Global Warming??


Bloggers with a poor science knowledge and a propensity for cherry picking information mostly from already 'busted' myths.

You can go to the link I posted early on in this thread and see that they are grossly misrepresenting science here.

Once again, these people have a political agenda they are trying to prove with cherry-picked science reports.

If you get your science information from political bloggers you are getting a partisan political education not a science education.

Dems, repubs, same $ht different pile...

Dems don't complain with Al G over-blows numbers and heats his mansion and repubs don't complain when their mouthpieces quote disproved reports/myths like they are valid.

Sad...


.
 
I suppose there is no denying it now!
 

Attachments

  • positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg
    positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg
    93.3 KB · Views: 0
barnstorm2

I went to your link http://www.newscientist.com/

It is a very bias site. Read a just few of the headlines with an open mind...

Creationism defeated in Texas

A smarter way for oil firms to pay for eco damage

One last chance to save mankind

Launch green economic revolution now, says Stern

Where are the contrarian views; a little balance? The political site I linked above
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ming_is_1.html was more balanced than your New Scientist site.
 
It is a very bias site. Read a just few of the headlines with an open mind...

Creationism defeated in Texas

Where are the contrarian views; a little balance? The political site I linked above was more balanced than your New Scientist site.

What? Are you saying the board vote in TX did not happen?

That is pretty cut-and-dry. Either it did or did not happen and in this case it did. Board voted, it failed.

I can only assume you are just upset with the outcome. In which the article is still just as accurate you just don't like what it says.

If you think the world is only 10 thousand years old, man lived with vegetarian dinosaurs and the universe orbits the earth then you are not going to find any "balanced" peer reviewed science journals (or believe any reason based information for that matter).

As far as policy abstracts go that is exactly what they are policy abstracts, in this case for the layman.

In science, once a proposition is debunked it is done. You stop using it. Not so in political blogs. In political blogs a study proved wrong or misinterpreted long ago still gets cited as in the blog above. It would not be any less accurate if it cited spontaneous generation.** (Another belief held on to for decades (after being conclusively proven wrong) by people motivated by political and superstitious motivations).

.
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation



.
 
Last edited:
You argue for man caused global warming by citing spontaneous generation? Instead, maybe you need to specifically debunk the thicker ice in Antarctica. Or dispute the quote from Marc Sheppard, another 'nasty blogger on American Thinker:

"And yet, this IPCC report, much-hyped-and-hallowed by alarmists and media-drones alike, represents the combined work of only 52 carefully cherry-picked UN scientists. But the 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report containing the IPCC-countering findings of more than 12 times that number (over 650 dissenting -- including many current and former UN IPCC -- scientists) is either gratuitously ridiculed or all but ignored by these same agents. And last year's Manhattan Declaration was similarly impressive in its signatories, and similarly mistreated by alarmists and their hand-puppets throughout the green-entranced MSM.

Grandia refers to a "cadre of scientists for hire" and Al Gore and Gorebots the likes of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri refer to dissenting experts as flat-Earthers and variants of big-oil whores and label their views "outside the scientific consensus."

When in fact, even were consensus a foundation of science, there exists infinitely more that Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Joe Romm, Kevin Grandia et al are snake-oil salesmen than of any anthropogenic impact on climate. And recent claims of a vaguely worded on-line survey with a 30% response rate from unnamed "scientists" being touted by the alarmists as proof otherwise change nothing.

So 59% of Americans aren't buying it; climate experts across the globe aren't behind it; yet the alarmists continue to sell it and Democratic politicians remain steady customers."
 
You argue for man caused global warming by citing spontaneous generation? ."

No, I used spontaneous generation as an example of someone believing something because they want to in the face of evidence that indicates otherwise, motovated by mythical or political reasoning.

If you want to believe something and you go surfing the internet for like opinions you can convince yourself of anything.

Instead, maybe you need to specifically debunk the thicker ice in Antarctica."

Ok:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html

Radar measurements of the height of the ice over parts of the continent suggest that the huge East Antarctic ice sheet grew slightly between 1992 and 2003.

A more recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels. Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.

Greenland, whose ice cap holds enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres, is also losing ice overall. Small amounts of meltwater appear to be lubricating the base of glaciers, speeding the flow of ice into the sea.

Ironically, the models found that warming would have been even more marked if the ozone layer which cuts out harmful solar radiation had not been depleted by the chlorofluorocarbon chemicals once used in aerosols.

Meanwhile, research just published in Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2008GL035710) reveals that the thickness of ice in the western Arctichas plunged by around 49 centimetres - almost a fifth compared with the average reading over the previous five winters. This is the region that saw the North-West passage open in 2007.

