The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 26    Average: 3.1/5]
72 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5640
Rating: 3.1
Category: Science
Date: 05/14/12 06:00 AM

72 Responses to Birth Of A Climate Denial Crock

  1. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 6:01 am
    Link: Birth Of A Climate Denial Crock - Peter Sinclair documents the distortions and spin of the climate deniers. Warning: Contains real science.
  2. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 7:57 am
    And skeptics say AGW supporters have an agenda...
  3. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36861 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:04 am

    "Global Warming is a Myth"
    Denying reality, one fact at a time.

  4. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:19 am
    How could they possibly get "leading climate scientist changes his mind" out of "there is some variability, and we may have a cooling period, but the overall warming trend is clear.", without being intentionally dishonest and not just stupid ??
  5. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:43 am
    "Warning: Contains real science."

    No need for the warning. It doesn`t contain science. It contains pseudo-science by people paid as scientists, that is a very different thing. That is fraud.
  6. Profile photo of burbclaver
    burbclaver Male 50-59
    878 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:49 am
    A friend of mine listens to Rush Limbaugh and he scoffs at global warming every time the temperature drops below normal. He says "amazing that they predict the temperature a century from now, but they can`t predict the weather tomorrow." I said to him, that just because you watch the Padres win three straight innings doesn`t mean they`re a winning team.
  7. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:50 am
    Gerry1of1

    What facts? These are the facts:

    The warmists have been caught out repeatedly in dishonesty.

    The warmists are relying on models that do not fit observations - i.e. are known to be wrong.

    But there is only one fact that is really important: there is no empirical evidence that human activity is likely to cause dangerous climate change.

    The warmists will talk about anything to distract from this fact. About funding (without admitting they have many times the funding from oil companies of the sceptics). About forecasts (without admitting that all their previous forecasts have bee wrong). About dangers of warming (without admitting their "solutions" will drastically reduce life expectancy and quality of billions of poor people).

    And finally, most crucially about CO2 greenhouse effect (without mentioning positive feedback, of which there is absolutely no evidence; without mentioning the strong evidence that late C20th
  8. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:53 am
    kain1

    What he didn`t mention is that the overall warming trend started long before the rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Since the end of the Little Ice Age in fact. Odd to miss that, considering how important it is.
  9. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:55 am
    It doesn`t contain science. It contains pseudo-science by people paid as scientists
    It never ceases to amaze me how skeptics think that any scientist that supports AGW is corrupt. If that`s the case then no one can trust any scientific literature, because all of us are only out to make a buck. People will believe science in just about every other issue, but when it comes to climate change, whoa, they`re all corrupt. Sorry but if the overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports something, I can`t refute it. Peers in climate science have reviewed and accepted these manuscripts, that`s good enough for me, but hey, they`re probably in somebody`s pocket too, right?
  10. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 8:58 am
    Kain1

    What he also didn`t mention is that the IPCC previous reports take the greatest gradient of warming to induce panic. Given that according to this new statement those could easily be coincidence, the IPCC reports are discredited.

    What he also didn`t mention is that this warming is entirely contrary to the forecasts of the computer models. It is strong evidence therefore that those models are wrong. Given that the entire edifice of stupid that is climate panic is based upon those models, that is also kind of a surprising omission. Oops, not surprising, dishonesty in climate "science" is no longer a surprise, is it?

    Hmmmm. How come he mentions one shaky assumption, yet fails to mention three very important facts?
  11. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:01 am
    Science? I choose to ignore your science if it means I need to pay towards something!
  12. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:03 am
    patchgrabber

    It never ceases to amaze me the faith people who don`t have a scientific background place in science. Given that this is not science and emails have been leaked openly discussing the corruption, it is laughable. Do some research on pseudo-science; climate "science" has a lot in common, and does not have a lot in common with real science. For example real science is repeatable, yet climate "scientists" spend a lot of effort and money to hide their methods and data, meaning it cannot be science. Real science welcomes debate, climate "science" uses bullying and political pressure to shut it down.
  13. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:04 am
    Buidh

    What do you know about science? given my comment below, what makes you think that current climate panic has anything to do with science?
  14. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36861 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Here`s the Republican Congressional Caucus at a recent hearing on Global Warming.


