Gill

I was asking for a source that aerosols depressed temperatures in 1940 - 1970. I keep seeing that stated with no data to back it up. I would love to see a source to atmospheric measurements of aerosol levels during that time period.

So, scientists claim that a lack of contrails for a few days over just the U.S. affected temperatures??? I find that quite incredulous. Nature actually published this tripe?? Incredible. Says a lot about the status of Nature as a credible source of science.

The next time someone posts about a weather event on this forum and an alarmists screams that it is only weather and not climate, I'll post your article as proof that they are wrong.

__________________
There is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.
Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS

BmanMcfly

Since we're at the point of calling each others arguments propaganda... and that we are resorting to personal attacks (UtahBill... Mods??)... Now, can we go find some UNBIASED scientists that can reopen study, where their findings will NOT be ridiculed, or worse... from the best that I can see of the two sides of the consensus is that a) either 90% of the raw data is adequate for an explanation as the global warming theorists would say, or b) that 10% of the data refutes the global warming theory and must be adjusted to accomodate this information.

Also, since it's apparent that ONLY someone that believes in the HYPE of global warming has any 'facts' in their papers... (when the source I claimed had 12 scientists from 'earth studies' (or related fields) alll discussing (not the likelyhood), but the LAUGHABLE idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming).... that these scientists haven't released ANYTHING worthy of 'peer-review' status.

Listen, if you want to believe the hype; just keep drinking your tap water (sodium fluoride added), take your shots (Mercury added), ignore the chemtrails in the sky (barium salts added), and make sure to support the 'lesser evil' politician that will tax you, your driving, your work, your travel, and yes TAX EVEN YOUR BREATHING, since CO2 IS the ONLY culprit... if we rid the world of CO2 things would be much better for everyone... apparently.

If not... well, then you can start to ask questions :
-Why is Co2 villified when it is THE SOURCE of life of ANY CARRBON BASED LIFE FORM??
-Why have we so fiercely debated effects of CO2 when something like GMO corn which is highly likely to be cancerous continues to be grown and sold and eaten?
-Why haven't we villified the pulp& paper industries when they release chemical soups into the environment, not to mention the clear cutting of forests... things that would naturally DROP levels of CO2???
- Why have alternate forms of energy been kept un-available to the public?? (look at Montreals electric car makers, who for YEARS could not sell the cars in North America, instead being forced to ship them overseas)
- etc

Look, in all the arguments about lag time, the only explanation I've seen is the Orwellian double-speak. Just because gravity has pulled things down to the ground in the past, is no reason why gravity shouldn't be able to do the opposite in the future. (YES, that argument really sounds THAT bad). Any further argument, at best the extent of global warming from CO2 would be that the inner-city would be hotter than in rural areas, but even then there are MANY factors to that as well. Like anything else in the environment, the factors that control these things are so complexly interrelated that our most powerful supercomputers still can't create an accurate model of Next WEEK NVM next century.

So, I'm done here... before the mud starts slinging (a few have alredy started). Don't worry, the carbon tax won't be very high (at first) so you'll justify paying... when the taxes go up to the 70-80% range, and you see that your tax money has made NO REAL change on CO2 production.... maybe by then you might question. But, I suppose it's my fault, that my areas of expertise is not as a climate scientist... However, I liken the 'environmental' movement to that of the 'feminist' movement... I mean, equality of the sexes, and equality in choices between sexes as well are good goals to achieve... and the majority of the original feminists were well intentioned... however, I'm sure their intents didn't involve both turning women into sluts and men into wussies. That's one of the more effective ways of human manipulation; take a 'good' goal of the public, then circumvent the group and take it into a 'worse' direction. The other being the equation : Problem, reaction, solution.

P = Legitimate environmental concerns putting 'business as usual' in jeopardy.
R = "The public / scientists are FREAKING OUT!!! (Then give up power to government) "Something must be done about this... what are you (big brother) going to do about it)
S = Carbon taxes, failed environmental protocols that affected very little, essentially make humanity the enemy of humanity, just like they(those in power that control the groups that control the issues) promised over 30 years ago.

The more dire the problem, and the longer the duration before the reactions are 'tended to' (since reactions to unresolved issues increases)... the more people will ask and fight for a 'contrived' solution that takes away their rights.

FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong The making of a climate skeptic ... One last link for your enjoyment.

