ccodiane
New Member
Don't get 'em started! J/K I love it.
Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore
- Thread starter closet.cult
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Surely there is a logical explanation for this. If the planet is warming as the global warming cultists would us have believe; as fast as they claim it to be happening; would not the prediction for 2008 be different?
World to cool slightly in 2008: British experts
World to cool slightly in 2008: British experts
aattocchi
Well-Known Member
I can agree with seaweed producing oxygen, but you said algea. Also, most of the states you mentioned are being developed at ridiculous rates. I grew up in Florida, it used to be cow pastures and swamp, now there is nothing but wal-mart, 7-11, walgreens, strip clubs, bars , neighborhoods, apartment buildings, etc. I have also seen the rows of pine trees you talk about.
Where do they replant a forrest that was cut down to build a highway or buildings?
aattocchi
Well-Known Member
Mockingbird
The whole reason I called you a fool in the first place was because you said "algae produces more oxygen then trees". I am glad to see you have done some research since then. Now that we have clairified a few things, let's try starting out an a new foot, shall we? I feel we might not be that much different from each other. We are both the same virus that is ruining our planet and we are not perfect, as you just demonstrated for me.
The whole reason I called you a fool in the first place was because you said "algae produces more oxygen then trees". I am glad to see you have done some research since then. Now that we have clairified a few things, let's try starting out an a new foot, shall we? I feel we might not be that much different from each other. We are both the same virus that is ruining our planet and we are not perfect, as you just demonstrated for me.
ccodiane
New Member
And the earth is a virus ruining the solar system. The solar system? An infection plaguing our galaxy. Our galaxy? A nasty cold haunting our local group. Our local group?.............................. It must be fun to live in lala land. You should write kids books.Mockingbird
The whole reason I called you a fool in the first place was because you said "algae produces more oxygen then trees". I am glad to see you have done some research since then. Now that we have clairified a few things, let's try starting out an a new foot, shall we? I feel we might not be that much different from each other.
We are both the same virus that is ruining our planet and we are not perfect, as you just demonstrated for me.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Your apology is accepted. I don't not post about my opinions very often. Most of my posts are about small facts I have found, which I believe are germane to the post subject.probably going to hear a lot of shit for this, but I just relized you did say seaweed and not algae. Sorry!
This post is about the reality of global warming - is it influenced by humans? If your are interested in forest depletion, I suggest you post about forest depletion and see where that issue moves.
</IMG>
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
It wasn't directed to you... all you had to do was look UP one post. and you would have figured that out... or at least had the opportunity to figure it out...
I'm not really sure what you are capable of..
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
i knew you mom would TALK!! FOOK!!!...
but I did not think that she would fictionalize the story
.. maybe she got up set cause I pulled out?
Tell her to send me the dry cleaning bill..
BTW - did you guys ever have floors in your house growing up?.. 'cause that is po-dunk shit to have dirt floors in your house.. especially in the kitchen ..
PLEASE READ THIS TWICE -
iloveyou
ccodiane
New Member
Sober up and respond again, PLEASE.i knew you mom would TALK!! FOOK!!!...
but I did not think that she would fictionalize the story
maybe she got up set cause I pulled out?
Tell her to send me the dry cleaning bill..
BTW - did you guys ever have floors in your house growing up?.. 'cause that is po-dunk shit to have dirt floors in your house.. especially in the kitchen ..
PLEASE READ THIS TWICE -
iloveyou
ccodiane
New Member
ccodiane
New Member
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
towlie
Well-Known Member
Closet.Cult. Sorry for the long delay. I just dont have the time for this kind of thing, but I promised that Id read your article and that I would respond. So Im basically doing this as a courtesy to you because I asked you to submit your claims and you did just that
so if I had ignored your post it would have been a real slap in the face, and I dont intend to do that to another member of the community.
