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'
The same can be said about a lot of AGW opponents. Some do not have altruistic motives and are simply in it for the money.
So if neither of those prove or disprove AGW, what is it doing in a AGW debate? Why bring it up in the first place, like you did?
And there you go with the "religion" word again. And here I thought we were talking about science. The science which for 4 of your posts you have ignored. Can you please reply to my response about Antarctic ice melt? You have yet to respond to it.
There is global warming taking place in the solar system in general. It would be interesting to see how AGW followers are able to spin that bit of science. There are tons of articles on the Internets on this, here's one:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Another interesting scandal that is breaking is the fact that the AGW models ignore most other factors in their temperature analysis. In madagascar, they not only increase the temperature for UHI (when it indeed should be discounted), but they ignore the fact that deforestation cause an increase in temperature (totally ignoring it).
By ignoring all other factors, they are trying to associate man with warming, when all they are doing is throwing up smoke that is easily poked holes in. And so we have to wait until some credible science is re-employed to test the hypothesis and weed out the hysteria. The longer the AGW crowd does that, the longer it will take to get good science in to do the job correctly.
And the easier it will be to show them as fools.
I do agree that when we leave out ANY factor, as little as it might be, we do not have the exact global picture of what we want to simulate. On the other hand, have you ever tried to code a program that takes into account EVERY little detail? Approximations are part of every calculation a physicist makes, because it would be impossible (or rather, it would take longer than humanly possible) to calculate or simulate anything without making them. So even though we do not have the exact picture, in the end it is as close to it as it can get without taking ages (and by ages I do mean several years) to simulate.
Dr Guy, why is it that you continue to ignore my responses about Antarctic ice loss? As soon as you're proven wrong, you change the topic in hopes that it will get buried. You've ignored the statements about how sea level changes do nothing to show what the Antarctic ice situation looks like.
Hell, even Psychoak knows that sea based ice does nothing to sea levels...
You've also ignore the GRACE data that I presented which counters your claims as well. You did say that if I presented data sources you'd read them...
clonmac, I suspect you don't get a response from Dr Guy because sometimes there is no argument that will change a person's mind. The most futile debate possible is between people entrenched in their views. Your argument about the Antartic is hardly an iron clad showstopper. Antarctica ice may or may not be melting. Big deal. If the ice was growing instead of shrinking would you change your mind and be against the AGW movement? I doubt it.
Do you attribute global warming on a solar system scale to be AGW? (Btw, I don't expect a response)
Actually, if you've read the past posts, then you'd understand my argument. As I said in the past, the debate that I had about ice loss was irregardless of AGW. This was acknowledge by Dr Guy as well. My response (and how it all started) was when Dr Guy claimed that the Antarctic was not melting for the reasons he gave. I responded to show why that wasn't true. No connected ulterior motives or anything like that. I simply showed why it wasn't true.
And for the record, if there was a trend of about 10 years of cooling that, in turn, caused ice to rebuild around the globe, then yes I absolutely would seriously reconsider the theory of global warming. Actually, I wouldn't even need ice to rebuild (because that won't happen right away after a period of warming). But if temperatures were shown to cool for a decade, then yes I start to change my mind about it. I would still be against pollution in general, but I would begin to doubt CO2s effect on the environment.
And yes, there is pretty concrete evidence that shows the Antarctic as a whole has lost ice over the last decade. Whether that trend means anything is another debate that I had never entered.
The problem is when scientists manipulate data and suppress peer reviews for whatever reason. Many people formerly on the fence in regards to global warming simply don't trust them anymore. For all I know, we have been in a period of global cooling for the past 5 years but that is being covered up. In fact, the area where I live has cooled down over the past few years and that's empirical.
I agree. We cannot take into account the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa. However, a 90% deforestation in a specific area is not a minor factor. These are the types and magnitudes of factors that are being discounted when in fact they have a significant impact (not on climate change itself but on the data used to extrapolate trends).
That is the "minor" factors I am referring to (that and those similar). The challenge is daunting, but then so are the consequences of using bad science to set global policy.
DJ - no, the reason I am ignoring him is because he has failed to read or answer the questions and statements I posed to him, and then turned around and tried to play the victim. I will discuss and debate the issue with any honest person, not a mindless sycophant. And then not even reading what I wrote twice? I dont have to beat my head against a wall 3 times to realize that once set, some people will not read anything that does not conform to their religion.
As for the Ice, the studies show that the artic ice cap shrank significantly in 2007, but by 2009 had almost completely recovered (and since the summer of 2010 has not arrived, we dont know if the recovery has continued). This data is gathered and Maintained by the University of Illinois (the link is in a previous comment, I can repost if you like) who is the acknowledged foremost authority - not on AGW but - on the Artic Polar ice Cap. No one is denying that the ice cap shrank, and very few are denying it has recovered. The question is why - and so far, the only hypothesis with traction (since the temperatures did not increase or decrease significantly between 07 and 09) is due to AGW (or CO2) forces - trade winds.
