Climate Skeptics Launch Disinformation Campaign[Pi

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 3 years ago in Science

Ahead of the next IPCC report due on Sept. 27, climate skeptics are going into overdrive.
There are 65 comments:
Male 4,099
" wonder would benefit from making you care more about the economy than the environment. ;)"




Society would
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

We`re already IN an elite/peasant era. But you`re misidentifying your elites.

It`s not scientists who are the 0.1% wealth-bracket ruling over us.

It`s almost like you`re being distracted to a scapegoat for someone else`s benefit. Now...who I wonder would benefit from making you care more about the economy than the environment. ;)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The heavier products like asphalt and gear oil, that aren`t burned, also contain the most carbon, as Musuko pointed out.

Squrlz: "That is very much a secondary issue, which I don`t want to be distracted by."

Of course you don`t, because that would completely destroy the "green" argument that oil is evil, bad, dirty, yucky, etc... in comparison.

CO2 is not evil, it`s not unnatural, we breathe it out when we exhale, plants NEED CO2 to grow, algae NEEDS CO2 to produce O2. And because we live on earth, we have a carbon photosynthesis cycle that balances itself out. More CO2 means more plant growth. That in turn means more food, more oxygen and more rain.

"Let`s first decide as a society whether we`re going to listen to the scientists` warnings about AGW or not."

Let`s hope not, it`s the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the likes of mankind and is leading us back into an elitist/peasant era of society.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Musuko: "...just because you disagree with the methods used to tackle the problem, it doesn`t mean the problem doesn`t exist and shouldn`t be tackled."

Solving one disputed "problem" by creating even worse problems is not something that should be tackled, it should be avoided until a there is a cleaner way.

Squrlz: What you still don`t get is there is a lot of free floating carbon, and other things, in crude oil. Of course 85% is carbon by weight, but that`s because carbon is a much heavier atom than hydrogen. Also there are a lot of crude oil products that are not burned. Grease, heavy oil, asphalt, etc...

"Assuming that all the carbon in that barrel of oil will form CO2"

That`s an incorrect asumption, not only because it`s not all burned, but because even when it is it doesn`t all bond with oxygen. Some of it just becomes soot/graphite. Alkanes, methyls, ethyls and compounds like ammonia are used for purposes.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
@Squrlz4: Fair enough! Establishing the (non) existence of AGW is indeed very different from "alternate energies" that`s true.

However: From "our side" we say: "Even if AGW is true? WHAT can we DO about it?"
The answer comes back: Not a Damn thing!

Well? I have YET to hear a sane answer. "Return to the stone age" just isn`t... practical. :-)

I have a TERRIFIC analogy about "Ocean Warming" and Pee... but it`s really wordy! It takes a while to get the `subtleness` across of equating AGW and Pee... the `IPPP` - the International Panel on Pee Prevention... it takes time!! So many words... so very subtle...

Did you know when you pee into the ocean? The ocean warms up? It`s a FACT! Global Ocean Warming (GOW) must be stopped! (Not kidding! It really does warm up!)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

(5) ON RARE EARTH MAGNETS
5Cats, when in discussions or debates on here about AGW, I always strive to avoid commenting on or entering into debates on the pros and cons of alternative energies. That is very much a secondary issue, which I don`t want to be distracted by. Let`s first decide as a society whether we`re going to listen to the scientists` warnings about AGW or not. Once THAT issue is settled (if it ever is), then we can address the issues of how best to respond or not respond. I`m not "dodging" anything here; I`m simply prioritizing.

* * *

*brrrrrring!* There`s the timer--time`s up! I may or may not check back on here tonight. If not, I`ll try to hop on tomorrow. `Nite all. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

As far as "normal gasoline" goes, I`m well aware that gasoline contains a mix--a fantastically complex mix, actually--of hydrocarbon chains of varying lengths (from 4 to 12 carbon atoms, as you correctly stated). In referring to "normal gasoline," I was using the term "normal" (often abbreviated "n-") as it`s used in organic chemistry to refer to n-heptane`s structure as an unbranched chain (as opposed to the more complex gasoline hydrocarbon molecules). My apologies; I should have explained the term when I used it.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Assuming that all the carbon in that barrel of oil will form CO2--that is, by ignoring side products--1 barrel of oil produces about 433 kg of CO2. Since tonight we`ve determined that ~22% of the carbon atoms are going into side products NOT destined for combustion, we can determine a more precise estimate: ~338 kg or 745 lbs of CO2 can be expected from burning a barrel of oil post-refinement.