With that said Ill probably find the time to discuss your next response, but then Ill let it die because I lost interest as I was rather underwhelmed by your article. So please dont interpret my silence as dismissive, and I do promise to read your response. Here we go
Firstly I asked for a peer reviewed study so as to review your best scientific study and the corresponding published evaluation from experts in the field whom are chosen by the publisher. Instead I got an article arguing against the man-made CO2 emissions global mean temperature debate with corresponding scientific studies The article was written by a partisan hack, but whatever... The rub however is that I am now forced to choose the best studies for you. I doubt you have the time to read a review of all 22 studies any more than I have the time to type it, so Ill just pick the first study The study that he uses for his basic thesis and investigate it.
So heres your articles first argument, then the referenced scientific study compendium, then the peer reviews, then and the articles conclusion:
From the New Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears. By none other than Swift Boat Veterans For Truth corroborator Marc Morano. (Thanks for that find by the way Medicine Man.)
Argument No 1: A new peer-reviewed study overturned in one fell swoop the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.
Study S07 Compendium No 1: Firstly, and I shit you not the researcher/author openly admits in the introduction that it is widely accepted scientific consensus that doubling of CO2 will result in a 2-4.5 C GMT rise. Then thru a bunch of calcs that I wont pretend to understand concludes the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 4.5 Kelvin. This value is more likely 1.1 +/- 0.5K.
Peer Review No. 1: The peer reviews (and there are many) all basically state the same critiques.
Abstract: Therefore the combined inaccuracies in this methodology make any estimates derived from it highly unreliable.
And the Conclusion: We concur with earlier results that the 20th century trends do not strongly constrain sensitivity [eg Gregory et al., 2002; Forest et al., 2006], and we conclude that S07 presents no substantive evidence to challenge the widely-view that climate sensitivity is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5C. Hmmm. Interesting. Dont the authors know that 800 scientists disagree with the 20,000 that do? Surly this is not a consensus unless of course you intend to interpret the word consensus as described in every dictionary ever printed.
Incidentally the second aforementioned reference [Forest et al., 2006] is the James Hansen study conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University Earth Institute, Sigma Space Partners, Inc., Department of Earth Science, University of California that Ive been referencing. Hansens final sentence reads as follows: We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species. The very study Morano uses for his opening thesis admits that this study is the base of consensus among global climatologists So if were going to keep using the word consensus could we please get a dictionary and use it accordingly????
Now Moranos conclusion based on study S07: [this] new study belies Al Gores claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Sweet! Al Gore is a global climatologist at NASAs Goddard Space Institute? I had no idea This is seriously becoming the all time trite ad homonym attack, and Im beginning to see why the proponents of your argument would rather discuss Al Gore than the science. Furthermore, I find no great irony in that the proponents of this conspiracy theory yes the proponents who claim to be scientifically minded, would rather turn this into an argument of partisan hacks (Morano & Gore) than debate anything even remotely scientific.
Morano further expands: most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. Then explains that since weve already seen 60% of S07s estimated CO2 effect that, and I shit you not, he really says this In other words, theres hardly any additional warming in the pipeline from previous greenhouse gas emissions.
So the man who claims the study, that according to its peers is highly unreliable due to its linear global temperature assumption, has decided to estimate future temperatures by extrapolating exponentially warming global mean temperatures with a two point linear extrapolation.
I only have one question. Where is Ockham in this debate? If you dont want to post actual studies, then at least go to any global climate research center (and Im embarrassed that I have to say this, but one that actually publishes peer reviewed articles rather than devoting its time/money to political agendas) and perform the key word search Global Warming CO2.
I did just this on NASAs website and found 825 matches. The first three are as follows:
First:
Title: Global Warming.
Causes: A majority [see consensus] of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
Ways to Limit GW: (1) limit CO2 emissions. (2) carbon sequestration.
Second:
Title: Global Warming on Mars Okay, only slightly relevant.
