- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 2,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Their emails contain none of the phrases you put in quotations. The things you put in quotations are not quotes, but rather faulty interpretations of quotes. Provide evidence of these assertions.
Tree rings do not have temperatures in the celcius scale encoded in arabic numerals. The reason they need "algorithms on the raw data" is because they have to convert non-temperature data (width of tree rings) into temperature data (degrees celcius).
Sorry, those were to paraphrase, not direct quotes... Let's say it was 'benign' as you're implying... why would they need to higher known AGW alarmists to vindicate them??
You've got the link between temperature and CO2 wrong... the temperature rises, so there's an increase in animal life producing higher levels of CO2 and as a result, the CO2 rate increases and so the plants grow bigger as a result of having more nutrients in the air... It's not the animals produce CO2 which heats the earth and causes trees to grow.
Quote from one o those emails that proves this. Preferably in a different thread, because this thread is about science, not conspiracies.
Yes, it's a conspiracy... and they've been caught... not prosecuted, but now they are being publicly shunned and nobody trusts them or their science... but they continue to march onwards as though they haven't been thoroughly discredited.
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'Provide evidence of these statements.
For starters.... I can just here the 'no no I don't want to believe that the climate priests have lied to me'.
Because a graph of the temperature over the last 10,000 years is impossible to read when you're trying to show people what has happened over the last 200 years. I'm not sure what you think this is evidence of.
It's not 'evidence' of anything... it just so happens that the timing that gets used is always starts at the lowest point since that time. It's also funny because it's claimed 'oh you gotta look long term'... so you look at the 100000 -400000 year graphs and find that there's been at least 2 points that have been hotter, more CO2, etc... and that's only going off of the glacier core tests... those tests which show, in the raw form, that the correlation between climate and CO2 is that Climate PRECEDES CO2 levels between 700-1000 years.
Also, By strategically looking at this time period, is misleading when you can add a few hundred years worth of data and get the real picture that there's nothing terribly worrisome.
The effects of water vapor are included in these studies. Those explanations you refer to aren't implying that water vapor has no effect, they're only saying that water vapor has less of an effect than their % of atmosphere would indicate, for a few reasons.
So, let's ban water then... it's heating up the earth. I mean hell, we're talking about banning CO2, right?? Hell, why not just everybody stop exhaling... that'll do the earth good, right?
Rapid changes in temperature are linked with mass extinction events. Animals and plants can only adapt so quickly to changes in their climate. The concern isn't "warm = bad," it's "warming (or cooling) too quickly is bad." You can't just make a blanket statement that warmer will be better. You're just making up arguments now. It must really be easy to "win" a debate when you get to decide yourself what the opposition "says."
No, I was simplifying the point... that the warming, in REAL terms that CO2 increases MIGHT represent IS NOT of the 'catastrophic' temperature changes where the next 50 years will be glaciers down past New York City, or that the earth will heat up to the point where the oceans start to boil over... we're talking about a few degrees up COMPARED TO where that temperature WOULD HAVE BEEN without the extra influence of CO2.
Not control. Influence. It's hubris to think that our actions have no consequences. We're not trying to "control" the climate, we're trying to eliminate or minimize our impact on it, because the "optimum" climate is that which the existing ecosystem is adapted to.
No, not 'no consequences'... YES human activity, in SOME certain ways has VERY detrimental effects to the environment... but stop calling a nutrient a detriment... do you want to talk about REAL environmental concerns or carry on this exercise of mental masturbation trying to prove that a trace gas that's necessary to life on this planet is somehow a 'toxic influence'... rather then you know stuff that's ACTUALLY TOXIC??
Seriously, wouldn't it be better to study what's causing so many hermaphroditic frogs and fish in many areas lakes and streams... instead of trying to study what a change of PH of 7.5 - 7.4 is going to cause marine wildlife, and how many times the atmospheric levels of CO2 this would require??? Honestly, those studies MORE THEN DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 concentrations before ANY noticeable effect.
Now, if the sun were to shut off tomorrow... NO AMOUNT OF CO2 is going to fix the problem... you're NOT going to be able to optimize the climate... by the same token, if the energy coming off the sun multiplies several fold, then IT"S GOING TO BE HOT... the exception being the percentage of those rays that are reflected back into space due to cloud cover.
