FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 years (IPCC)
“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
With the release of Al Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and with the help of the liberal media establishments the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no consensus on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are positively biased, Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising milimeters not feet, computer climate models are irrelevant, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are not caused by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.
Thousands of links debunking the global warming hysteria.
Peer review is no guarantee of accuracy either. Just because an article is Peer Reviewed (insert sound of Gabriel’s trumpets here) does not mean it’s any less drivel than the other side’s postings.
Guys, guys, guys. Scientists are busy people. Do you really think peer reviewers give that much time to someone else’s article, especially if it concerns an issue the reviewer himself might have been thinking of publishing? I think the average peer reviewer spends no more than 30 minutes reading a submitted article, if he even gets beyond the abstract, before he says “okay, publish it.”
This is not to say that peer review is bad, but it is certainly NOT evidence that an article is “correct” or “accurate.” The only way to show that is by experiment and replication of same. Anyone care to propose an experiment on a global scale to show that climate change is actually taking place?
#62 – Mister Mustard,
You’re too heavy handed. I wanted JimR to figure that out for himself. It would have held more meaning that way.
#66 – gunny,
Peer review is no guarantee of accuracy either.
100% true. Unfortunately, that fact does not make some guy’s blog or other un-peer reviewed source the equal of peer reviewed sources. Without peer review, I can say that the moon is made of green cheese and the Earth has cooled by 50 degrees in the last 5 years. See? I just said it.
With peer review, at least there is some process to weed out total fucking bullshit.
Everyone says follow the money. So follow the money, there is a lot of free loaders that will be making out with the new taxes and other money sucked from the middle class and poor with the false economies. A lot of elitist making their living selling ‘carbon cert.’ which are really nothing at all.
This should work really well for pushing out what is left of our industry here in the US. It’s doing so in Europe, where industry is now moving either to Far Asia or to Mid Asia. Is this what we want. Or is Mexico the destination of our industry?
When we can farm in Greenland like the Vikings, then I’ll begin to listen to the commies/greenies about ‘Global Warming’ or the need for a New Global Government.
Reading through postings, the same thing is evident. Lefties are doing their usual NAZI brainwashed stupidity, why don’t they question authority. They can start with their own authorities and read up on history and the environmental changes that have occurred.
The world/globe has been much warmer in the past and man survived. I suspect that since one volcano puts up as much pollution as man does over 30 years, that it’s just an excuse to tax us into poverty just that much sooner. And all the Brainwashed NAZIs are going along with just like they did with Hitler, Mao and Stalin. I wonder how many people will die because of their zeolites NAZI/Commie adherence to this BS? How much farming land will be withdrawn from use? How many jobs will be taken from the US or just go away so that the brainwashed, so to be eliminated, NAZIs can have their way.
It’s funny that all the while Stalin, Mao and Hitler were killing their victims, the victims thought that if only “xxxx” (Stalin, Mao, or Hitler) knew what was happening they would stop it; while it was the dictator that signing and sending to their little death (homeless) camps for disposal.
#68 – Scottie
>>You’re too heavy handed. I wanted JimR to
>>figure that out for himself.
Aw, c’mon, Scottie. He never would have figured that out for himself. He didn’t even realize that the Cato rag wasn’t peer-reviewed. You give too much credit.
Huzzahs for rational thought at DU. The “We’re doomed, I say, doomed!!!” crowd can’t handle rational thought. They only can cast aspersions. Impotence on parade.
#74 – roemun,
You know, you just may be right. I don’t like my rational thought about tobacco to come from Phillip Morris. I don’t like my rational thought about alcohol to come from Seagram’s. And, I don’t like my rational thought about oil to come from ExxonMobil.
Sorry about that.
#72, Mustard,
Gee, and here you are demanding PROOF from others but you are just too fucking lazy to provide any yourself. And not just any proof. Peer reviewed proof of others.
Yup, you can dish it out but you sure the hell can’t live up to anything you ask of others.
#74–Scott==you do take your rational thought from the IPCC which is expressly chartered and limited to being a resource to those wishing to promote the issue of Global Warming.
As with the sources you disdain, I would say “All Sources” are biased. It raises a red flag or a caution but evidence offered should not be dismissed out of hand.
BUT, I recalled a notion about ID: “Can it be falsified?” and that makes me ask you if you have any central idea or fact that if proven false would make you question Man Made Global Warming?
Also, if you know in one sentence==what process takes CO2 out of the atmosphere after about 10 years?
