Manipulated climate reports

[HeartThais]

There will always be someone who will argue that global warming doesn't exist. Their argument will always be that the earth is too vast and robust to be affected by mere humans. I don't understand their motivations. I could understand their motivation if they were an oil company but it surprises me when ordinary lay-person citizens are so vehemently against the facts of global warming.

 

Take a look at the now-defunct globalwarming.org, a right wing organization supported by oil companies and manufacturers. They were behind the push to not require airbags in cars also. Their articles also use the most inane spin to try and claim global warming is either not so bad or non-existent. They pretty much contradict themselves. Articles like 'Pennsylvania says that global warming will help agriculture'. 'Scientists say that global warming will be used to terraform Mars'

 

Denarius takes a study from a couple of physicists that says 10-30% of global warming is caused by the Sun as his best counter against global warming. The good news is that people like him are part of a fast shrinking minority.

 

Even if we don't know conclusively the impact human consumption has had on the environment, it should be clear that the vast majority of scientists are concerned. That's enough for me to pay attention and reconsider our global habits. I can't help but see them as no different than 2-pack a day smokers who get cancer and then say 'why me?'

[trooper]

Denarius takes a study from a couple of physicists that says 10-30% of global warming is caused by the Sun as his best counter against global warming. The good news is that people like him are part of a fast shrinking minority.

 

 

Fuck Yeah. But as long as the assholes that lead the most powerful country in the world are so stubborn and blind nothing useful will be done.

 

[Denarius]

Denarius takes a study from a couple of physicists that says 10-30% of global warming is caused by the Sun as his best counter against global warming. The good news is that people like him are part of a fast shrinking minority.

 

 

Fuck Yeah. But as long as the assholes that lead the most powerful country in the world are so stubborn and blind nothing useful will be done.

 

Is the best you can do is make up words to put in my mouth? Where did I say there was no global warming. I'm saying that it may be a natural process, or the sun could be a major contributor, as well as cosmic rays and waves. I do not see any evidence that humans or CO2 are the main contributor to global warming.

 

What does the ice cores prove I'm still asking? It shows CO2 levels, but what does that prove?

 

How does your theory that CO2 and man are the main cause explain the fact that from 1940 to 1970 CO2 levels rose and the global temperature went down?

 

Here is the The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' that you do not want to know.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

 

[Flashermac]

<< Fuck Yeah. But as long as the assholes that lead the most powerful country in the world are so stubborn and blind nothing useful will be done. >>

 

Thank God for the wise and concerned Chinese!

 

[Denarius]

Ice cores....800,000 years of data, read all about it...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

 

Why not extend your vision back 300 million years and see if there is a relationship between temperature and CO2? Ever hear of the carboniferous period? Here is a snippet for you:

 

[color:blue]The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.[/color]

 

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[Tiger Moth]

As mentioned in a previous post on this subject, Michael Crichton authoured a Science based novel called "State of Fear". He studied the subject for over 3 years and has hundreds of scientific references. Much of the data he includes is in conflict with the IPCC.

 

If nothing else, I think if you read this book you have a better appreciation of the uncertainty of the predictions made by the IPCC.

 

Recently, Crichton and 2 scientist who do not believe man is the cause of climate change debated the subject with 3 scientists who do. The audience was polled afterwards and 48% felt Crichton and associates has presented more convincing arguments, 46% felt the scientists supporting the IPCC had presented better arguments and 6% were undecided. I think this shows that the position taken by the IPCC is not compelling.

 

Also, there was a show on BBC in which scientists opposing the IPCC's findings presented their views. One of the scientists had resigned from the IPCC because he was in opposition but is still included in the list of 2,000 scientits.

 

With regards to the 800,000 years, one of the scientists on the BBC program stated that although there is a correlation between CO2 and warming, over the 800,000 years, warming on average has inexpicibly preceeded rising CO2 levels by 80 years.

 

Everything else aside, man has been industrialized for about 100 years, so one might wonder what caused the changes in CO2 levels and climate the preceeding 799,000 years.

 

Given what I have read here and elsewhere it seems that man produces a small percent of CO2 and therefore it seems reasonable to consider other factors.

[Denarius]

Ok, your article doesn't say that data was flawed, it merely says there was a 2 year data gap....also it states only a 10-30% increase as being attributed to the sun

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051001100950.htm

 

Here is an article stating the opposite....

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

 

 

What are you reading!? It specifically states that the data is flawed because 2 years of data is missing and they filled it in with inferior satellite data. That is not a flaw for you? That is not what I would call good data, good science, or a good theory coming from the data.

 

Then the other link says that they used even older satellite data to come to the conclusion that the sun as little or no effect. That is even worse science. But it must have kept their funding going. They tried their best, but even manipulating the data, still had to say that they saw some effects by the sun. That is hardly stating the opposite!

[HeartThais]

So what exactly is your point? That you believe that there is global warming and it is dangerous but it is being caused by something other than man? So what's the suggestion? That we just give up and let nature take it's course? That we divert resources to controlling the Sun? What exactly is the actionable step you are suggesting?

 

Sorry, Michael Chrichton writes great novels. I really liked Andromeda strain. It's great that he's spent 3 years researching global warming. Most of the scientists who think that global warming is man-made have spent a little longer than 3 years not only researching but developing the knowledge base required to interpret the data. They have something called a phD which understandably is not as credible as being the author of Jurassic Park but it has to be worth something.

 

If a dozen doctors tell me that taking Ecstasy is bad for me and one doctor says there's no proof, I tend to believe the dozen doctors. I don't try and interpret scientific data on my own without the minimum level of required training. So Denarius, what exactly are your credentials?

[Denarius]

I'm not concerned about global warming. I'm concerned that money is being needlessly spent on something that is inconsequential, when it could be used for better purposes.

 

Read what I have posted and you will see that global temperatures have been much higher in the past and the world did not end. In fact we are in a low temperature and CO2 period right now and both of these should rise to get back to the norm. So again, I'm not concerned.

 

If everyone tells you the world is flat do you believe them because that is the common opinion at the time? It is more comforting to be a sheep in a flock isn't it. Sometimes the one person with a different viewpoint is correct. It actually happens a fair bit, there is just a lot of resistance to it.

 

 

[HeartThais]

How do you make the logical jump from Global Warming is not caused by humans to Global Warming is inconsequential?

 

If 90% of the scientists tells me the world is flat and a shoemaker tells me the world is round, I'll put my money on the scientists.

 

So, are you the scientist or the shoemaker? I'm just curious. What is your background that you can make such daring statements contrary to those made by the majority of the scientific community with such conviction?