| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24 /german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbeli evable-scale/} | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/anothe r-danger-of-climate-change-giant-flying-boulders/2 015/11/27/81bdf026-9384-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_sto ry.html former head Climate Con man of NASA is determined to invent new evidence for his faith. Happy to point out the multiple scientific errors in the above article. Remember, Islam causes Climate Change. Climate Change causes comets. ( Aristophanes would laugh so hard at the cause & effect errors ) | ||
| Ducbsa |
Someone tell Michael Mann that Hansen claims to be the father of Global Warming, maybe they'll have a cage match to see who's the real Boss. | ||
| Hootowl |
Brainwashed. Get them young, I guess. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/29/north-carolin a-judge-rules-against-13-year-old-in-climate-chang e-challenge/ | ||
| Hootowl |
Yawn. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/29/europe/france-paris- cop21-climate-change-conference/index.html I can't remember the last time lefties got together and there wasn't a riot. The tea party otoh leaves the place cleaner than they found it and no one gets arrested or assaults a police officer. | ||
| Aesquire |
"Hello, I'm a leftist radical and I want to break some windows, do some looting, and get in the news... I'm here in Paris to protest the ( checks notes ) Climate Conference." French politician's response. "We just had a multiple mass murder terrorist attack, and you idiots threw lit candles at police you stole from a victims memorial. The police were not amused, and we Need the tourist dollars, so to keep you from getting shot, and our shops from going broke, we've decided not to let you play...... What's that? Rights? Don't freaking kid yourself. We just stopped using the Guillotine and a Lot of people want to bring it back. You're not French Students on your "avoid exams" riot schedule, you're foreign jerks and we are not amused." The Above are Not Quotes, but my interpretation of what was actually meant. http://news.yahoo.com/frances-hollande-slams-scand alous-clashes-paris-climate-talks-173746540.html;_ylt=AwrXnCfwS1tWEkgAMnfQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByM3V1YT VuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/ind ia/12022821/Paris-climate-talks-Through-the-smog-c oal-hungry-India-sees-carbon-imperialism-in-the-We st.html "Translation" "You got yours so now no one else can have any? I got millions in poverty so extreme they burn old PC's to get the heavy metals. Outdoors. Where they live. In our cities. Bite Me." | ||
| Hootowl |
More brainwashing. They got this one at the tender age of 6. I wonder how may lies were in the 'documentary' that altered this kid's life? http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/opinions/sutter-obam a-climate-change-cop21-two-degrees/index.html Or, perhaps, it's just more of the same. https://www.google.com/#q=sue+and+settle+epa | ||
| Aesquire |
I seldom look at the view from the other side. If you've been told, forcefully, and repeatedly, that "unless we solve this problem THIS YEAR, our children are Dead", and for MANY YEARS they do nothing that actually seems to do ANY good, You'd be furious too. Don't forget, I'm considered a Heretic because i question the science. Termed a "denier" to put me in the same box as Nazi Holocaust Deniers, and an instant outcast in any NPR party. "You Are Going To Die" is the orthodoxy, kids see Congressmen call for "deniers" to be imprisoned. You'd be mad too. I should sue. Al Gore promised me my children would never know the joys of making a snowman. But, since Al's lawyers never can let an accusation of falsehood stand, it's far easier to sue the EPA for the hideous Global Warming and my emotional troubles over my impending doom. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/11/30/the-funny -thing-about-dark-matter A nice, simple explanation of a weird & Very important subject. At this point, we've gone from "Wow, that's funny" to "What the hell?" At this point, it looks like 19 parts in 20 of the universe are stuff we literally can't see. | ||
| Tod662 |
So is the BWBT sending a delegation to Paris to show ALL THE WORLDS POLITICAL LEADERS that you and the Repukes know better? As to the protesters; There were/are tens if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of protesters around the world, yet the "LEFTIST" media as you like to think, is talking about the at most several hundred that acted inappropriately. And really how out of line are they compared to the fat cats that have benefited from ruining the environment? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-kn ew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ And yes the rise of isis is related to poor farming conditions cased partially by climate change http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements /2015/sep/23/martin-omalley/fact-checking-link-bet ween-climate-change-and-isis/ Its been close to a million years since CO2 levels have been over 400 ppm, you really don't see how this could be a problem? (or are you going to tell me this never in a million years phenomenon is normal?) http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-c o2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 And no shit that the climate has always been changing, and always will, BUT NOT AT THE RATE OF CHANGE WE ARE CAUSING. