PDA

View Full Version : APP - How the Climate Change Scam was hatched



cancel2 2022
03-02-2010, 11:09 AM
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/751.html

Cancel 2016.2
03-02-2010, 03:50 PM
Nice....

Damocles
03-02-2010, 03:57 PM
That was actually quite interesting.

cancel2 2022
03-02-2010, 04:03 PM
That was actually quite interesting.

You sound surprised?

Cancel 2016.2
03-02-2010, 04:14 PM
I think I will have to check out the other 8 pieces of that...

Cancel 2016.2
03-02-2010, 04:14 PM
You sound surprised?

It was for me. It made ties that I had not known or thought of.... especially with Thatcher.

cancel2 2022
03-02-2010, 04:18 PM
I think I will have to check out the other 8 pieces of that...

You need look no further!!


http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F5368BC9B1B034D3

Cancel 2016.2
03-02-2010, 04:25 PM
lol.... I will check them out tonight...

Don Quixote
03-02-2010, 05:29 PM
first, scams to increase funding for the latest buzz have occurred for centuries - as long as there is government funding for research, the government funded research will be bent to the politics of the controller or the purse strings

second, just because scam artists latch on to such funding does not mean that all of the findings are false - just suspicious until proven true or false

the answer about global weather change is that we do not know enough and have insufficient data

we need to establish a baseline from time periods that did not measure incident solar radiation and global weather temperatures

we can only make limited insights into the time periods that we cannot make accurate measurements for

but we can study and note some of the factors through looking at vegetation as it appeared at different times along with ice core samples do determine incident solar radiation and chemicals in the air

however, we can simulate greenhouse conditions and observe vegetable reactions to changes

too much ultraviolet radiation is harmful to plants and animals

too much in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad just as too little in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad for us humans

so how do we sort the truth from fiction

gather as much reliable data as possible and try to sort the wheat from the chaff before the entire science gets discredited and we discover that the politicians and others with axes to grind have contaminated the data

tinfoil
03-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Consensus!!


I just thought this thread was missing some warmer feedback

Damocles
03-02-2010, 10:19 PM
Consensus!!


I just thought this thread was missing some warmer feedback
Channeling Cypress:

Consensus...

On the one hand we have some guy who has spent more time studying this than Al Gore, on the other I have a litany of links that I haven't read. I'll trust the links I haven't read over any new information that may come to light!

Hermes Thoth
03-03-2010, 06:26 AM
first, scams to increase funding for the latest buzz have occurred for centuries - as long as there is government funding for research, the government funded research will be bent to the politics of the controller or the purse strings

second, just because scam artists latch on to such funding does not mean that all of the findings are false - just suspicious until proven true or false

the answer about global weather change is that we do not know enough and have insufficient data

we need to establish a baseline from time periods that did not measure incident solar radiation and global weather temperatures

we can only make limited insights into the time periods that we cannot make accurate measurements for

but we can study and note some of the factors through looking at vegetation as it appeared at different times along with ice core samples do determine incident solar radiation and chemicals in the air

however, we can simulate greenhouse conditions and observe vegetable reactions to changes

too much ultraviolet radiation is harmful to plants and animals

too much in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad just as too little in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad for us humans

so how do we sort the truth from fiction

gather as much reliable data as possible and try to sort the wheat from the chaff before the entire science gets discredited and we discover that the politicians and others with axes to grind have contaminated the data

No. we should dispose of the whole AGW theory, as there is no proof. ANd the military industrial complex should not fund science in any way. Keep those nazis in the back room with their guns and let the smart people do th thinking.

FUCK THE POLICE
03-03-2010, 12:30 PM
the answer about global weather change is that we do not know enough and have insufficient data

Yes, we do.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Link to this page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=105)
The skeptic argument...


"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3910))

What the science says...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1119.html)).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe (http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html). Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2419.html), Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html)). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm)", has hovered around 43% since 1958.
CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/), increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html)). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004 (http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/personal/JennyGriggs/paper_4.pdf), Chen 2007 (http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf)).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html)).
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml)). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004 (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf)). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm)). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm)).
The planet is accumulating heat

When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml)). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murphy%202009)). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html).
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml)). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005 (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf), Trenberth 2009 (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2634.1)). The planet continues to accumulate heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean-heat-2000m.gif
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

FUCK THE POLICE
03-03-2010, 12:33 PM
Global warming is the single most proven scientific theory in human history. The only reason anyone would doubt it is if they were on the payroll of the oil companies.

cancel2 2022
03-03-2010, 01:13 PM
Global warming is the single most proven scientific theory in human history. The only reason anyone would doubt it is if they were on the payroll of the oil companies.


You are not even original as that accusation has been used many times before, are you suggesting that CERN is in the pocket of Exxon et al? You are also talking out of your rear end by saying that it is the most proven scientific theory in history, I am sure that Einstein, Newton and several other eminent scientists will be turning in their graves.

FUCK THE POLICE
03-03-2010, 01:18 PM
Whatever, you conservative. Go back to your corporate masters.

cancel2 2022
03-03-2010, 01:27 PM
Whatever, you conservative. Go back to your corporate masters.

That's incredibly funny as most people consider me to be a liberal. It is doubly funny considering that Margaret Thatcher started the whole thing off in the 80s. I am guessing that you are in your 20s, so I am betting that you will be a conservative after you've left uni and got a job.

Hermes Thoth
03-03-2010, 02:07 PM
Correlation is not causality. your phenomenon is from sunspots.

cancel2 2022
03-03-2010, 02:23 PM
Correlation is not causality. your phenomenon is from sunspots.

Pardon??

tinfoil
03-03-2010, 02:47 PM
That's incredibly funny as most people consider me to be a liberal. It is doubly funny considering that Margaret Thatcher started the whole thing off in the 80s. I am guessing that you are in your 20s, so I am betting that you will be a conservative after you've left uni and got a job.