Thanks. ((Theres been about 5 anti-GW posts in a row now. Time for another iceberg to break loose?))
Didn’t drop by to comment on bobbo’s bullshit; but, I see the usual straw man is in full flight. “Chartered and limited” may fly on Phox, but, it has nothing to do with reality. I know a few of the scientists who took part in that discussion and they are justified in resenting tripe and trivial comments from the uninformed.
Now, I’m not about to wander aimlessly through the Posted “sources” and expect anymore veracity than the 1st paragraph.
0.6C was the number for the 3rd assessment report. That was 2001. Apparently, Mastertech cares so little for peer review, he’s felt no need to read the 4th assessment report. For in the intervening 6 years, another 0.15 C was acquired.
This isn’t a pleasant straight line event. Not that it means anything to the Know-Nothings clustered around a pile of intellectual turds to validate opinions as opposed to calculations.
Of course, I’m irked. I spent several years having my own opinion changed by facts – mostly info from Max Planck Institute prior to publication of the IPCC 4th assessment.
Several people have suggested over time that bobbo and his ilk actually take the time to read the latest report. Apparently, Mastertech is only up to 2001.
I don’t expect bobbo to get off his rusty dusty and do so. I haven’t seen enough of Mastertech to have any predictions at hand; but, I ain’t impressed with his bumbling, so far.
Ha, Love the first response ‘the issue is climate change.’ Like it has been for the last several million years! Uh did the dinosaurs cause the ice age by driving SUV’s? READ THE CHART. The climate changes constently LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE PLANET.
#76 – bobbo,
#74–Scott==you do take your rational thought from the IPCC which is expressly chartered and limited to being a resource to those wishing to promote the issue of Global Warming.
That is most definitely NOT the charter of the IPCC. As I’ve pointed out before, the scientists on the IPCC were appointed by governments. And, those governments may be biased in exactly the opposite direction.
Consider the scientists likely to be appointed by the U.S., China, Australia, and especially Saudi Arabia. These are the largest oil importer, coal burner, coal exporter, and oil exporter respectively. Saudi Arabia gets about 90+% of their GDP from oil exports.
Coincidentally, these are exactly the nations whose appointed scientists raise the biggest objections to the strong wording of the IPCC reports.
In this article, U.S., China, Saudi Arabia Raise Most Objections At International Meeting, note the paragraph that says:
So, no, the IPCC has no such charter. Here is the IPCC mandate from the IPCC website:
#76 – bobbo,
Sure. To falsify global warming, show me that CO2 is either A) not a greenhouse gas or B) not increasing due to humans. We might want to throw the other GHGs in there as well.
That was easy.
Diefundie, yes, but the low temperature is +8.5
#77 keaneo, where did you get the extra .15 degree of warming, when there is been no warming in the last ten years? Was there .15 of colling from 1998 to 2001?
That first chart on this page, the hockey stick, has been debunked. The ‘verifiers’ only verified the right 40%, and only by using other sources. They agreed that the authors’ original methods were flawed. Indeed, the authors’ original method would produce a hockey stick even if fed random noise. GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT
Aren’t you going to mention the top oil producer? Or is that no longer Russia? India has rejected the IPCC’s man causes global warming line, as have the Russians.
I used to be a bit skeptical about a lot of this, but Misanthropic Scott is too well read and literate on the subject to be either ignored or dismissed.
I have decided to read up more on this issue, and have “Under a green sky” on my reading list -right after I finish “The Three Kingdoms” (240 chapters in 4 volumes, a good read).
I recommend that we all seriously research and explore this topic as meticulously as Misanthropic Scott. Then our comments may be on par with his.
At the very least, we may have a clue about what we pretend to know about.
#77–keano==your criticism is fair, after all, Scott has the same opinion. My statement is an honest memory of a post I made a few months ago having read the IPCC charter and a critique of it. “But” if I can’t find that cite, I should STFU. I agree, and so I shall until I find that reference again.
#79–Scott==excellent quote there. It seems very close to what I was thinking of, absent the negative commentary that was on the website I found. The words in a vacuum do strive for a bias neutral “just the facts Mam” but it is oh so easily just a cover story.
So, the proof is in the quality of the provided reports==same as from any other source who’s bias should be suspect until identified and taken into account as appropriate?