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-c limate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-p ast-65-million-years/ As to sea level change as I glanced through all the riveting info supporting the bwbt's stance I came across Sifo's chart... that conveniently starts at the same time as the industrial revolution. Here is what it looks like a little further back. http://www.justfacts.com/images/globalwarming/sea_ level_since_1700-full.png And um are you guys not aware that there is over 1 mile of ice sitting above sea level in Antarctica and Greenland? I feel this is not looking at a big enough time frame but hey correlation may mean causation. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warmi ng-the-world/ I mean like I've said before how is it that nobody in the whole world of the worlds of politics or academia thinks its a hoax except the gop and the bwbt? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con sensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/05/the-republican-part y-stands-alone-in-climate-denial Shoot not even big oil OR YOUR CANDIDATES can will say it isn't true anymore. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/1 0/29-republicans-warm-to-climate-change-rabe http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/en vironment/climate-change.html http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainabili ty/the-energy-future/climate-change.html Have you got any sources that are not sponsored by the club for growth? (and some kookie blog that talks about the speed of his newest version of whatever doesn't count) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ And yes I for one put climate change deniers in the same boat as Holocaust deniers. You think there is problems with Syrians trying to find a safer place to live, wait till there is hundreds of millions of people forced to relocate due to lack of rain/ hotter temperatures/ wilder weather/ probable ocean rises. And if im wrong? Oh no, we invested in clean technology and used innovation to clean up the environment. Renewable energy's are already on par with fossil fuels for cost. If we really put some effort into it renewable dependable energy/storage will improve conditions for every person on earth. (or are you going to say air pollution, etc., etc. is a hoax to?) And we can quit providing security to the oil companies in the Saudis sandbox to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars that bushie and co. signed us up for. http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanista n-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789 And if you are wrong the great extinction we are already causing will surly include us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction | ||
| Hootowl |
"And yes the rise of isis is related to poor farming conditions cased partially by climate change" "wait till there is hundreds of millions of people forced to relocate due to lack of rain/ hotter temperatures/ wilder weather/ probable ocean rises." Right. Because the middle east wasn't a sandy shithole before the industrial revolution. That part of the world is a desert because Africa is slamming into Asia. The 'climate change' that brought about the dry middle east happened a long time ago, and it wasn't brought about by evil CO2, it was brought about by continental drift creating a rain shadow. The rank poverty, despite the West pumping billions, perhaps trillions, into their economies, is a result of their political system, which is what they're really fleeing, not the mythical beast you believe in. Fact: CO2 has been higher than it is now. Fact: If there was a runaway climate tipping point caused by CO2, we wouldn't be here right now because the Earth would have never recovered from when there was more CO2 than there is now. Fact: The Ice Ages don't give a shit about CO2. Winter is coming. That's the civilization ender you should be worried about. | ||
| Hootowl |
Todd, you seem to think that the BWBT thinks it knows better than some scientists. Not the case. We simply happen to agree with a whole lot of other scientists who think the whole | ||
| Sifo |
There is one clear example for man made climate change in the middle east. It's called Israel. They have done some amazing things turning wasteland into productive farm land. Beyond that, there is one glaring problem with the idea of man made climate change caused by greenhouse gasses. That would be the lack of warming for close to two decades. Without explaining that, everything else falls apart. You can't blame local weather on a warming climate, when you don't have a warming climate. This may be a small point, but it's a critical point that the Chicken Littles are doing their best to gloss over. Seriously, blaming what's happening on something that isn't happening is a bit silly. Then you get into the silliness of strategies to prevent climate change. Kyoto was a great example. They were trying to get world governments to spend tens of trillions of dollars to save the world. That sounds like it could be money well spent until you look at the details. When you find out that they were talking about limiting temperature rise by 1/10 of one degree celsius by the end of this century, you suddenly realize that they are talking about something that can't even be measured with current technology. It would also be meaningless to the world. Then you look at the ridiculousness of their plans. Allow developing countries to develop an infrastructure that is going to be a bigger part of the problem than what we already have from developed countries, while developed countries are supposed to cut the life cycle of their infrastructure short to create a new "green" infrastructure. If you are serious about saving the planet, you would be unwavering about not developing any new infrastructure that isn't green, that will be destroying the earth for it's entire life cycle. The simple fact that they were allowing for CO2 based infrastructure in countries like China and India should be enough to tell you that this wasn't about saving the planet. It's simply about control of the planet's governments. I will address one specific point that Todd called me out on specifically though. He uses this chart as evidence that his stance is correct...  I'll assume for the moment that it's a realistic chart. What does it show though? It shows that during the Little Ice Age, we had a flat period in the rise of sea levels. Is that shocking news to anyone? What does it also show? It also shows that sea level rise got into full swing about 100 years ago. So let's compare sea level rise to the rise in CO2...  So it's pretty clear that sea level rise preceded the rise in CO2, right? Todd, do you see something different? | ||