Say what you want about me, but I am merely sticking with the debate, not with attacks.
Since your posting in reply #1161, I don't see any link to a University of Illinois study. If it was posted prior to that, then I apologize for missing it. The debate regarding Antarctic ice mass that I was involved in started at post #1161. I'd like to read it, so if you could link it again, that'd be appreciated. Because I have other sources (mainly the GRACE study) that has shown the opposite to be true. The opposite being that the southern ice cap is losing ice as a whole. I'd like to compare them to see what their methods are and why they are coming up with different results. This is what the GRACE study shows:
Hehehe, Pachauri seems to become a real burden for the IPCC, so he is gonna be expelled.
Furthermore the IPCC will probably undergo a major restructuring, as I've just read on the website ob the german CNN subsidiary. Especially to keep scientists as authors and industrial interests apart. Don't have the time to find a corresponding link to an english version atm., though.
Figures, doesn't it?
they are scrambling now....
CNN subsidiary - hehe..now there is a reliable source
Could you guys maybe argue about the same thing?
You can only miss the difference between Arctic and Antarctic so many times before you start looking like retards. Refuting each other with references to the opposite pole just doesn't work. Antarctica has lost a bit of ice(being a really large number in tonnage still makes the percentage of the total really, really small), the Arctic ice disappeared in a substantial manner, then came back. These are two different subjects, with two different causes. Antarctica has been steadily melting for twenty thousand years. You know, since we came out of the ice age...
It's a really big joke that CO2 would be warming Antarctica. Infrared is emitted by sources of heat. Go figure how the air over Antarctica is slowing down the escape of those infrared emissions...
Ya, I just realized his most recent post he mentioned the Arctic, but every single one of my posts I was talking about the Antarctic and same with most of his previous posts. I got bait and switched without realizing. I should've read that previous one more carefully. At one point we were both talking the Antarctic. Not sure why the previous one he switched to the Arctic.
...
Definitely much more reliable than FOX opiniotainment.
Psy - I quoted both poles (as the earth as 2 poles!), and showed where one had lost ice, and gained it mostly back (the north one). Then showed where the other one was not losing ice (static). now I will not argue it has never lost ice, but since we are talking AGW, and since AGW has only been happening (according to the advocates) for the last 30 years, that was the time period that was looked at. And in that time, there has been no appreciable loss of ice at the South Pole.
I cannot dictate what others argue, only what I do. And I was arguing both.
Boys, there is maybe a warming but it can be global...
Where i live, the last two winter was the more cold in a 30 year periode... in fact, it will be more hot to stay in a fridge... so much snow that we are have a national shortage of street salt...
Being a gardener and working always outside, i am now a supporter of the people who produce a lot of CO2 with the hope that my local weather will really become more hot...
I know you argued both and I know the claims of the north recovering a little are valid which is why I never argued that one. I did argue your claim about the south not losing ice. And again, I never argued why that was happening, just that it is happening. So, I'll stick with merely debating whether or not the south is losing ice and ask that if you have studies that show the south is not losing ice (as a whole), then you should produced them as so far you have not (sea levels don't do anything to prove anything). Now that I realize your previous post about the University of Illinois study you mentioned was regarding the North pole, I've yet to see any study that you've provided to claim that it is stable (not losing ice). In fact, if you look at the graph I posted above, it shows the rate at which it is losing ice is increasing which is important to note because it is going beyond the natural receding rate.
Just because Earth is warming (for whatever the reason) doesn't mean there won't be cold climates anywhere. So if you are tired of snow where ever you live, then I may suggest moving south.
What's funny is that no matter what happens, it can be blamed on global warming. Too much salt in the oceans? Global warming. Not enough salt? Global warming. Less severe winters in North America? Global warming. More severe winters in North America? Global Warming. I'm amazed that anyone bothers to listen to these people anymore.
Yes, thre is actually some benefits to moderate warming. It does allow for longer growing seasons, and reduced energy consumption. And I don't think anyone is claiming that the climate is not changing. It has been for the last 4.7 billion years. The main contention seems to be the extent of it (whether it will rise by an alarming 6-10 degrees kelvin or just 1-2 degrees). The alarmists also want us to believe that the introduction of more CO2 shows a direct correlation to rising temperatures, when both historical data and observed data (the temperature has leveled off in the last 10 years, but Co2 emissions have not) shows that they are failing to take into account negative feedback factors.
So make your gardens green! You wont become a crispy critter! But it may make your work a little easier.
Actually, if he lives in the southern hemisphere, he probably wants to move north instead.
Haha, ya I thought about that. But, then again if he lives in the southern hemisphere, in most situations he'd have to leave country!
Yeah, but let's not forget that summer pretty much lasted till mid November, where you're obviously living (which appearantly is next door to me. More or less... ) .
Local papers had it not long ago though that the current cold and long winter is due to the lack of sun spots and the corresponding lack of flares. *shakesheadrollingeyes*
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