(4) ON "NORMAL GASOLINE"
MeGrendel, I *did* make an error last night, but it wasn`t regarding "normal gasoline." I was considering non-combustion-oriented side products of refining such as asphalts to NOT be hydrocarbons when, of course, they are. My error and I stand corrected.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

(3) ON THE WEIGHT OF CO2 PRODUCED BY A BARREL OF CRUDE
Musuko`s correct: each of the carbon atoms that is combusted is joined by two oxygen atoms from the air. When I first did the math for CJ, a year ago, it looked like this:

Crude oil has a density of around 0.85g/cm3 and consists (by weight) of approx. 85% carbon.

One barrel of oil is about 159 liters. Assuming a density of 0.85g/cm3, that barrel contains 135 kg of oil, which contains about 118 kg of carbon.

Now for the CO2:
C std atomic weight: 12.0107(+/- 0.00008) g*mol-1
O std atomic weight: 15.9994(+/- 0.00003) g*mol-1
Then C = 12 and 2 x O = 2 x 16 = 32 = Total: 44

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Question: Where did the other 203 pounds of carbon go? Into the gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other products that are destined for combustion. This means that about 22% of the carbon is "refined out" to use your expression, while 78% is not. Bottom line: Contrary to your assertion, most of the carbon in a barrel of oil is NOT refined out of it.

Can we put this issue to rest now?

(2) ON DIAMONDS
This is the only section in the comments where I groaned. You`re kidding me, CJ, right? Surely you wouldn`t go into a diatribe about my "chemistry ignorance"--while making yet another blunder, would you? You would. CJ, a pure diamond of pure carbon is clear. Diamonds take on color only when they have inclusions or contaminants. I could go on here, but as others have pointed out, you`re missing the point: Some items--like gasoline, jet fuel, and diamonds--can be filled with carbon yet not appear black.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak, 5Cats, MeGrendel et al.: Woohoo! I`m back! What`d I miss?

~reads~

Hmmm. A little craziness, but nothing too bad. I`ll set my kitchen timer for an hour, fire up the Mozart, and do what I can. Unfortunately my time is limited tonight.

So here we go, in rough chronological order.

(1) ON REFINING CRUDE
CJ, I see you`re still thinking that most of the carbon in a barrel of crude is "refined out of it." Let`s do the math, OK? Crude oil is ~85% carbon by weight (as Mosuko has stated). A typical barrel of crude weighs ~305 lbs, meaning that the carbon in a barrel of crude weighs ~260 lbs. The amount of products produced by refining that are NOT destined for combustion--asphalt, road oil, lubricants, raw materials for other petrochemical products--will be about 3 gallons. If we say those heavy products are pure carbon (they aren`t, but close enough), they will weigh just under 57 lbs.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"Shouldn`t the CO or CO2 be broken down again by nature to release the oxygen? Rather than attempting to "sequester" it?"

As far as my limited understanding reaches: the ocean absorbs some, and trees absorb some. There`s probably other mechanisms as well.

The issue I think is that there is too much going into the atmosphere for the ocean and trees to process.

"@CrakrJak raised the question of Rare Earth a while back... I just repeated it."

Apologies. I didn`t notice it.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
@Musuko42 Nice chemical calculation. Bravo!
0
Reply
Male 579
Honestly I care not if warming is man-made or not or exists or not. What bugs me is that clearly the science is NOT etched in stone. So stop making policy that hurts people when you don`t even have a clue what`s actually going on you libs!
0
Reply
Male 40,302
@Musuko42: I figured it was simple chemistry. Shouldn`t the CO or CO2 be broken down again by nature to release the oxygen? Rather than attempting to "sequester" it?

- Do I get bonus points for NOT `blathering on` in a subject I know (almost) nothing of? ;-)

@CrakrJak raised the question of Rare Earth a while back... I just repeated it.

EnviromentalISM does nothing. Only HUMANS do things! So if -ISTS are behind it? That covers the -ISM as well, yes?