| Hootowl |
"They have done some amazing things turning wasteland into productive farm land" Considering what had been done to the land prior to their arrival, yes...amazing. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/604628/posts | ||
| Reepicheep |
I did a search on that "never been higher" line. There are lots of references to it, from a little echo chamber of it from a lot of groups that stand to gain money and power based on climate change concerns. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it's important to understand perspective and context. Here is another interesting chart...  That shows the concentrations of CO2 being, like, crazy and stuff. All over the freaking map. It also shows the temperature being, well, kinda completely independent of CO2. And also all over the freaking map. And, most importantly, some actual study and understanding of the plot (relative to just finding an echo chamber to shout into, or doing a drive by cut and paste job without really challenging your own preconceptions) will show one more really really important thing. See that greyish band? That is the uncertianty. That means its a measure of how accurate the plot may be. Notice that this "possible error band" is like 1000 ppm wide for most of the plot? That means that making statements about the historical CO2 concentrations that depend on accuracy of less than 1000 ppm demonstrate that you are a crap scientist. They don't demonstrate any other point you are trying to make. There are probably other more accurate plots out there. I wish we knew which ones we can trust. All we know for sure right now is that the majority of the recent climate data has been heavily manipulated, that the manipulation was purely in one direction, and the manipulators, despite being largely publicly funded, have refused to make the raw data and details about the corrections publicly available. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Also, mentally draw a horizontal line at 400ppm across that chart. Now look at the black line, even with the error band accounted for, and see what part of the that 600 million year history had the black line under 400 ppm CO2. Hey man... 500 million years can't be wrong... Unless you think Haliburton secretly has a time travel machine and is pumping pollution into the past through a magic portal. Those bastards. | ||
| Tod662 |
So its just by chance that Co2 levels have not been this high in 1,000,000 years and maybe as much as 20,000,000 years? And I am not looking at any one specific chart to prove my point, take all of it together and it doesn't add up to your view. And what the heck do you mean no heating in the last 20 years - the 10 hottest years on record are all from 2000 and later. Though yes 200 years is a pitifully small sample source, though when you lay out all the reading and evidence of ice samples, tree rings, sediment layers etc., etc., etc. and it all looks bad. Most of your arguments make as much sense as "its colder today then yesterday, climate change must be a lie!!!" All of this is happening in the blink of an eye. So sifo you base your whole stance on the inaccurate idea that the last 20 years haven't warmed? "its happened before" YES MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO and most likely over 1000's and 1000s of years. Hoot, how is the middle east the cradle of civilization if it has been a sandbox for millions of years? Do a little research. I mean come on! This assertion is just ridiculousness!!!! But that's probably what Faux news has told you. This is the kind of thinking and simplification that helps me understand your point of view. and who are these "whole lot of other scientists who think the whole global warming climate change thing is overblown tripe"? And the idea that its about "world control" is just mental- yes the people gathered all ready literally control the world (well kinda: MONEY MONEY MONEY). But in your mind Gore is trying to make millions of dollars by taking on the oil companies worth BILLIONS AND ALMOST TRILLIONS. Can you fathom the difference? It is so frustrating to see all the blather that is spread with out a bit of creditable science behind it. How about one person put up a comprehensive defense of your views using real data that isn't cherry picked. Oh wait, not possible. | ||
| Aesquire |
That's the thing. "The side" you quote has a history of falsifying data, including rewriting the past. How many times does a group have to lie to your face before you question them? Can you answer my question? What does Petra, Greenland, The Pueblo cliff dwellers and blue holes have in common? | ||
| Tod662 |