  15. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:05 am
    Patchgrabber

    And what makes you think that (a) the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support climate panic and (b) science is a popularity contest?
  16. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:06 am
    Gerry1of1

    That is really ironic, given you shut your eyes to what I typed!
  17. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:07 am
    (In pop-psychology it`s called projection)
  18. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:13 am
    [quote">But there is only one fact that is really important: il is no empirical evidence that human activity is likely to cause dangerous climate change.[/quote">
    You must not have looked very hard for empirical evidence of anthropogenic warming.
    Link.
    Link2.

    That was just in a 2 minute internet search, and the journals are Nature and Science, basically the two best journals in existence. Their peer review process is ridiculously intense.
  19. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:17 am
    @random: consensus

    Oh and I am a scientist by the way.
  20. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:29 am
    patchgrabber

    Wow. That article does everything to avoid admitting there is no consensus, despite the fact that consensus is irrelevant: as Eistein said, if I was wrong then one would be enough.
  21. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:31 am
    patchgrabber

    Not a very good scientist, are you? You don`t even know what empirical evidence is. From your links:

    "Here we use this conceptual framework to estimate the contribution of human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ..."

    "well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models."

    So neither has anything to do with empirical evidence. In fact in the abstract each is specifically said not to be based in empirical evidence!
  22. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:34 am
    Given that this is not science and emails have been leaked openly discussing the corruption, it is laughable.
    More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

    It`s also worthy to note that those "smoking gun" emails were hacked and posted. How can you even be sure of their authenticity? You blindly accept that these emails are all genuine, and you claim (I think) to be a SKEPTICAL scientist? Ha.
  23. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:36 am
    Patchgrabber

    To clarify my response about consensus, that article talks about many things, but not any way of measuring consensus. It basically talks about the politics of climate change where it masquerades as science.

    It even talks about the IPCC, which of course we know is largely run by people with little scientific experience in the relevant fields, relying largely on advocacy rather than real science, whose reports are rewritten at the request of politicians and NGOs against even the consensus of the inexperienced scientists and activists who are the authors (who themselves have already altered material after the reviewers have commented).
  24. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:38 am
    patchgrabber

    So you don`t wish to talk about what is in the emails? The real meaning of "hide the decline" (as opposed to the ridiculous smokescreen put up by the propagandists)? The real conspiracy to corrupt peer review? The conspiracy to break FOI laws? The dishonesty, mendacity and lies?
  25. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:42 am
    As for authenticity, that has been confirmed. It is admitted by the authors, and in doubting it you are only showing how laughably ill-informed you are in the climate debate.

    Then you say they were hacked, with no evidence whatever (there are at least three possible ways they might have been released, and even the police have not said how it came about). That is dishonesty, and not even your own. You simply parrot others` propaganda, not great in a "scientist". When I studied Natural Sciences we were taught to think for ourselves, but then I went to a world-class university.

    You actually have never read the emails, have you? It would be actually impossible to fake. There were rather a lot even before the second leak.
  26. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:42 am
    (and I am still waiting for that empirical evidence!)
  27. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
    @burbclaver: Nice. You should also remind him that a lot of the deniers are the very people who "can`t predict the weather tomorrow." Namely, the meteorologists such as John Coleman down there in San Diego.
  28. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:47 am
    Then you say they were hacked, with no evidence whatever
    They publicly admitted that they were hacked, so, yeah that seems pretty good to me.

    ou actually have never read the emails, have you? It would be actually impossible to fake.
    Oh really? Impossible you say? That made me lol.
  29. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:56 am
    To clarify my response about consensus, that article talks about many things, but not any way of measuring consensus. It basically talks about the politics of climate change where it masquerades as science.
    You must not have read the article, it clearly states that the majority of the scientific community agrees with AGW. Your bias apparently doesn`t let you read that. Some `scientist` you are then.
  30. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:02 am
    [quote">So you don`t wish to talk about what is in the emails? The real meaning of "hide the decline"[/quote">
    Many independent agencies have reviewed the emails and exonerated the scientists, including the EPA.
    But I guess all those agencies are on the payroll too, and you still blindly believe that the emails show faking and lies. Make sure you have your tinfoil hat.
  31. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36861 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:02 am

    @ randomxnp - I didn`t shut my eyes to what you typed. I just didn`t consider it worth responding to, but okay, have it your way.

    The "leaked emails" you speak of is Fox News cherry picking one or two lines, quoting them out of context, then proclaiming it as proof of a hoax. It`s the case of "Someone has to stand up to the Experts!"