Third:
Title: Research Finds that Earths Climate is Approaching Dangerous Point
Thesis: If global emissions of CO2 continue to rise at the rate of the past decade, this research shows that there will be disastrous effects, including rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods and harm to wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones.
I could keep going, but this conspiracy theory is easily debunked by anyone who is truly scientifically minded or even slightly interested in finding untarnished data. I apologize for the condescending tone but this theory is laughable and Im embarrassed for those pushing such rubbish. Im equally embarrassed, given what scientists are saying, that no one has the courage to admit the total global cluster fuck the potential loss of life if the scientific consensus is correct.
As always, warm regards.
With that said Ill probably find the time to discuss your next response, but then Ill let it die because I lost interest as I was rather underwhelmed by your article. So please dont interpret my silence as dismissive, and I do promise to read your response. Here we go
Firstly I asked for a peer reviewed study so as to review your best scientific study and the corresponding published evaluation from experts in the field whom are chosen by the publisher. Instead I got an article arguing against the man-made CO2 emissions global mean temperature debate with corresponding scientific studies The article was written by a partisan hack, but whatever... The rub however is that I am now forced to choose the best studies for you. I doubt you have the time to read a review of all 22 studies any more than I have the time to type it, so Ill just pick the first study The study that he uses for his basic thesis and investigate it.
So heres your articles first argument, then the referenced scientific study compendium, then the peer reviews, then and the articles conclusion:
From the New Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears. By none other than Swift Boat Veterans For Truth corroborator Marc Morano. (Thanks for that find by the way Medicine Man.)
Argument No 1: A new peer-reviewed study overturned in one fell swoop the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.
Study S07 Compendium No 1: Firstly, and I shit you not the researcher/author openly admits in the introduction that it is widely accepted scientific consensus that doubling of CO2 will result in a 2-4.5 C GMT rise. Then thru a bunch of calcs that I wont pretend to understand concludes the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 4.5 Kelvin. This value is more likely 1.1 +/- 0.5K.
Peer Review No. 1: The peer reviews (and there are many) all basically state the same critiques.
- His model is over simplified because it describes the earth as having a single temperature.
- Then a bunch of other shit that I wont pretend to understand Something about his models climate time constant in relation to the decay rate of an autocorrelation and how the autocorrelation is estimated as a function of lag time. Whatever that means.
Abstract: Therefore the combined inaccuracies in this methodology make any estimates derived from it highly unreliable.
And the Conclusion: We concur with earlier results that the 20th century trends do not strongly constrain sensitivity [eg Gregory et al., 2002; Forest et al., 2006], and we conclude that S07 presents no substantive evidence to challenge the widely-view that climate sensitivity is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5C. Hmmm. Interesting. Dont the authors know that 800 scientists disagree with the 20,000 that do? Surly this is not a consensus unless of course you intend to interpret the word consensus as described in every dictionary ever printed.
Incidentally the second aforementioned reference [Forest et al., 2006] is the James Hansen study conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University Earth Institute, Sigma Space Partners, Inc., Department of Earth Science, University of California that Ive been referencing. Hansens final sentence reads as follows: We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species. The very study Morano uses for his opening thesis admits that this study is the base of consensus among global climatologists So if were going to keep using the word consensus could we please get a dictionary and use it accordingly????
Now Moranos conclusion based on study S07: [this] new study belies Al Gores claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Sweet! Al Gore is a global climatologist at NASAs Goddard Space Institute? I had no idea This is seriously becoming the all time trite ad homonym attack, and Im beginning to see why the proponents of your argument would rather discuss Al Gore than the science. Furthermore, I find no great irony in that the proponents of this conspiracy theory yes the proponents who claim to be scientifically minded, would rather turn this into an argument of partisan hacks (Morano & Gore) than debate anything even remotely scientific.
Morano further expands: most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. Then explains that since weve already seen 60% of S07s estimated CO2 effect that, and I shit you not, he really says this In other words, theres hardly any additional warming in the pipeline from previous greenhouse gas emissions.