You implied I was somehow making an argument based off it.[
No, was illustrating how corrupt the climate science organizations have become.
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'Provide evidence that this was a deliberate misrepresentation rather than a typo.
Not only was it a 'typo' that became the topic of a study that was peer-reviewd... but it was also based on unpublished information.
Who has been "debunked," and how can you prove this?
ALL OF THEM. The IPCC, the UN, the CRU, NASA, etc... the climate has been on a slow cooling trend... and these are the only groups left that think otherwise.
6+ billion dollars per year goes into climate science... that's the type of cash flow many would be interested in protecting.
Who said we need to reduce population?
- The club of Rome (final global revolution)
- The UN (agenda 21, the biological diversity study 1996)
- Bill Gates (heavily implied in multiple speeches)
- Prince Charles (wrote about wishing to reincarnate has a virus to help curb overpopulation
- Al Gore (implied)
- Ted Turner (80-90% human population reduction)
- Obama's Science advisor (sterilants in water to reduce population, among other things)
- Bush's science advisor (Same as Obama)
- Time magazine (various articles, 'case for killing granny', 'the one child myth', etc)
- etc... that's off the top of my head without looking for further examples
You're making up more arguments. I can do that too. Climate skeptics think that God will step in and fix the planet if we ruin it too much. I think relying on God to fix things is just insane. Hahaha. Silly skeptics.
I'm not making up your arguments, I'm showing you the logical extension and inevitable outcomes of this train of thought.
You see, the main problem is that you're looking to CO2 like it's an actual pollutant... it is NOT. It is a NUTRIENT. A vital to life on earth trace gas. To reduce it is to reduce the capacity of life on earth... plant life at least. About the only benefit to low CO2 levels is that because trees grow much slower in a CO2 starved environment, hardwoods become more plentiful.
So, until the 'green movement' returns it's focus TO LEGITIMATE pollution, then the 'science' is wasted on money grubbers hoping to keep the funding flowing, and not caring about making things better.
Seems to me that you're the one doing the propagandizing. You're just making up all kinds of things and claiming that "scientists" are saying it.
Just because I'm not directly sourcing except where needed does not mean that I'm making stuff up....
Next up you started talking about Mayan sacrifice so I'm done with you now. Start up a new thread about your conspiracies, showing evidence of all these absurd claims you have about what scientists are saying and doing. I'll be happy to respond there.
I swear Mayans were real... Maya civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I AM NOT the one making the absurd claims... the scientists are making the absurd claims, which I point out the absurdity by being absurd. If it's not directly from the scientists themsevles, it's from those that take the science and run with it, even where the science is based on flaws, fraud and fudging numbers.
Also worth noting:
That "medieval warm period" you refer to is the work of the same scientists you're claiming are untrustworthy. How do you know there ever was an ice age? How do you know there was a warm period 1000 years ago?
Yes, but there's far more data concerning the past that's been verified from many different angles and not simply the UN 'team consensus', at some point, there started to be a greater disconnect between these scientific publications and the real world... as I said before, previously the major concerns at least caused legitimate problems; DDT's, CFC's, dioxins, heavy metals, asbestos, sewage runoff of fertility drugs, that in most major cities the water is cleaner going into the city the coming out... waste dumping is a bigger concern... hell, even over-fishing / hunting is a greater concern to the ecosystem then CO2... This 'conspiracy' that you keep labelling it hasn't always been as strong and as evident in the science community... but the more this alarmist goes on, the more people are going to start believing it, and the more people are going to start acting out because of it... like the attempted discovery channel bomber... who idolized Al Gore and talked about Malthusian concepts, and the need for MORE global warming programming...
Make no mistake about it... AGW is a religion... it is NOT science as much as it is doctrine.
Why not just admit that global warming is about total shutdown of all industrial societies??? Or at least western societies... since the extremists don't seem to have qualms about Chinese pollution nearly as much as american... meanwhile in american factories there's such better standards that IF CO2 REALLY IS the big problem, moving stuff to china would ONLY serve to exacerbate the problem.