There won't be any jobs left after small business can no longer afford to hire people and pay mandatory insurance for them or face penalties.

I had to forget about the one helper I was thinking about hiring.

I'm not taking all the risks, and doing all the business work, so some kid can get healthcare handed to him at the risk of my neck. Great system, liberals

cancel2 2022
03-03-2010, 03:06 PM
There won't be any jobs left after small business can no longer afford to hire people and pay mandatory insurance for them or face penalties.

I had to forget about the one helper I was thinking about hiring.

I'm not taking all the risks, and doing all the business work, so some kid can get healthcare handed to him at the risk of my neck. Great system, liberals

Isn't it the liberals who want universal healthcare?

Hermes Thoth
03-03-2010, 03:20 PM
Pardon??

Don't act dumb.

FUCK THE POLICE
03-03-2010, 07:39 PM
Correlation is not causality. your phenomenon is from sunspots.

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

Hermes Thoth
03-04-2010, 01:45 AM
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

wrong

cancel2 2022
03-04-2010, 01:45 PM
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

I'll see that article and raise you another two articles!!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

cancel2 2022
03-04-2010, 03:11 PM
I'll see that article and raise you another two articles!!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

Here is Nir Shaviv's volte-face on why CO2 is not the major culprit for global warming.

“ A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_shaviv#cite_note-2) ”

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

tinfoil
03-04-2010, 03:33 PM
You'll never convince those who practice confirmation bias.

My personal belief is that the CO2 forcing in models is overstated by 1/3 in an effort to blame CO2, and allow for government control of CO2 to raise revenue. Why would persons in the government act in this manner? The answer is obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience with either people or business. Any item that can be regulated and used to generate revenue is seen as a good thing to our dear government class. They threaten the cutting of vital services and never trim any uneeded projects. Instead they cry for their own, the poor overpaid government worker.

Global warming, climate change, or whatever you call it next, is the ultimate revenue machine for the government class. If you require your information to have their seal of approval, you limit the depth of your knowledge and leave them with the total control of your paradigm. As we've seen from the last few months, the science is far from the best.




But, dear warmers, you must keep your faith. You'll make for such rich comedy in the future.

cancel2 2022
03-04-2010, 03:44 PM
You'll never convince those who practice confirmation bias.

My personal belief is that the CO2 forcing in models is overstated by 1/3 in an effort to blame CO2, and allow for government control of CO2 to raise revenue. Why would persons in the government act in this manner? The answer is obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience with either people or business. Any item that can be regulated and used to generate revenue is seen as a good thing to our dear government class. They threaten the cutting of vital services and never trim any uneeded projects. Instead they cry for their own, the poor overpaid government worker.

Global warming, climate change, or whatever you call it next, is the ultimate revenue machine for the government class. If you require your information to have their seal of approval, you limit the depth of your knowledge and leave them with the total control of your paradigm. As we've seen from the last few months, the science is far from the best.




But, dear warmers, you must keep your faith. You'll make for such rich comedy in the future.

However, you must clear your mind of subjectivity and remain open to future research. Unfortunately as you say when politics gets involved then, for a time at least, objectivity flies out the window.

I am extremely wary of the unholy alliance that has evolved between environmentalists, investment bankers and politicians. It is quite astonishing how these strange bedfellows have come together. Rolling Stone, which is considered left wing, has been vehement in their denouncement of this trend. My own theory, for what it is worth, is that anything Goldman Sachs is involved in is almost invariably a scam.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/7

cancel2 2022
03-05-2010, 03:03 PM
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

Nir Shaviv on why Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html)

NOVA
03-05-2010, 03:43 PM
That's incredibly funny as most people consider me to be a liberal. It is doubly funny considering that Margaret Thatcher started the whole thing off in the 80s. I am guessing that you are in your 20s, so I am betting that you will be a conservative after you've left uni and got a job.

It is kinda strange....weren't YOU a true believer not so long ago ???
Weren't you one of the suckers that bought the whole hoax, hook, line and sinker....????

NOVA
03-05-2010, 03:47 PM
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

There ya go....the more the earths temperature rises, the freaking colder the sun gets.....from our new resident rocket scientist.....:lol:

cancel2 2022
03-05-2010, 03:52 PM
It is kinda strange....weren't YOU a true believer not so long ago ???
Weren't you one of the suckers that bought the whole hoax, hook, line and sinker....????

No, anybody who knows me well, even my opponents, will attest that I've always been a sceptic. Sorry to disappoint you.

NOVA
03-05-2010, 04:38 PM
No, anybody who knows me well, even my opponents, will attest that I've always been a sceptic. Sorry to disappoint you.

Sorry...I wasn't accusing you, just have you confused with someone else....
I was practically alone in fighting this nonsense for the last 4 years ....I just didn't remember you as an ally....:good4u:

FUCK THE POLICE
03-06-2010, 09:11 PM
I'll see that article and raise you another two articles!!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_vs_TSI_2009.gif

Are they using a metric besides solar irradicance?

FUCK THE POLICE
03-06-2010, 09:12 PM
No, anybody who knows me well, even my opponents, will attest that I've always been a sceptic. Sorry to disappoint you.

No, not a skeptic, a denier.

cancel2 2022
03-07-2010, 05:54 AM
No, not a skeptic, a denier.

You are really very adolescent at times. I have already said that there has been a period of global warming and conceded that CO2 has an effect. However I disagree that there is overwhelming evidence for it having anything other than a small part to play, in the sum total. You would be advised to read this interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, you might actually learn to be a little more sceptical yourself, which by the way is an admirable trait in any self respecting scientist.

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/interview-with-roger-pielke-sr.html