So the man who claims the study, that according to its peers is highly unreliable due to its linear global temperature assumption, has decided to estimate future temperatures by extrapolating exponentially warming global mean temperatures with a two point linear extrapolation.
I only have one question. Where is Ockham in this debate? If you dont want to post actual studies, then at least go to any global climate research center (and Im embarrassed that I have to say this, but one that actually publishes peer reviewed articles rather than devoting its time/money to political agendas) and perform the key word search Global Warming CO2.
I did just this on NASAs website and found 825 matches. The first three are as follows:
First:
Title: Global Warming.
Causes: A majority [see consensus] of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
Ways to Limit GW: (1) limit CO2 emissions. (2) carbon sequestration.
Second:
Title: Global Warming on Mars Okay, only slightly relevant.
Third:
Title: Research Finds that Earths Climate is Approaching Dangerous Point
Thesis: If global emissions of CO2 continue to rise at the rate of the past decade, this research shows that there will be disastrous effects, including rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods and harm to wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones.
I could keep going, but this conspiracy theory is easily debunked by anyone who is truly scientifically minded or even slightly interested in finding untarnished data. I apologize for the condescending tone but this theory is laughable and Im embarrassed for those pushing such rubbish. Im equally embarrassed, given what scientists are saying, that no one has the courage to admit the total global cluster fuck the potential loss of life if the scientific consensus is correct.
As always, warm regards.
hossfield
Well-Known Member
heres some things to think aboot....the majority of the rest of the world agrees that global warming is gunna get a lot worse and quick, and washington doesnt agree with this, we have some of the best fresh water sources on the planet, global warming happens and dries up water resources everywhere, chances are the US would have quite an upper hand on the rest of the world
closet.cult
New Member
thanks for the reply, towlie.
i believed you noted the same thing i noticed and it proves my point. people on both sides of the isle continuously ladel out numbers and studies and the CONCLUDE that then research proves their side. BULLSHIT!
neither side has proven it one way or the other! that is the point! they CANNOT prove that the earth is warming due to man's activity. IT IS AN ASSUMPTION!
look at NASA's quote: Causes: A majority [see consensus] of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
this is typical of both sides, but in particular the global warming advocates. the reason is that it is technically impossible to study and project GLOBAL properties. science and technology is just not that advanced. as advance as computers are today, THEY are not advanced enough to simulate GLOBAL scales.
Therefor, the reason that information passed peer review is that it didn't say anything incorrect...just like the data developed by the proponates of global warming. they are posting data that is correct, the problem is they are simply extrapolating the conclusions they want from the data. the data itself does not support man-made global warming.
they say: "studies show ice is melting at an alarming rate. greenhouse gasses have the power to raise the earth's temperature. man puts out CO2, a greenhouse gas. therefor, MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING."
...this thought process is typical of global warming studies. what is missing is the research and testing of this theory, and computer models don't fucking count!
i have yet to read an artical that gives an EXPERIMENT that proves CO2 can do what the catastrophy scientists say it does, on a global scale. the simple truth is: they cannot prove what they say without falsifiable computers. the world has been taken in by programmers doing computer models, instead of scientists doing experiments. it makes me sick.
medicineman
New Member
It's pretty simple reasoning. Anything that reflects the suns rays back onto the earth would probably make it warmer, agreed? Then 2nd, man made chemicals cause a layer of reflective properties to develop in the Earths atmosphere, agreed? Hydrocarbons, flourocarbons Co2 Emissions from all mans activities, fires, volcanoes, cowfarts, come on, people breathing. all 6 Billion +++, Agreed? whats the problem, man made globaql warming!!! My question is: why are people fighting these facts, What is there to gain by saying this is bullshit except holding their fragile ego together?
closet.cult
New Member
med. it's really not that simple. you have to prove the theory is sound and it can't be proven yet. technology is not there. everything is conjecture at this point.