The team behind this study, led by Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, used reflected satellite radar pulses to deduce that the ice had thinned over the Arctic as a whole by 26 centimetres on average, about 10% of the average thickness over the previous five winters.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo338

See also:
Gravity reveals shrinking Antarctic ice
Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9717-greenland-ice-cap-may-be-melting-at-triple-speed.html

.
Or dispute the quote from Marc Sheppard, another 'nasty blogger on American Thinker:."
Already did. See busted myths post.

.
 
I think I did read your "THESE ARE BUSTED MYTHS:" section. You simply state these are busted myths.

Like a guy named Tarpon states on the 'wattsupwiththat site I refer to above:

Maybe a better discussion would be to haul out the hoaxes first 1988 IPCC model predictions and see how reality has followed the computer models. Afterall, we do have 20 years of tracking the hoax. Could be an interesting exercise. It would be OK to allow 5 year updates, as long as the older projections are included, so the IPCC predictions would better match reality — VBG.

Like with the NASA sunspot predictions, at some point even you are better at darts than the official predictors.

There are smarter people that I arguing it out on that site. I the short time you had to respond, I'm thinking you didn't read to far into it before you decided it didn't fit your belief. I will look over your links, but when I provided a nonpolitical link per your request, you didn't give it much time.

As they folks on the site state, 2009 will be interesting. Will the warmers have to adjust their models once again?
 
I think I did read your "THESE ARE BUSTED MYTHS:" section. You simply state these are busted myths.

the link is there.

No 'thank you' for enlightening you on ice levels?


when I provided a nonpolitical link per your request, you didn't give it much time.

I can read a good bit in a half hour. I did not see any nonpolitical links.

Here are some journals:

http://www.nature.com/siteindex/index.html

http://www.osti.gov/journal_sources

http://www.sciencemag.org/archive/


.
 
Last edited:
The problem that I have is that the same people who cannot accurately predict if we will have rain on Friday, are damn sure that the inhabitants of the world are all going to be treading water up to their neck in 15 years, unless we pay huge fees and fines to the gov.

Again, I am all for being environmentally responsible.
The Ozone hole was discovered before we had spray cans.
The air is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago, just look at those old post cards from New York, hell you cannot even see what color the sky was because there was so much smoke.

I gotta go, I have some old tires to burn. :)
 
Again, I am all for being environmentally responsible.
The Ozone hole was discovered before we had spray cans.
The air is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago, just look at those old post cards from New York, hell you cannot even see what color the sky was because there was so much smoke.

To me, that is the real answer. Simply being ecological as well as economical and efficient. We stopped heating our homes with coal in this country because it was inefficient and terribly dirty. China burns massive amounts of coal creating a huge environmental problem. They also have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of coal mine fires that pollute more than all the cars in the U.S. They often have to wear gas masks in their cities to breathe. The hell with proving whether CO2 causes global warming. It's more important to get them to clean up their act. The problem with carbon credits is China has a strong history of being particularly slimy and untrustworthy. Using poisonous ethylene glycol as a sweetener in medicine because it's $200 a ton cheaper, Lead paint in childrens toys, Melamine in baby food to trick tests into showing more protein, etc. etc. I don't exactly believe them when they claim carbon credits, and it is a bit hard to take paying them to fix their pollution problem via the Kyoto treaty. Frankly they can pay for their own fixes with the money they've stolen from us in intellectual property, video and music piracy, unfair trade practices etc.
 

Attachments

  • pollution.jpg
    pollution.jpg
    28.1 KB · Views: 0
  • ap_china_pollution_071218_ms.jpg
    ap_china_pollution_071218_ms.jpg
    12.5 KB · Views: 0
  • fish_dying_pollution.jpg
    fish_dying_pollution.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 0
  • China.jpg
    China.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 0
What do you think of this paper Tim?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

John, One of my favorite papers and should be read by all.

Dam arrogant if man thinks his CO2 contribution via burning hydrocarbon is a significant factor in climate change. The earth has never been static over it's 4.5B year history.

A few factors of earth’s history that does affect climate change;

1. How about a 4' bentonite clay (volcanic ash) deposit that has traveled over 2000 miles in the atmosphere consistently for several decades.

2. Shield volcanoes that cover several states.

3. 400' coal zones in Wyoming. How much CO2 does it take to make coal, crude oil, or natural gas?...lots as it all came from chlorophyll using CO2!

4. Much of the northern latitudes and the south most latitudes have a short history of man. Man has been limited in where he could live. This is because prior to 4,000 years ago it was hard to make a living due to the snow and winds of the ice ages.

It is simple logic; the environment has allowed man to expand his culture locations. Thus we came out of an ice age & at some point in the future will return. But it will probably take several thousand years to return.

5. The earth has always be a series of cyclothems, meglacyclothems, and microcyclothems. We have studied global & local events both in sedimentation and in paleoclimates for years.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/cyclic_sedimentation.html

Al Gore as an expert is insulting. He was a failure in his tenure at the Universities.
 
They also have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of coal mine fires that pollute more than all the cars in the U.S.