reep look at the uncertainty of that graph and um how about look at what there was for life during those era's Its laughable that your evidence is based off of either a pittance of years date or 100S OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. Neither one puts things in context. I mean come on you are using a graph that is so freakin huge, mammals let alone homids did not hardly exist for most of it!!!!!! Guess what the low level was when plants thrived, but hey if we were terrible lizards pump it up! (wait, maybe it is a conspiracy of the lizard people!) | ||
| Hootowl |
Todd, when do you think the middle east became a desert? | ||
| Tod662 |
lay it on me Aequire, they thrived during the little ice age (which was not even a world wide phenomenon) but im not sure. Give me a break correcting evidence is not the same as "falsifying". Show me the reputable proof, do you understand how peer reviewed science works, is anybody could show conclusive evidence they would be famous. But according to you all the worlds scientists in on is- damn lizard people. | ||
| Tod662 |
You guys claim Co2 has no relevance but look at what the likely climates were during the super high Co2 era's in your ludicrously large graph. Hoot the middle east was desertified in the last 5000 years i think. | ||
| Sifo |
How about one person put up a comprehensive defense of your views using real data that isn't cherry picked. Oh wait, not possible. So sifo you base your whole stance on the inaccurate idea that the last 20 years haven't warmed? So let's at least accurately quote what I said... Beyond that, there is one glaring problem with the idea of man made climate change caused by greenhouse gasses. That would be the lack of warming for close to two decades. "Close to two decades" is the benchmark, right?  Of course that chart lacks 2015 data. With 2015 you have about 19 years. Is that close to two decades as I stated? I think it's close enough for government work. Did CO2 levels get rolled back for those decades? Didn't think so. So what happened? NO. REALLY. What happened? What about sea levels that started their current rise BEFORE the industrial rise in CO2? What about temperatures that started rising BEFORE the industrial rise in CO2? Why the ice age scare mongering back in the late 70's during the industrial rise in CO2? Yea, that was when temps were going the wrong way. You keep claiming CO2 hasn't been this high for over a million years. Evidence to the contrary has been posted. You ignore this. Why? In reality current CO2 levels are historically low. When in our history did high CO2 levels cause the climate to spiral out of control as has been told to us is happening. The obvious answer is NEVER. Why not? Perhaps CO2 simply isn't the problem that is claimed. | ||
| Sifo |
lay it on me Aequire, they thrived during the little ice age (which was not even a world wide phenomenon) but im not sure. And you would be wrong. Evidence of the little ice age has been found on all continents. | ||
| Tod662 |
I betcha that graph (if its real) would look different when you add the date from other years. I tried to find your source and all I could find was this: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT!!!! your data is BS because its not using any earlier data, and how about a source, I bet ya 10 to 1 I can link it to oil money in about 3 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_tempera ture_record http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10- warmest-years-globally http://earthsky.org/earth/2015-likely-to-be-warmes t-year-on-record https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weathe r-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps -earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224 I mean come on these are not the best sources but they are much more reputable then what ever blog you are eating up. come on show me some reputable sources not just some manipulated small set of data. "Evidence to the contrary has been posted. You ignore this. Why? In reality current CO2 levels are historically low. When in our history did high CO2 levels cause the climate to spiral out of control as has been told to us is happening." I really have not seen any evidence to back up this statement, please repost. (yes im calling 1 million years what matters, cricky if you go back far enough the temperature was -454) So yeah please show me evidence that CO2 has been above 400 ppm in the last oh lets say 10x the complete history of our species) | ||
| Aesquire |
Only one right. Viking Greenland colony abandoned due to climate change. Petra, abandoned due to climate change. ( the setting for the climax of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" ) Look up the age. Long before the Vikings. Yes, the others are either civilization gone due to climate change..... or for blue holes flooded by rising seas or sinking lands. Thank Jacques Cousteau for the first publicized exploration of limestone caves complete with stalagtites & stalagmites now below sea level. Also notice that any chart purporting to prove warming that begins in the late 1700's is a deliberate lie. | ||
| Alchemy |