Frank Talk

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO<SUB>2</SUB> does not cause warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Frank Talk

Never did I call your argument propaganda, I simply pointed out the many misunderstandings you have.
No scientific organization rejects human effect on climate change. No published paper between 1993 and 2003 rejected the consensus position. This would have to be the most pervasive bias ever to get almost all of the scientific community to agree on it.
Are we going back to the documentary? 12 scientists vs. over 2500 who worked on the IPPC report , and many, many more who work for other organizations that issued concurring statements and published independent work. Oh and did you happen to read the criticisms of the documentary?

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Oh, I get it now, your delusional. By the way, no one said CO2 was the only culprit.

No it's not.
Maybe because where talking about global warming not genetically modified food, and there probably is no evidence that's it's cancerous.
Because the Illuminati are trying to shrink the world population?
It amazes me that you don't get something this simple. In the past CO2 lagged temperature, today it does not lag temperature. What about this do you not understand.

How about this. Finish high school and then maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.

Great scientific source. A journalists blog. It's not even worth my time to read.

BmanMcfly

I really wanted to end this last post... but had missed this.

That works both ways... at least now you have had a look into the mind of a propagandist. Now, just accept that this goes on both sides... Except that one side has been turning that crank so hard that it's necessary for the otherside to 'crank' the other side to bring the debate back in balance... and no, I've been wrong on a few issues in this debate, when I'm wrong and shown to be wrong I admit it, adjust and move on.

Which experts?? Mine or yours?? We don't know... I doubt you're much more of a scientific mind than I am, but in all this the only CONCRETE thing we can agree on is that MORE RESEARCH is needed to solve the discrepencies in climate change theory.

An inconvenient truth vs. Great Global Warming Swindle? - Yahoo! Answers
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
(The second is as close as I could find on a brief search)

Except that I looked at this from both sides, and the politicization of the climate change debate shows ME that this is part of a political agenda (aka a BS issue to get society to accept a worse situation)

Let's take a simple ex : a humid city vs a dry city. In a humid city you can't escape heat as much by going into shade, you will still feel the warmth held by the humidity in the air. Where in a dry climate there is a more drastic difference in temperature between sun and shade.

That said, let's say that its a really hot day, except the sky is covered by thick clouds... naturally, things will be cooler. So, on a larger scale, if a greater percentage of the earth is covered by clouds there will be a REDUCTION in solar energy reaching the surface FOR the greenhouse effect to take place.

S08E06 - Goobacks

I meant 2 peer-reviewed studies with equal ammounts of evidence...
- Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts
- nzclimatescience.net - 030807 Marc Morano's Round-up
- Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
- UAHuntsville News
- Jennifer Marohasy: Rhodes Fairbridge and the Idea that the Solar System Regulates the Earth's Climate: A New Paper by Richard Mackey
- http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf
- Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle
- http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf
- Global Warming Science and Public Policy - A Critique on the Lockwood/Frochlich Paper in the Royal Society Proceedings
-http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a

It would seem that all of these fall under 'peer-reviewed' status (I didn't read them all thoroughly, just enough to deem them relevant... 6 others were removed)

FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong The making of a climate skeptic ... this guy comes to the opposite conclusion, and more

It doesn't mean you have to deny... but having CO2 as a red herring keeps many well intentioned people from getting into the REAL issues... because you will say 'I cut my Co2 footprint by 20%, I did my part.' When all the areas causing REAL environmental damage are allowed to continue unaffected by 'environmentalism.'

What have the proposed solutions been??
- Cap and trade : where nothing is reduced, just those under the cap sell their slack to those above the cap.
- Carbon tax : Make all travel more expensive so that people won't travel as much, but rather stay in the confines of the city in which they live.

Also, how can we debate solutions when the problem is still 'debateable'... rather, what you are seeing is politics 'acting as tho' there was consensus, and creating 'arbitrary' solutions. (Another sign of an initial political agenda)

Good job spinning what I said...


So we've gone from denying 'extra-earthbound' factors to acknowleging their effect?? I mean, if the farmers almanac indicates a warming trend based on all factors and then you say 'well, yes it's all factors, but Co2 is still a culprit'... can you see the sidestep in logic??

Again, you're spinning what I said out of context... I said that humans CAN cause REAL environmental damage... but IF humans are affecting the CLIMATE that the culprit is not going to be the NUTRIENT of CO2 but RATHER a REAL pollutant or combination. I maintain that CO2 is the red herring preventing a REAL environmental movement from stopping those that are causing REAL environmental damage from their 'business as usual'.