And over here? Environmentalists consider -everything- as "part of the environment" & especially including humans! So no distinction can be made, eh? afaik of course...

0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

I said environmentalISM, not environmentalISTS.

EnvironmentalISTS no doubt care about all sorts of things. But environmentalISM is concerned only with the environment.

"FUNNY how @Squrlz4 entirle DODGED the "rare earth" part of the equation."

He hasn`t made any comment here since you brought it up. He might simply not have got to it yet (or got bored and moved on).
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"Wait, a 400 pound barrel of crude oil makes 900 pounds of carbon dioxide? Colour me confused on how that works @Squrlz4. (Not a joke)"

I`ll answer for him if you like. The 900 pounds includes the addition of the oxygen (the dioxide).

My REALLY crude calculation: Oxygen has an atomic weight of 16, and there`s two of them, so 32. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12.

So, of that 900 pounds, 337.5lbs of it is carbon, and the rest (562.5lbs) is oxygen pulled from the air.

Google tells me that crude oil is 84-87% carbon (hydrogen the rest), 337.5lbs is 84% of 400lbs. So that checks out.

So that`ll be how you can get 900lbs of carbon dioxide from 400lbs of crude, at a guess.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
[quote]Environmentalism is caring about the environment, not human health.[/quote]
@Musuko42: Respectfully? That is "dead wrong" dude. Perhaps in Europe? idk, but over here they care DEEPLY about humans AND animals AND the environment too.

[quote]I suspect it was other groups...[/quote]
No, it was under the "environmentalist umbrella" I remember it clearly!

FUNNY how @Squrlz4 entirle DODGED the "rare earth" part of the equation. MAKING these so-called green devices CREATES pollution and greenhouse gasses AS BAD AS petroleum or other fuels. That is (for a fact!) NOT counted in the "green cost" of things like wind and solar power.

Fact: A local power company built a new, "green" head office (skyscraper). They used 220,000 TONS of concrete to make a "heat sink" to save energy.
The CO2 from MAKING the `sink` was NOT figured into the "carbon footprint" of the building...

0
Reply
Male 8,427
CrakrJak-"it`s used to make steel and is even burned with coal to make power"

And you forgot Asphalt Binder, also.

But I hate to say it, but Squrlz is more right than you (though neither is completely wrong, nor completely right).

All oil products are made up of Hydrocarbons. The number of hydrocarbons in a molecule determines it`s use.

She is incorrect about `every molecule of heptane (normal gasoline) is filled with carbon atoms--7, to be precise`. Heptane does have 7, but is not `normal gasonline`. Gasoline, as refined, ranges from 4-12 carbon atoms per molecule.

For reference:
Natural Gas = 1-4 carbon atoms
Naptha = 5-6
Kerosene = 12-16
Fuel Oil = 15-18
Lubricating Oil = 16-20
Asphalt Binder = 20+
0
Reply
Male 40,302
LA Times Says: Lack Of Warming Hard To Explain

LA Times! Where`s @davymid to B*TCH about how biased and right-wing THAT source is!
Hint: It`s uber-left! Like the NY Times.

"Maybe it`s because ice still forms in the arctic during the winter..."

August @Squrlz4, it`s high summer in Canada. Locals say it`s the most ice they`ve seen at this date in over 20 years.

Wait, a 400 pound barrel of crude oil makes 900 pounds of carbon dioxide? Colour me confused on how that works @Squrlz4. (Not a joke)

@madduck: The "cost"? Look at your electric bill and see it! It`s going to go up 50% very soon, ON TOP of the massive rise in the past few years...

The cost? Destroy the economy, massive debt, massive unemployment, STARVATION in the 3rd world on a MASSIVE s
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Also Squrlz specifically said that diamonds aren`t black, which is a falsehood that needed correction."

But his essential point, that diamonds (sometimes) are clear, so that means clear things can contain lots of carbon, is unchallenged by your correction. You picked at a technicality without actually answering the statement he was making.

"until the environmentalists cried out that CO (carbon monoxide) was bad for the air we breathe"

Environmentalism is caring about the environment, not human health. I suspect it was other groups (as well as environmentalists) who pushed for this change.

