in the stratosphere as a whole."We don't see compelling evidence that the destruction of ozone is slowing in the lower stratosphere, where 80% of the protective ozone layer exists," said Newchurch.In the lower stratosphere, the layer of atmosphere between about 20 and 35 km up, the threat to the ozone layer comes not just from chlorine but also from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Best known for their warming effect on the lower atmosphere, these greenhouse gases have the reverse effect on the stratosphere, said Newchurch. Here, they radiate heat out to space, cooling the lower stratosphere. This cooling changes wind and air mixing patterns in a way that can increase ozone depletion, especially at high latitudes - although the effect tends to be mitigated in part by the fact that cooling slows the rate at which ozone is degraded into oxygen - so cooling has both good and bad effects on ozone depletion.Unfortunately, it is proving easier to ban aerosols and refrigerants containing CFCs than to impose meaningful greenhouse gas emission restrictions on an energy-hungry world, he commented.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s914411.htm
Your entire argument against skepticism of AGW is little more than your claim that only "experts" are qualified enough to doubt the findings of the scientific community. You then claim that the science and status of CFCs falls under common knowledge. Please reconcile this contradiction.
Are laypeople capable of understanding complex natural phenomena, or not?
i wasn't talking to you.
but since you asked, it is "common knowledge" that damage to the ozone layer has lessened, even receded, since we stopped using CFCs, because scientists like professor michael newchurch have published such findings for all of us to see. Just as the fact that CO2 causes warming is "common knowledge" because thousands of scientists have published thousands of documents in peer-reviewed scientific journals, for all of us to see.
note that this second part of my question has yet to be answered
nor did Raistlin answer Melchiz's question adequately... the signature of a person without the answers
lol, where did i pretend to have all the answers? but since its been asked
without doing the requisite study themselves, i find the proposition highly unlikely. it doesn't mean its not possible, not by a longshot. however a layman's opinions are largely irrelevant to ANY scientific debate unless they're published and put through the same rigourous scrutiny as the theories or ideas they are seeking to contradict or replace.
lol, where did i say all? and you still havent answered the second part of my original question...
i dont put much stock in whats been 'published' simply because everyone has their price... let me clarify, i dont want to sound like a crack-pot conspiracy nut, but simply because someone went through university and got a piece of paper saying something, and then said some words that means some things, doesnt mean as much as we make it out to... everyone has their price or at least their own agendas...
and if getting published and some sort of recognition means writing about the popular subject, i reckon thats hwat they'll write about
i agree with you...to a point. the problem in the context of AGW research, is that there is SO much supporting evidence, coming from thousands and thousands of people, scattered all over the globe. imo, there should be a MUCH bigger collection of scientific studies pouring cold water (if you'll pardon the pun) on such research, because there is a ridiculous amount of vested interest involved. if you really do think that "everyone has their price" why haven't the fossil fuel industry been able to provide competing analysis? surely they have the funds to produce such research? where is it?
and you have to appreciate that getting published is like painting a bullseye on your ass in terms of people wanting to undermine your findings, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about a subject like climate change. if vested interests, "sceptics" etc are unable to put a dent in such research, i find the assertion that there's "something funny" going on at the heart of climate science to be lacking any evidentiary support.
therefore, i have a question for you. exactly how much consensus, research or evidence would be required for you to entertain the notion that human activity is affecting the climate? i mean, that IS the point of scepticism, isn't it? to remain cautious until a suitable amount of evidence is provided to convince you?
so, what WOULD convince you, given that our best efforts to understand what's going on apparently arent enough at this point in time?
thats a lovely statement, because i can now go back to my first point:
Prove to me how maybe 100 years of (sketchy?) data qualifies as a wide enough base to map a change of the climate of a planet thats many billions of years old...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