Interesting. Sure would be nice to include this information from the REMSS web site. Their words ... * Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade). * Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation. * The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data. REMSS and their staff seem to be mostly specialists in analyzing remote sensing data. I don't see them as climatologists but more like physicists and big data analysts reporting on atmospheric data. They are trying to resolve the differences between their remotely sensed data from polar orbit with "on the ground" measurements. This is a good idea as it will further improve the climate models. They produce lots of data and there are many questions they are looking at. NASA uses their data for instance. One instance that I found interesting was that they noted a difference in their orbital observed data with modeled data based on global location. The tropics were not following the model closely whereas the polar regions were more in line with the model. They are curious about why this would be different and if they can account for the likely many variables that are responsible. This is all interesting but if the POLAR regions are following the warming model, this is far more significant to me. It is the melting of glaciers on land that will be raising the world's sea levels and I think I am fair in saying many of those glaciers on land are closer to the polar regions than the tropics. Of course the tropics constitute about 40% of the globe so if the tropics are sluggish in responding to warming they will skew the global AVERAGE data. The smaller but more critical polar warming might have been overlooked but the REMSS group correctly called it out. Carl Mears, their VP and senior scientist does not seem to think anomalies in their data and the model should be an excuse for failing to produce climate policies. Here is a quote from him included in a blog on Tropospheric hot spots: "I think all three of us agree that the observed temperature changes in the tropics (and globally) are less than predicted over the last 35 years. John uses this fact to argue that there are fundamental flaws in all climate models, and that there results should be excluded from influencing policy decisions. This goes much too far. First, many imperfect models are used to inform policy makers in many areas, including models of the economy, population growth, environmental toxins, new medicines, traffic flow, etc. etc. As pointed out by a commenter in this thread, policy makers are used to dealing with uncertain predictions. If we throw out all imperfect models, we will be reduced to consulting the pattern of tea leaves on the bottom of our cups to make decisions about the future. Second, as I argue below, there are many possible reasons for this discrepancy, and only a few substantially influence the long-term predictions." So there may be data or graphs of data that do not follow the current long term predictions but even the producers of such data seem to see a need for policy action even as they continually improve imperfect models. | ||
| S2t_bama |
As a matter of fact, I do know how peer-reviewed, publicly funded science works. If I refuse to comply with requests from a funding agency for data, data correction methods, or correspondence describing how that method was decided upon, I not only lose my funding but the eligibility to apply for funding in the future. So, NOAA stonewalling congress looks VERY bad. | ||
| Reepicheep |
You keep creating these little idiotic make believe arguments against yourself, attributing them to us, and then calling us stupid because they are idiotic make believe arguments. We agree with you, the positions you attribute to us are stupid ones. The problem is we don't take them. We are burning massive amounts of sequestered CO2 and putting it into the atmosphere. That is simple physics. We are burning fossil fuels much faster than we are making them. (That's the real problem... we have a battery that took several million years to charge, and we are pissing it away over 500 to 1000 years, at which point we better have a plan B or we are &*&^%#$%%^$). We agree with that. Where things get sketchy is the claim that humans burning fossil fuels will be the dominant cause for massive climate change, and the claim that we have reasonable ways to avert that outcome, and even if that outcome is necessarily an undesirable one in the first place. That's why those ancient charts are so important. They measure our planet, but they are from a time when there were no humans. It's a control. So if humans burning fossil fuel is the predominate cause of catastrophic global warming, then that period in history should be free of catastrophic global warming. Or cooling. It isn't. It also provides a geologic time span (the only meaningful one for this kind of slow change) where we have the ability to measure both CO2 and temperature. This might be useful, you know, to determine if there appears to be a highly dependent relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature. Correlation does not infer causation (though it is a very common global warming alarmist method for inflicting crap science on people who don't understand science). But an absence of correlation casts massive doubt on a hypothesis. You know, like a 600 million year window that shows no correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperature. Even without the proven and chronic falsification of data, or the clear power and profit motives of those pushing a global warming disaster agenda, there are some common sense (read: simple physics) obstacles an extraordinary claim (like catastrophic man made global warming) has to overcome. All the carbon on earth has been on earth since the earth was built. It alternates between "plant power" (CO2) and "human power" (sequestered hydrocarbons). It has existed in wildly varying ratios that have changed dramatically often in the history of the planet. And even if you did prove that we can dramatically warm the planet by burning fossil fuels, in the history of the planet, the "cool periods" appear to be FAR more catastrophic and dangerous to us than the "warm periods". And there is good reason to believe that we are approaching a 10,000 year "cold period", that could wipe out most of civilization. So we should perhaps be wishing we could warm up the planet by burning fossil fuels (and making plant food, and keeping most of the surface area of the planet warm enough for plants to grow). |