I agree with you about the batteries and rare earth minerals issue. But just because you disagree with the methods used to tackle the problem, it doesn`t mean the problem doesn`t exist and shouldn`t be tackled.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Musuko42: I`m sorry that you don`t understand, but it`s not as if I can give a professorial lecture on petroleum chemistry in 1000 characters or less. Don`t feel bad though, you`re not alone and it confuses a lot of people that`ve been indoctrinated into the global warming nonsense.

The whole "petroleum is evil, bad, dirty, yucky, etc..." reputation that has been incessantly drilled into people`s minds by the "green" crowd.
Problem is the mining of rare earth metals needed for the so called "green revolution", are much worse for the environment than drilling for oil and natural gas.

Also Squrlz specifically said that diamonds aren`t black, which is a falsehood that needed correction.

Another thing, Cars didn`t start producing so much CO2 until the environmentalists cried out that CO (carbon monoxide) was bad for the air we breathe and insisted we all have catalytic converters on our cars to convert CO to CO2.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
so- there really is not actuallu that much disagreement among those who actually know. But for the rest of us lets do it the logical way- if we assume climate change is anthropogenic and clean up our act then what is the cost- a cleaner planet, energy companies with possibly a tad less profit,and giving technology to developing countries for free- mmm- not too bad- if we are wrong about us causing it- still not too bad. If we assume it is NOT anthropogenic, do nothing, and we are wrong we lose a LOT... a no brainer really.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
CrakrJak: carbon is removed from the crude and then burned as coke. That means that not all the carbon in the barrel is burned. Because science, somehow.

Squrlz4Sale (and the rest of us): Wat.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Diamonds:

Squrlz4Sale: Diamonds are clear. (meaning: clear things can be full of carbon).

CrakrJak: But there are black diamonds too!

Squrlz4Sale (and the rest of us): That...that doesn`t contradict the point being made that clear things can be full of carbon. WTF are you blithering about you numptoid?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: Also, concerning your arctic see ice chart.

The antarctic sea ice extent is remaining relatively steady.



So if we were dealing with the whole earth, aka GLOBAL, warming, shouldn`t the antarctic be loosing just as much ice?

See, this is another fact that makes the AGW fall apart. The other scaremongering predictions like that there would no longer be ice on Kilamanjaro, more hurricanes, the extinction of polar bears and many others, haven`t came true either.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: "heptane ... is filled with carbon atoms--7"

Heptane only makes up 30% or so of the mixture we know as gasoline. Heptane also contains 16 hydrogen atoms. Isooctane, which is C8H18, is the more important part of the mixture.

"Diamonds, after all, are pure carbon--and last I checked, they aren`t black."

Now you really are demonstrating your chemistry ignorance. Many diamonds are indeed black. Carbonado is the toughest form of natural industrial diamond. Mined carbonado is also more common than "white" diamonds. The first synthetically made diamonds were also black, but most are an amber color these days. Just because you haven`t seen them used in jewelry, although some occasionally are, doesn`t mean that most diamonds are clear.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: What you still do not get is the chemistry that goes on during refining. Most of the atoms in hydrocarbons are not carbon, the majority are hydrogen atoms.

Crude oil is heated inside a "cat cracker", the cat cracker contains a sand like substance which is the catalyst. The catalyst "cracks" the long chains (branched, cyclic and straight) hydrocarbons into much smaller chain hydrocarbons. It does that by removing the carbon from the long chains and keeping the hydrogen. The whole point of doing so, is to make the end products burn cleaner. One of the effects of the cracking is that the oil becomes lighter and clear, because the excess carbon is removed from it. That is why your 2.2 gals figure for Pet Coke is deceptively low.

Pet coke is almost all carbon and IS used in making steel, aluminum, titanium dioxide and is also burned as fuel.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

All this conflicting data and graphs are confusing me !!!!!



0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

One last thing, which I`m hoping will help. You seem to be under the impression that because gasoline is clearish, it doesn`t contain much carbon. In fact, every molecule of heptane (normal gasoline) is filled with carbon atoms--7, to be precise. The relative clarity of the resulting gasoline has to do with the molecule`s configuration, not because "most of the carbon was refined out of it," as you seem to believe. Diamonds, after all, are pure carbon--and last I checked, they aren`t black.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

(2) I`m surprised you`ve decided to double-down on your error regarding the refining of crude. It suggests to me that you don`t understand what the term *hydrocarbon* means.