    It`s retarded, but there are always going to be some people gullible enough to believe it. Maybe they just don`t know how to look into it for themselves or are too lazy and just make up their mind based on a sound bite.

    Or prehaps, it`s just because they hate liberals and will always take the oposite position. If a liberal politician said "we all breath the air" there`d be a conservative with an arguement why that`s liberal socialism that they air is not a right and it`s just liberal government entitlement program to think otherwise!
  32. Profile photo of mcboozerilla
    mcboozerilla Male 30-39
    646 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:31 am
    It reached the point years ago where only completely idiots are denying mankind`s effect on global warming. It`s become irresponsible for serious journalists to even acknowledge these people. We`re facing a worldwide catastrophe which won`t happen in a single event but over the coming decades. It will significantly effect our coastal populations rendering many cities and towns uninhabitable, and it will also severely reduce agriculture output for a period. It will also cause an increase in tropical diseases, such as malaria. These are just some of the negative effects, but you`ll also see secondary effects such as social and civil collapse around the globe. This isn`t alarmism - the atmosphere is actually heating up much, much faster than predicted ten or twenty years ago, and the ice caps are disappearing much more than predicted previously.

    The costs of doing nothing are going to be far greater than the costs of reforming our lifestyles and economies.
  33. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33139 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:51 am
    @patchy: In order to `fake` the e-mails, the hacker would have to create them all AND match their time-stamps and IPs of each and every one. Perfectly.
    Who says they`re hacked? The guys who are trying to cover things up.
    Could it have been an "inside job"? ie: whistleblower? Highly likely given that these e-mails were collected over a long period of time.
    AND whenever an e-mail goes to or comes from a 3rd party? It perfectly matched the "hacked" ones. So the hacker would need to hack & fake hundereds if not thousands of computers UNDETECTED.

    Not bloody likely.

    @randomnxp: carry on brave fellow!

    But really? Arguing with AGW "chicken littles" is worse than arguing with "truthers"...
  34. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    patch: you said "Many independent agencies have reviewed the emails and exonerated the scientists"

    Too date only their friends in the AGW world exonerated them, the rest have excoriated them for their deception.
  35. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    I still don`t know why someone would start a hoax about climate change. I can understand the big corporate money and public selfishness behind denying it but can`t see the big money advocating it. What`s in it for the scientists other than the need to do their jobs and try to fix a major problem? It`s like people denying that cigarettes cause cancer all over again. Tobacco companies didn`t want to lose money and people didn`t want to change habits. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, it`s not individuals who only kill themselves.
  36. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    @5cats: Regardless of whether all the emails are genuine, as I told @random, several agencies have reviewed them and found that the scientists have done nothing wrong. Cherry-pick out of context sentences all you want, deny the science all you want, just make sure @random has another tinfoil hat for you.
  37. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    lauriloo: There is big money in cap and trade and carbon credits, Al Gore has gotten super rich off selling carbon credits.

    But they don`t just want corporate money, no no, they want you and I, in the form of government money to pay for their scam.
  38. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    Crakr: The eight agencies are:
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)
    Independent Climate Change Review (UK)
    International Science Assessment Panel(UK)
    Pennsylvania State University first and second panel(US)
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)
    Department of Commerce (US)
    National Science Foundation (US)

    I`m not sure exactly how many agencies/scientists/organizations are in this purported conspiracy of yours, but burying your heads in the sand and claiming conspiracy doesn`t change the facts.
  39. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    @lauriloo: No, apparently all scientists are self-motivated with no qualms about falsifying documents, omitting data and altering data for their own benefit. No scientist in existence has had any motive other than this. /sarcasm
  40. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    @patchgrabber never said scientists are above being greedy like everyone else. Big business can pay a few dishonorable scientists for the answers they want to hear. I just fail to see the motivation for thousands of scientists to all put their reputations on the line to agree that this is happening. A scientist is nothing if he/she doesn`t maintain their credibility. I also see no downside to us coming down on the cautious side and changing what we currently do in order to lessen the damage we cause to the environment. Sure, it`ll cost polluting companies money to do a better job and some prices might go up for a while but the benefits of having cleaner air and water outweigh the temporary costs.
  41. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    @lauriloo: That`s my point exactly. There are just too many scientists agreeing with AGW for me to believe that they are all involved in some conspiracy.
  42. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    Temperatures aren`t rising.