i'll make this clear, i believe government should play a role in cleaning up this earth and doing all the things that the global warming people want to do. i just think its shitty that they have to use a false or ill-proven theory to do it.
even if it gets us down the path of cleaner air and water, which i want, it is intellectually dishonest and worse; works people up into a frenzy. i grate at this global warming hysteria. we are in no danger. this is the same planet with the same unpredictable weather patterns it had a few years ago before you ever heard about global warming.
just find an honest way to work toward the new cleaner technologies. let the market decide. bring out the secret patents and move us into the Jetson's age.
i'll make this clear, i believe government should play a role in cleaning up this earth and doing all the things that the global warming people want to do. i just think its shitty that they have to use a false or ill-proven theory to do it.
even if it gets us down the path of cleaner air and water, which i want, it is intellectually dishonest and worse; works people up into a frenzy. i grate at this global warming hysteria. we are in no danger. this is the same planet with the same unpredictable weather patterns it had a few years ago before you ever heard about global warming.
just find an honest way to work toward the new cleaner technologies. let the market decide. bring out the secret patents and move us into the Jetson's age.
towlie
Well-Known Member
You Too CC. I hope you didnt take my period of silence as an insult. Ive been so busy at work and had the day off so I figured Id try to respond.
I hope too that you dont think Im picking on you. When I first stumbled on this thread I noticed someone basically making the argument to another member that Global Warming is a fraud because you and Al Gore are a couple of faggots. Its been my experience that someone whom has nothing insightful to offer instigates such arguments Which is why I entered the thread stating just that, and then thereafter ignored this persons moronically imbecilic rejoins.
I firmly believe that we [members of the forum] should at least agree we are all hemp activists and that any disagreement on topics such as this ultimately doesnt impair the demographic potential of our common goal. For this reason I have not chosen to debate those who accuse me of belittling them for stating the obvious Or would rather pretend that I was claiming the Romans invented the aqueduct (an immensely broad term) rather than claiming they invented the Roman Aqueduct: A monumental engineering achievement utilized by the arch and methods of slope measurement that would leave todays plumbers in awe, brought potable water from streams as much as 40 miles away, sometimes thru mountains, and allowed a level of cleanliness to facilitate a million-plus city that would not be rivaled for 2,000 years Rather than just letting me refer to a well known scientific achievement as invented the aqueduct, this person chose to debate what clearly I did not mean.
With that said, I hope you understand that you should take my continued criticism / critique as a compliment rather than an attack. You are clearly a well-spoken, highly intelligent individual and I tip my hat to you With that said
To what isle are you referring? Scientifically peer reviewed data versus partisan hackery? Thats a pretty big isle my friend, and this is why I dont quote Al Gore (hes not a scientist with published data.) I dont know where you get your information, but the paper I read restricts commentary in the News to the experts publishing data, and separates opinion to the editorial section. For example the NY-Times publishes the notably brilliant yet notably biased economic commentary of Paul Krugman [Dean of Economics at Princeton] to the editorial section (Lets not debate if the NY-Times is liberal. Its not the point.) The information you have presented to date, in my opinion, represents commentary as news. Given your previous admission that historical president is reason enough to demand science be regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science (thats directly out of my dictionary.) I would hope you will admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data. Will you admit that for me? Will you admit if the vast majority of scientist are in agreement they tend to be at least more correct than lay-people or even those who may be brilliant yet have chosen to devote their time & effort to suspiciously funded organizations with political agendas? If not could you please site one historical instance in which such an anomaly has occurred? Of course not because it doesnt exist. The examples sited by Michael Crichton are lame at best The tectonic plates This is just a theory of geology you know? It has now superseded the theory of continental drift. With just the slightest bit of critical thinking, the arguments of those youre quoting break down and actually support the opposite. Mr. Crichton is actually asking us to assume the scientific consensus is correct over the 0.1% of geologists who disagree. Talk about fucking hypocrisy.