Here`s what typically results when a 42 gallon barrel of crude is refined. Let`s start with the hydrocarbons:

Gasoline: 22.6 gals
Diesel: 6.7 gals
Jet fuel: 5.5 gals
Still gas: 2.4 gals
Fuel oil: 1.5 gals
Liquefied gas: 1.2 gals

Also produced:
Petcoke: 2.2 gals, virtually all of which is combusted; it`s the coke from coal, not oil, that`s used in steel manufacturing.
Asphalt: 0.8 gals
Lubricants: 0.4 gals

Bottom line: Over 96% of the oil in a barrel of crude is refined into combustible products that release their carbon into the atmosphere, resulting in over 900 lbs of carbon dioxide.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak: *sigh* Let`s step through these points one by one, shall we?

(1) I read your article. I know the yachts got stuck in August. I also know that more sea ice formed this year than the record low amount that formed last year. What you don`t seem to be getting is that this year`s ice extent--what you and David Rose are calling a "recovery"--is the sixth lowest on record, with only 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 having less extensive ice.

I`ve shown you a graphic of what`s occurring in another thread before. You don`t seem to be understanding it, but I`ll try once more.



(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: "Maybe it`s because ice still forms in the arctic during the winter and sometimes yachts get stuck in it."

I see you didn`t even bother reading the article. The yachts were stuck there in the middle of AUGUST.

"it was less than a year ago that you proclaimed that refining crude oil removes most of its carbon."

And it does, but I still see that you`re denying even that simple fact of chemistry. Petroleum refining does indeed remove most of the carbon from cruse oil. Crude oil is solid black after refining it`s products are clear, or nearly clear. What`s leftover is called Pet Coke and it`s used to make steel and is even burned with coal to make power.

Lived next to 3 refineries when growing up, have family members that worked in them, I know exactly how it`s done. So quit being a troll about it.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak: Hmmmm. Maybe it`s because ice still forms in the arctic during the winter and sometimes yachts get stuck in it. Just a wild guess.

Still haven`t read the debunking of David Rose`s hatchet job from the *Daily Mail* or figured out what *reversion to the mean* refers to, huh?

Ah well. I wasn`t getting my hopes up. After all, it was less than a year ago that you proclaimed that refining crude oil removes most of its carbon. ~facepaw~ Let`s just say that science doesn`t appear to be your strong suit.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: "Despite the illustration ... arctic sea ice isn`t recovering."

Really? Then why did a bunch of yachts get caught in the northwest passage this year and needed icebreakers to rescue them. Link

0
Reply
Male 15,832
"I know, let`s just call everything they say `disinformation`; that way, we won`t have to deal with their facts. Then we can get about our REAL agenda: bossing people around and taking their stuff."
0
Reply
Male 208
Meh, let`s see runaway climate change already. It is the only thing homo-sapien deserves at this point.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
Oh, sorry @Squrlz4! My mistake!
(I was very sleepy! A nap was calling & I had to go without looking it up!)

It`s also true that Ant-Artic Ice is growing, not shrinking, as @Richanddead has pointed out!

BOTH poles! It`s GLOBAL Warming yes? It seems to be a consistent pattern: One pole shrinks a bit? The other pole grows a bit. A few years later they switch.

And what EXACTLY can humans do to make Artic Ice grow? Hummmm? Build a million ice-cube makers above the tree-line??

(Note: This is a joke! Ice-cube makers generate more heat than coldness, get it? It would make the Artic ice melt more than it generated ice-cubes!)
(Funny, eh?)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Interestingly, you`ll see that current global temperatures surpass all previous warming periods (Medieval, Roman, Minoan, you-name-it). In fact, what most jumps out from this chart is that the cooling of the past 5,000 years has been erased in just the last 100.

Why? According to the upcoming IPCC report due on Friday, climate scientists are now 95% certain that it`s a result of our spewing over a hundred million years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the geological blink of an eye.

If you want to read more about the global temperature chart published in *Nature* by Marcott et al., click here and here.