Yes, Immune.
But, are you proposing that IAVD is CAUSED by GMO food??

Environmental factors; herbicide, over-production, over-breeding, orver-pollinating, the stain caused by GMO foods, were all factors as I said earlier...

I AM focused on the issue... I'm trying to get the point across that these issues ARE inter-related. This issue is greater than simple CO2.

BmanMcfly

Well, just so you know, 'an inconvenient truth' in the UK must now legally begin with a warning about the bias contained in the film.
UK Court : Schools Must Warn of Bias in 'An Inconvenient Truth' | NewsBusters.org

I'd suggest you look into both sides of this from a fresh perspective as well.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Where's the part about tinfoil hats??
- The Club of Rome IS a REAL group. - No conspiracy
- Al Gore (at least) WAS a member - No conspiracy
- The group DID finance a book called 'the first global revolution' - No conspiracy
- The book did advocate issues like 'global warming (NOT climate change as you should have seen in the 1970s when things were cooling), famine and disease' to be used to unite mankind under a 'common enemy' (ie mankind) - No conspiracy
- Global warming is a VERY politicized issue, proposed carbon taxes ARE real. - No conspiracy

The only part of what I'm saying that could be up for debate is whether the people in the 'Club of Rome' are well placed enough to create all this... since the evidence shows the 'conspiracy' and 'action upon that conspiracy' (it's politicization)... the only question is who specifically was in the group at the time, what other positions they carried, and their 'areas of influence'.

I think you're confusing 'conspiracy' with a 'David Icke' type of conspiracy (who believes that the world is controlled by 'blood-drinking shape shifting humanoid reptiles'... now THAT is a wild over-blown conspiracy that you are talking about... not this evidenced, announced, and acted upon conspiracy that I'm talking about that is no less than 30 years old)

Yes, because noone has adequately addressed the lag issue except by twisting logic.


Again, I showed about 10 sources 'peer-reviewed' at your request saying that the climate is controlled by the sun and cloud cover more than CO2.

yes, when you have to use 'double-speak' in defense of a theory, it seems laughably scientific (unless it's political science, in which case this type of defense works surprisingly well). I'm not rejecting the entire discipline... I'm accusing that discipline of being: politically motivated and over-simplified. (aka more UNBIASED research needed)

"The ENTIRE scientific community"???? Even from the '2500 scientists" the IPCC claimed was shown to be a list of '600 scientists and 1900 reviewers' MANY of which upon questioning either didn't support AGW, felt that more research was needed, or saw the hype for what it was... Also, if it's people from WITHIN this 'scientifc community' that have sorted out my arguments (many of them) for me.

Who was the one using 'propaganda' again???



No, your analogy is wrong.

Since I'm telling you that the first assumption of your theory is flawed (as ex: 6000 year old earth), and no matter how many facts and figures you show me to 'prove that point' (6000 year old earth) can be ignored since the initial assumption is flawed... so let's look for a third answer (then get called a conspiracy nut)

Not so long ago, you called me stupid for saying that the sun had an effect on climate....



Cute... another subtle jab.


So again, I'll agree with you, this debunking is a healthy process that might lead to REAL discoveries as to the CAUSES of climate change rather than their EFFECTS (CO2), if people can avoid ignorant name calling and mudslinging. There are articles debunking your debunking articles as well... and likely debunkers on the AGW side are working on those debunks at this time.

The Debate is NOT OVER in spite of 'claiming victory'... much like we 'claimed victory' in Iraq what 3-4 years ago now?? and there are still soldiers dying?? just cause AGW supporters claim 'consensus' doesn't make it so...

The one you'd be looking for is from 'The first global revolution' (appeared between 1970-1974, couldn't find the specific year).

This site is from a quick search it contains the quotes that I was looking for.

Now, I'm not AGAINST globalism as an idea, but what I AM against is the way in which globalism is being carried out... that being; for the benefit of a select few elite bankers, politicians, and other power brokers and super-wealthy (super-wealth being 100million$ + family wealth for +/- 7 generations). That we are being taken there by stealth and covert means is also disconcerning for me... in that if there is one global leader with no other resort for justice; what's to stop a new-age hitler from taking the reigns??

The Club of Rome; while 'seeming' humanitarian, are MASTERS (or better) in the art of 'spin'. While what they say 'sounds' good, the MEANS by which they plan to achieve these goals is NOTHING SHORT of EVIL. The same type of evil that would like to see a global population reduction to maintain a population perpetually at 500Million people worldwide...