You keep saying this as though I havent already addressed it. Many brilliant scientist believe the 911 conspiracy theories, believe in UFO abductions, believe the earth is 6,000 years old, believe in some bat-shit-insane, Cool-Aid drinkin, spoon bending maharishi is the profit of god, etc, etc. Are you actually insinuating that scientific consensus is no more reliable than the clearly delusional yet somehow brilliant minority? (Im going to respond exactly the same way every time you re-state the above without addressing my rejoin.)
Says who? Are you suggesting that Global Climatology has no basis as a science, and therefore should not be studied due to the fact that we only have one scale model (the earth) in which to compare our data? Are you forgetting the NASA search returned a No.2 item pertaining to Mars? Are you suggesting that published data by those same climatologists predicting the 900 degF surface temperatures created by Venus massive CO2 atmosphere are correct simply by accident? This conspiracy theory has more moving arguments than O.J.
Lets be perfectly honest. You and I are not meteorologists or climatologists. I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering, which means nothing more than at one time I could regurgitate calculations generated by those far more brilliant than I could ever hope to be So we are simply at the mercy of qualified scientists and furthermore we may use historical precedence to better our chances at being correct
Would you please respond to this so I dont have to keep banging out the same thing over and over again?
WTF? Give me a break here man You have offered nothing scientific. The Morano article used a study, which all peers agreed was oversimplified and less accurate than the 2006 NASA study Moranos conclusion: A new peer-reviewed study overturned in one fell swoop the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. Read the NASA peer review Abstract, Introduction, & Conclusion and tell me with a straight face that Morano's thesis is based on legitimate science:
http://tinyurl.com/yqpgj4
Use any of the other published reviews if you like. Morano either didnt read the reviews or hes being deceitful Lets be honest Hes a god damn fucking liar, and this first and therefore clearly your best reference which quite grossly overstates the implication of its thesis reference study is nothing more than a medium of deceit.
Put yourself in my shoes. Until you provide a single study with positive peer reviews, I cannot take your argument seriously. Ive got kids, so Im hope your right but Jesus, how hard would it really be to provide this if you were actually correct? It will take you 30 seconds to look up my study and its corresponding reviews:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/
It has been my experience that people who invent oversimplified Straw-Man arguments like that above do not have sufficient facts to debate the subject honestly. I have never posted such an argument, and yet you offer it as a rebuttal.
Dont fucking count to you, and since when do they not test against historical data points. This is obvously the only way to test on a full model scale. It is quite obvious from the above statement that you have never read any of these studies, but rather accepted propoganda from the likes of Morano and company as fact over the science. How many times do I have to keep requesting a single scientific study before you admit you don't have one. Like all scientific theories, the intellectually honest admit that nothing is fact (just like I admit you might be right, just like the biblical creationists might be right, you just don't have scientific consensus on your side) Youll impress me if you post what Ive requested now at least 5-times per post, because by now it is quite obvious that you wont because you cant.
Lets quit pretending to be qualified of making such grand conclusions Its insulting. And lets quit pretending that theres anything less than a scientific consensus tantamount to evolution or tectonic plates, etc.
If you can't post the science Ive requested, lets agree to defer to a scientific journal of your choosing & perform a key word search as a random sampling of scientific consensus. Again, Im looking for actual science here, not news/commentary from suspiciously funded organizations or NewMax. Im going to have to start keeping track of how many times Ive requested some legitimate science here.
Kind regards As always
towlie
Well-Known Member
Its most definitely that simple. All Med is saying is that if energy is not allowed to escape (if its absorbed if you will) then the increase in the earth system internal energy is directly equal to the energy added by heating the system. This is the first law of thermodynamics and it is perfectly acceptable in science to quote law as fact.
The debate here is the extend of man-made CO2 emissions on GMT At least according to the peer reviewed studies youve indirectly linked.