  43. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33139 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    it`ll cost polluting companies money to do a better job and some prices might go up for a while...
    Not picking on you @lauiloo, but the price of electricity in Germany has more than DOUBLED since their `green initiative` began. How much polution has been avoided? 0.2% (iirc, it`s tiny) AND now other EU countries can use that "saving" to offset THEIR CO2! Thus nothing at all is actually reduced!

    But the German people pay, that will never go down.

    Do you want to pay double for electricity? Gasoline? Food? And have your taxes go up too?

    Based on scare mongering?
    Not me!
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33139 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    There are just too many EXPERTS agreeing with JFK`s SECOND SHOOTER for me to believe that they are all involved in some conspiracy.

    There are just too many HONEST CITIZENS agreeing with UFO`s FROM OUTER SPACE for me to believe that they are all involved in some conspiracy.

    Fixed it for you! @patchy! Twice!
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    patch: There are thousands of scientists that disagree with AGW as well. Very well respected scientists I might add.

    There is no `consensus` when only 6-7 scientists are the ones behind the curtain, who in their own e-mails talk of manipulating the data to their own ends.
  46. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    @5cats: Neither of your "fixed" examples involve peer review, but nice try.

    @Crakr: Thousands you say? Funny how most of the ones who disagree aren`t climate scientists. Oh, and your graph which comes from the UAH has specific deficiencies. First, it only measures tropospheric radiance, from which they INFER temperature. RSS has shown the UAH that they weren`t taking orbital decay into account when they were obtaining their data, and RSS interpretation of the same data showed a rise in temperature, so basically it`s a `my word against yours` scenario. And like I told 5cats before, and which he conveniently didn`t respond to I might add, is that if the oceans aren`t releasing more CO2 because according to you they aren`t warming, then why do we see the sharp rise in CO2?
  47. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    There is no `consensus` when only 6-7 scientists are the ones behind the curtain, who in their own e-mails talk of manipulating the data to their own ends.
    I`m amazed that "6-7 scientists" can publish hundreds of papers and do peer review for dozens of reputable journals. They must be really busy!
    And those BS emails you keep referencing were investigated and no wrongdoing was found. But that`s where your tinfoil hat comes in handy, doesn`t it?
  48. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    @Crakr: Oh, and one more thing about your graph, it shows a +0.123 degree C/decade raise in tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature. Also, those satellites have problems accurately estimating temperature on oceans or tropical areas, and since the graph doesn`t specify a region, it is meaningless.
  49. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    patch: Just keep telling yourself that "Hide the decline" isn`t self-incriminating. The global temperature isn`t rising, the Greenland glaciers aren`t receding, the sky isn`t falling.

    Plants love CO2 and use it to grow, the carbon cycle is working just fine, doing the job it`s done for billions of years. Taking CO2 and growing plants while giving us oxygen to breathe.

    Sooner people like you realize that our earth has a system of checks and balances and bounces back from anomalies like volcanic eruptions, the better off we all will be.
  50. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    Crakr: I don`t have to tell myself that. Your out of context, cherry-picked comment was easily explained away. You also fail to realize that plants aren`t the biggest CO2 sink on the planet. Most of the atmospheric CO2 is sequestered in the oceans. How long do you think before oceanic CO2 becomes too high and fish start to die, or that we don`t even really know how much CO2 the ocean can contain. When global temperatures start getting too high, if it`s in my lifetime I`ll be there to say I told you so.
  51. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33139 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    is that if the oceans aren`t releasing more CO2 because according to you they aren`t warming, then why do we see the sharp rise in CO2?
    I missed that @patchy: but what are you saying? That Humans are NOT causing the CO2 increase? It`s a NATURAL phenominon cause by things other than humans? I`m confused now...
    I`ve never denied CO2 is going up, I just don`t think it will cause the apocalypse...

    THEN you say that we cannot accurately measure temperatures? WTF? Where is all this "warming" supposed to be happeneing if not everywhere? If one part of the land/sea/air is NOT warming, chances are outstanding the other two are not either!
  52. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 4:28 pm
    Oh, CrakrJak, you lovable fossil-fuel propagandist, you! Where`d you get your funny chart? From one of your "Global Warming Is a Hoax" websites, no doubt.

    Here, let me introduce you to a little actual science: A chart from NASA`s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, showing a steady rising trend in global temperatures through 2008.