There are many coal fires! Some set by mine fires, some by natural lightening. Using coal for electricity is feasible as it is a point source in remote areas in which the exhaust is closely monitored.

If energy for home use is not kept reasonable in price, every home will be burning wood, wood pellets, corn or coal. If price gets radical, there won't be a hardwood tree standing. And there will be a smog problem.
 
How much CO2 does it take to make coal, crude oil, or natural gas?...lots as it all came from chlorophyll using CO2!

But isn't that the point? If we burn all the former plants, we come back to the CO2/O2 ratio that was on earth before there were plants (ok, that takes some determination). I do not think that is where we want to go. To me the fossile fuels are a carbon deposit in the oxygen bank.

Kai.
 
What do you think of this paper Tim?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

John, One of my favorite papers and should be read by all.

That explains your post, and misinformation on the topic. Did you read the links about this paper?

You should be skeptical of all sources of information, not just the information that does not agree with what you want to believe.

Dam arrogant if man thinks his CO2 contribution via burning hydrocarbon is a significant factor in climate change. The earth has never been static over it's 4.5B year history.

Apples and oranges. A system that is in flux by definition is likely to be easy to influence and have tipping points. If it were a static system then you might have a point. This simply lends to the likelihood that we can influence the system with pollution.

What seems arrogant to me are people that think we can waste our natural resources and pollute our ONLY planet and ecosystem without ramifications to our culture, health, future US prosperity and what we leave to future generations.

If man can not influence the climate.. so what? You don't think renewable energy, spurring technology and reducing pollution is a good thing? It seems we certainly could use some better science and math education in this country.

.
 
Last edited:
If man can not influence the climate.. so what? You don't think renewable energy, spurring technology and reducing pollution is a good thing?

I agree with all of those goals, what you have failed to prove is that CO2 is THE major factor for any of the climate change issues it is touted to be responsible for, That man is responsible for climate change, or that the regulation of CO2 is the honest and proper way to encourage renewable energy, new tech, or reducing pollution. In fact, you'll get an argument that CO2 Is pollution. I'll believe the climate change people when they put catylitic converters on their mouths.

I don't think you'd get many people to argue that the pollution in the pictures I posted wasn't bad, or that it wouldn't be good to improve it, but you will get an argument from me that it is the result of CO2 alone or predominatly, or that the regulation of CO2 is in any way a good thing.

The real goal of CO2 regulation is power and control.

BTW, I read the links about the paper and although it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal it has nevertheless been peer reviewed. The links merely point out a little about the people and institution and a bit about the process where the signatories are scrutinized, I did not see anything about a refutation of the methods they used with an alternative method that has greater accuracy, or proof the data they used was in any way manipulated, or of any experimentation proving any of their hypothesis wrong.

Can you provide something along those lines Tim?

Can you comment on this report?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=2896968&CFTOKEN=76340361
 
Last edited:
John,

Overall I very much agree.

I agree with all of those goals, what you have failed to prove is that CO2 is THE major factor for any of the climate change issues it is touted to be responsible for, ..... In fact, you'll get an argument that CO2 Is pollution. I'll believe the climate change people when they put catylitic converters on their mouths.

As I know you are aware (posting here for reference) CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and it is far from the most reactive.

As far as "proof" goes we won't have it until the earth is a cinder or not. But of course by that point it will be too late or we will still have problems from our resource glut.

I am not going to say that I am convinced that CO2 is the key to the whole shabang. However, there is compelling evidence. Here is one link, following the scientific journals and science media will get you the rest: http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/caldeira_research.html#_1

It's time to grow up. We are stewards of this planet, in-trusted to us by our forefathers and it is not ours to destroy. We must pass it on to our descendants in usable condition and ideally in better shape then we found it, if not at least in as good a shape.

The real goal of CO2 regulation is power and control.

I don't think it is that black and white but I agree with you to a fair extent. As I have posted I don't trust the government to do anything right. I prefer incentives and I despise taxes.

BTW, I read the links about the paper and although it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal it has nevertheless been peer reviewed..]

Not properly peer reviewed and numerous other papers from scientists actually in the field of chemistry and climatology have produced conflicting results and conclusions. The authors even admit to this petition and the format of the "paper" was made for political purposes.

It would be like dissecting a political cartoon. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

We have no proof that C02 produced by humans is the entire shabang but we do have some serious indications that is its and that humans though some measure are pushing us over tipping point after tipping point.

This is not a political game. We only have 1 planet. It is not reasonable nor rational to radically alter our environment for GREED, laziness and politics on the chance that our best minds and the scientific communities assessment is wrong.

We have plenty of other issues to worry about. The solution to this problem is one we need to implement CO2 effect or not.

Where are the Nickola Tesla's when we need them? We need to empower people with science and technology not subsidise the energy companies and the wealthy.
 
Last edited:
Top