#80–Scott==aren’t both those items purely definitional and circular? I think they are. As I have stated and I don’t think you have fairly refuted==there can be no formal Proof of causation regarding global warming==there is no control group for Planet Earth. Only models and guesses. All I concretely conclude is that this is a difficult subject much too open to bias both good and bad. I feel the desire to pick one side or the other and stop thinking about it.
I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas and I assume the science is solid that it doesn’t interact with some unknown as yet to reflect more sunlight than the heat it retains? So, if a model comes out showing just that, what would you think?
@#1
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) isn’t a toxin, nor a pollutant, it’s just waste product that we all breath out. Plus other life forms (plants) actually need to survive. This is something we learned in fucking GRADE SCHOOL people.
Not to discredit that we have had a pollution problem for since the industrial revolution, but CO2 is NOT a toxic waste pollutant.
And the CO2 we breath out dosen’t just shoot up into the sky and cause the greenhouse effect, or gets high into the atmosphere to deplete the ozone layer.
cough *hitler*
#87–frag==#88 notwithstanding, why do you make your post? ie==what point are you xxxxxxxxxx
Nevermind, #88 is correct.
Cheney’s Office Said to Edit Draft Testimony on Global Warming:
http://tinyurl.com/6r3bro
Ok, my 2 cents.
I’m a climate change believer. It’s happening and it’s CO2 driven.
If I’m wrong then the human race continues and we live happily ever after.
If the climate change skeptics are wrong, then we stuff up our planet and life is put at risk.
I think it’s an easy choice.
Let’s lessen our dependance on oil + coal , let’s develop clean and green technologies, let’s help 3rd world out of their perpetual poverty… and if in 50 year’s time, the whole
climate change did not occur, then the world will be a better place.
🙂
#86 – bobbo,
aren’t both those items purely definitional and circular?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
If the gases we think are greenhouse gases do indeed warm the planet and if we are increasing these gases above their natural levels, then we are causing global warming. It actually is that simple.
There are a lot of other factors in climatology. There is a lot of complexity. However, the basics are that if we increase gases that trap heat in the atmosphere we will cause warming.
It’s really not that hard to understand at that level.
How much warming can we expect from how much of an increase in GHGs? How will the clouds and humidity affect things? How much of the gases will be absorbed by the ocean? What will the affect of increased ocean acidity be?
These are more difficult questions. However, the basics really are as simple as “we are increasing gases in the atmosphere that hold in heat.” Such gases have helped us tremendously. Without them, this planet would be a big iceball, on the surface at least.
#87 – FRAGaLOT,
… And the CO2 we breath [sic] out dosen’t [sic] just shoot up into the sky and cause the greenhouse effect …
Actually, you moran, it does exactly that. It’s just a much smaller quantity than the amount belched forth from our power plants and automobiles.
Well, for what its worth, I found the web site that threw me into agnosticism.
I started here: http://www.aussmc.org/IPCCWG2.php#Who_funds_the_IPCC
and finish here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf
I don’t recall reading that this article also recommended the compressed air car. Amazing?
You know, I am suspect of the IPCC because it is a UN Body controled by the UN. Every time I see the UN act on a Global Issue it is to transfer funds from the rich to the poor. That social goal can be argued, but it provides a bias that should not get into “neutral scientific assessments?”–but talking about carbon cap and trades puts that issue directly on the table.
The article is particularly revealing in showing just how little the human contributed CO2 component is.
I don’t think even the experts know who has the better theory? Its all too complicated for me.
Bobbo, they transfer funds from rich to poor, but there’s always the intent of keeping the poor form challenging the rich countries. If you give foreign aid, the farmers can’t do well. Hand out birth control and support sterilizations to keep the populations down. Ban DDT, and malaria rises. Forgive debt, but with structural changes that puts the Western powers in charge of the country. The global warming treaties exempt the developing world for now, but in the end they will be controlled from growing too much.
Like most discussions about climate change this one also rates up there with a train wreck. Horrible to watch, but you just can’t look away.
Since most of you have every intention of making this harder than it has to be, maybe I can help. So, without going through all the boring details let me just get to the bottom line.
When it comes to climate change, there are two major factors. The position of the axis tilt of the earth which determines seasons and the sun which determines heat.
Earth’s climate is dependent on axis and sun activity – sun storms and the like. This sun activity is responsible for the patterns of climate change the earth has and will experience throughout the ages.
Any climate change the earth experiences is a direct result of activity on the sun making it a celestial matter and not man-made.
No matter how much you would like to think you have the power to control long term climate change, it’s just not possible.