Sorry, no specific page numbers, even tho I've found others too
Club of Rome Quotes – Quotes About Club of Rome
It seems pages 74-75 are relevant, or pp 104-105.

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

-SOURCE: David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

But I'm digressing

And the other dozen or so scientists in the documentary?

UtahBill

Mcfly, I challenged your knowledge of physics and you want to get mods involved? why not just answer the challenge? tell us the science classes you took in school or university....if there are any.
It is irritating to have some young uneducated person make all kinds of claims when all he has really learned is what he has read in a magazine article or saw on the telly. Do you really think that the issues are that simple? THEY ARE NOT.....

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

BmanMcfly

No your friend did...


What about the dozen or so published recently that are peer-reviewed with the same conclusions??


Did you read the warning that must be played before Al Gores 'AGW' film in the UK??


Actually, you guys are bouncing back and forth... on that issue... some say it does others no... the thing is that the POLITICIANS ARE ACTING AS THOUGH CO2 WERE THE ONLY CULPRIT.


Ok... so I'm just pretending that plant life absorbs Co2 and releases oxygen so that all other animals can breath and expell more co2??


Guess again :
Do GMO foods cause cancer? - Google Search


I never mentioned any secret societies... I'm not sure who funded the georgia guidestones... but it's up there for everyone to see that SOMEONE is talking about population reduction (or eugenics).

Now, I do get what your saying, but that is likely more a result of less rainforests and 'consumers' of CO2, moreso than a predictor that the temperature is rising. Just because there is now a surplus of CO2 doesn't make it so that the 'exhaust' of life (which is abundant in warmth, less so in cold) can become the 'generator' of further climate change.

Since there are many other factors going on that determines the extent of any climate change, most of it natural factors beyond human control, and no matter what humans do; we aren't giong to stop CO2 shy of ridding the planet of life altogether.

So yes, I do get what your saying, but it doesn't make it any more accurate.


Actually, to understand this you'd have to understand human psychology beyond the level of a high school student; it wouldn't hurt to understand political science; then you can carry on to read Machiavelli's 'The Prince';
then you can go into everyday newspapers to see this in effect.

If you don't UNDERSTAND how populations are manipulated, then you are so helplessly enslaved by this manipulation that you'll never 'get it'.... Untill you understand compartmentalisation, you can't understand the world power structure.


LOL... I'm sorry for putting your ignorance at risk... he interviews scientists and reviewers from the IPCC's 2500 people. No, not risk the chance he might actually have uncovered anything worthwhile...

BmanMcfly

No, you didn't challenge Rather 'eloquent' challenge... since that was the entire post, could I have been taking this 'attack' as being out of context?? A challenge to my intellect would have been more along the lines 'and what level of physics have you attained?' not by namecalling and expecting a response. Also, I was merely asking the mods if this goes beyond 'political bias optional, civility a must' in fewer words.

Since you've restated your 'challenge'... I took physics through HS, as well as chemistry, and advanced math. In university, I didn't complete a degree, but took 2 years of psychology and sociology. On top of a healthy appetite for reading, have read books on subjects like 'power', 'control', 'ethics', philosophy, and also self-taught in computer programming/repair.

I've been the one telling people that the issues of AGW is more complex than CO2 not the other way around... and when I raise other factors, I'm told that those factors have been 'debunked' when they have not (or not adequately), I'm told there is 'consensus' when clearly there is not.

Even when I go as far as saying 'fine, we need more research' the idea is rejected... why I compared environmentalism as a 'new religion' '(some)scientists said it, I believe it, end of discussion'

So, I suppose it's your turn to tell us of you're accomplishments? Since I'm the one that 'never finished high school?? Or are you just going to shrink down further and call me a liar??

UtahBill

Your childish attitude is what got you challenged in the first place. Me, shrink down? why?
Physics and chemistry and advanced math in High school (64), navy nuclear power school (66), and college (night classes 78 to 84). And I avoided the "soft" sciences of sociology and psychology, humans are way too complicated. give me hard science any day of the week. they are complicated as well, but not near as much as human behaviour..tho I have done some reading on propaganda, how it is done, and to whom...
Your knowledge of physics and chemistry is still minimal, not going to challenge you any more. You don't even know enough to begin to appreciate how little you know....

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.