    But I forgot to play by your tinfoil hat rules, didn`t I? NASA, after all, is comprised of career scientists, whom you`ve already stated are "the problem." Damn, experts! =^.^=

    (If you or anyone else would like to see this chart and other similar ones yourselves firsthand, visit http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs.)
  53. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    By the way, these NASA charts of global temperature would be the "empirical evidence" Randomxnp spent much of today bitching and moaning about.

    I absolutely LOVE the way a poster who boasts he attended a "world-class university" somehow wasn`t able to think of checking NASA`s website for empirical data. You know, NASA: the world`s best-funded, most scientifically advanced space agency? The one that puts up the satellites that measure global temperatures?

    Clearly someone should be demanding a refund on that "world-class" education.
  54. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm
    I see you pulled out the pre-2000 hockey-stick chart that`s been debunked.

    Perhaps you should watch this. Penn & Teller on Global Warming
  55. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 7:44 pm
    Hmmmm. Should I get my climate science from a funny magic act or from--oh, I dunno--scientists, maybe? Nah, I think I`ll take a pass on the Penn & Teller and stick with NASA.

    By the way, CJ, you never admitted you flubbed it on volcanoes. Or are you writing off the entire USGS now?
  56. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    @Crakrjak: You spend all day tearing down mainstream science and then you post an episode of Penn & Teller, in which the only "scientists" they speak to (very briefly, mind you) are John Coleman, KUSI weatherman, and a guy who cites the DDT ban as a similar example of hysteria.

    I watched the whole thing. They spend 95% of the episode mocking a few kooks and pointing out the hypocrisy of certain individuals within the green movement.

    They even say at the end that they don`t know if man-made global warming is real or not but that the earth IS WARMING, which you spent all day claiming wasn`t even happening.
  57. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    @squirlz4sale @foolsprussia:

    You guys must be a magic act, you made CrakrJak disappear!
  58. Profile photo of mvangild
    mvangild Male 30-39
    527 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:45 pm
    Crakr, temperatures aren`t rising? Have you looked at the data you presented? Because it looks like the long term trend is going up to me.

    I`m not going to get into what`s causing it here. Maybe it`s excessive CO2, maybe it`s excessive methane put out by cows, I`m not certain. All we can do is speculate as to the cause. But I believe that something probably should be done about the excessive greenhouse gasses. That will be extremely difficult considering our increasing population putting more and more stress on our food supplies.
  59. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    ...and it`s just a happy coincidence that all the prescriptions for global warming -- i.e., total government control of every aspect of your entire f***ing life, including who gets to spend all your damned money -- just happen to align perfectly with the goals of international socialism.
  60. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 10:59 pm
    Squrlz: I explained how YOU flubbed it. Perhaps you should go back and look. When there are no major volcanic eruption the CO2 emissions from them are not significant, no big surprise there.

    Your error is taking an average derived from inactive volcanic years and comparing them to a doctored estimated `man made` number.

    The real `magic act` is the crap going on in the AGW warmists playbill. The more about their scam is revealed the more they go on the attack. They know their dog and pony show isn`t working. Their bid for global control is waning, we can no longer afford their junk science.
  61. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 11:48 pm
    @crakrjak: Hey dum dum. Pretending that you are smarter than the scientists who have devoted their life to studying climate makes you stubborn...and maybe a bit ignorant. (I know you will point out that some scientists disagree with GW, but the majority agree)...But spending your time arguing and trying to convince a squirl and a fool that you are right...makes you an idiot. Sorry bud, truth hurts.
  62. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 11:51 pm
    "Plants love CO2 and use it to grow, the carbon cycle is working just fine, doing the job it`s done for billions of years. Taking CO2 and growing plants while giving us oxygen to breathe. "

    Yeah and we all know the number of plants haven`t changed recently eh?




    Also whats with the billions, I though the earth was created a lot more recently than that, according to both our books.
  63. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 12:24 am
    turdburglar: I listen to independent scientists that are not in lockstep with the AGW agenda. Just because someone is educated doesn`t make them honest, it doesn`t mean they can`t be coerced by money, fame and politics. Many people devote their lives to things that are wrong.
    Don`t trust anyone that claims superior knowledge, always be skeptical of those that wish to control your life to enrich their own.
    Don`t even trust me, Don`t be lazy, Do your own research and listen to what the skeptics have to say, you may find their arguments more salient than the warmists claims.

    MattPrince: Algae is the largest CO2 to O2 conversion plant life on Earth. 90% of the oxygen made comes from algae. Algae are the lungs of our planet and it`s doing just fine.
    Yes, deforestation is happening, so is reforestation. Plants grow better in higher concentrations of CO2, the earth balances itself out, always has. Quit buying into the zero sum game you`re being spoon fed by the media.
  64. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 5:32 am
    CrakrJak: No, CJ, YOU flubbed it on volcano CO2 emissions--and you flubbed it colossally. Although the facts had no effect on you the first time, I`ll repeat them here:

    Volcano emissions are DWARFED by man`s CO2 emissions, a fact known and accepted by volcanologists the world over.

    Experts estimate the Mt. Pinatubo eruption released 42 million tons of CO2 in 1991. Compare that with the current yearly CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning: 26.8 BILLION tons.

    This is well-known information, available to anyone willing to read reports of scientists, such as those found on the website of the USGS.

    But let`s be real here. I don`t expect you to admit your error, nor do I expect you to visit the website of the USGS. Your purpose, after all, is not discussion or honest debate but propagandizing.
  65. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 6:09 am
    The overall science regarding equilibrium and global warming is easy to understand. I`ll explain it here because, in all his talk of how the Earth "balances itself out, always has," you`ll never hear it from CrakrJak.

    The rough equilibrium between greenhouse gases and radiant cooling that Earth has developed is what has allowed for the evolution of enormous biodiversity and for man to flourish. It hasn`t always been this way and it won`t be this way forever, alas. Other planets--Mars and Venus--appear to have had periods of some degree of equilibrium at some point that no longer exists. (It`s no coincidence that NASA`s planetary scientists have contributed enormously to the science.)

    (Cont`d next post)
  66. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 6:14 am
    (Cont`d)

    The chief problem we`re seeing now, from the standpoint of balance, is that ENORMOUS reserves of carbon that were locked away beneath the surface of the Earth over the course of TENS OF MILLIONS of years--in the form of fossil fuels--have been released into the atmosphere in 100 years, the geologic BLINK of an eye. Compounding this problem, of course, is the extensive deforestation that has occurred at the same time.

    That`s the problem in a nutshell. Anyone not acknowledging the extensive science on this topic is either in the pocket of Big Oil or has his head stuck in the sand.
  67. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 7:19 am
    Algae is the largest CO2 to O2 conversion plant life on Earth. 90% of the oxygen made comes from algae. Algae are the lungs of our planet and it`s doing just fine.
    Well seeing as how since the industrial revolution the pH of oceans has increased by 0.1 of a unit, and remembering that pH is a logarithmic scale, that means that the oceans are 30% more acidic than before the industrial revolution. Sure there are types of algae that thrive in acidic conditions, but those are usually near estuaries and land in general. This will be worse near the poles since cold water retains more CO2, and algae there are food for many larger organisms. Who knows when we go over the tipping point and then can`t do anything about it. Better to do something now instead of being caught with our hands tied behind our backs later.
  68. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 7:19 am
    Addendum: That last comment should have said pH "lowered", not raised, my goof.
  69. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 8:35 am
    Perhaps Crakrjak can explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite the fact that Mercury is much closer to the Sun. It couldn`t be because Venus has an incredibly high amount of CO2 in it`s atmosphere, could it?

    I suppose it would all be ok if Venus had some plants to absorb all that CO2, right?
  70. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    patch: You mention a `tipping point`, only you neglect to mention where that point is. I know where they`ve estimated that it is, and it`s 4ºC higher than it is now. Our current warming `anomaly` is around a mere 0.2ºC and at it`s highest point, a decade ago, it was 0.8ºC We are nowhere even close to their own estimated `tipping point` and because of this lull in the solar cycle it`s not likely it`ll get any closer.
    Fools: First off Venus is much too close to the sun, there is no evidence it ever had much liquid water on it`s surface. The vulcanism on Venus never stopped spewing out sulfur dioxide which begets strong sulfuric acid for `rain`. Venus never had a chance to be like earth. Mars may have once had liquid water on it`s surface and a decent atmosphere, unfortunately it lost it`s magnetic field and even scientists are puzzled as to why. Earth`s magnetic field protects us from much of the Sun`s radiation, Mars lost that protection and thus lost it`s atmosphere
  71. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 15, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    CrakrJak: I`m afraid you dropped the ball on Venus, somehow failing to mention the fact that the greenhouse effect is key to understanding the planet`s history.

    For a scientific treatment of the topic, I recommend this short article written by two planetary scientists associated with NASA`s Ames Research Center.

Leave a Reply