Hope this helps shed some light. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)



Source: Marcott et al., "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years." Science, 8 March 2013: Vol. 339, No. 6124, pp. 1198-1201.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

If you want to read more about your original chart, and the revised, more accurate, version, click here.

Still with me? Good. Because even correcting for the original flaws, there is still a major problem with that chart of yours (at least as you are using it)--namely, it`s a record of LOCAL temperatures. Attempting to prove or disprove GLOBAL warming with a chart of LOCAL temperature is a flawed approach. Even when the Earth warms, not all locations warm at the same rate; some few locations can even experience cooling.

Fortunately, four climatologists (Marcott et al.) have recently published a chart in *Nature* that accomplishes on a global scale what your chart attempts locally; it is the best research on global temperature records that has been published to date. Take a look.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Richanddead: Again with your Greenland chart. *sigh*

That favorite chart of yours, which attempts to mock AGW theory, is junk science. Here`s why: It takes LOCAL data up to 1855 and appends GLOBAL data onto it for the past 158 years. That`s mixing apples and oranges and is why it will never appear in any peer-reviewed journal.

If you correct the chart by using local data from the Greenland summit (still not a perfect approach, but an order of magnitude better than the original apples-to-oranges approach), it looks a bit differently (see below). By comparing local record with local record, we see that the average recent temperature record is within a third of a degree of previous highs. In addition, the 2010 average temperature (the cross) is as high or higher than previous average highs.



(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@Squrlz4Sale:
"with 2012 being an all-time observed low."

It is true that 2012 was an all time observed low for the Arctic, yet it was an all time high for the Antarctic.


0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ 5Cats:

[quote]Didn`t you post the thing about "Polar Lakes" which I proved BUNKUS?[/quote]
Incorrect; that was NOT my post. The story you are remembering, "The North Pole Is Now A Lake," from July 26 of this year, was indeed inaccurate and alarmist--and I called it out as such almost immediately.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak: Despite the illustration you`ve taken from David Rose`s recent hatchet job in *The Daily Mail*, which has been widely discredited, arctic sea ice isn`t recovering. It`s been shrinking about 4% per decade over the past 35 years, with 2012 being an all-time observed low.

This can be seen in the following chart (prepared by scientists, not tabloid reporters) from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.



What David Rose has done as part of his campaign to mislead the public is to portray a reversion to the mean that followed 2012`s record low as if it`s somehow a refutation of global warming.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
[quote]record high and low temps have been reported all around the world...[/quote]
That`s called "normal" @aliyahg1979 ;-) It happens ALL the time!
I recall a flood "Caused By Global Warming" which was the WORST flood there since 1904....
Wait, why was it that bad in 1904? GLOBAL WARMING??? :-O Obviously not! lolz!

@Squrlz4: Didn`t you post the thing about "Polar Lakes" which I proved BUNKUS? The Actual North Pole Itself has been ice-free in the past! Well, had actual holes in the ice (as opposed to shallow lakes ON TOP of the ice...) without AGW...
0
Reply
Male 8,427
Andrew155-"Why would anyone feel the need to fake data if it`s real?"

Because the have to get The Truth out there.

Even if they have to lie to do it.

(And no, they do not see the hypocrisy)

aliyahg1979-" the ice caps are melting... no way around it"

And they have been doing so for about 15,000 years when the Earth entered its current interglacial period. (although, there was a slight uptic abouit 500 years ago).

Now, exactly WHEN did the industrial revolution kick off?
0
Reply
Male 40,302
HAHAHA! Back to back Climate Posts!

CLIMATE WARZ!!!

On Sept 27 the Report will Hit The Fan!!

(Nicely done @FancyLad and/or @The_Mods! I -AM- entertained!)
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@BDT1981:

If you look farther back than 30 years you`ll see that the temperature has actually fallen over the last 3500 years. Even by the most biased data we are only as warm as the medieval warming period, the Roman and Minoan warming periods were 2-3 degrees centigrade warmer, not even mentioning the other warm periods.

As I`m sure @Squrlz4Sale will point out the blue line ends in 1855 yet the red dotted line at the end is based on current data. Not to mention the average temperature of the earth is 25 degrees centigrade whereas we are still at only 14.6 degrees.


0
Reply
Male 132
@ CrakrJak I need you to look at aquaman1227` post Here
0
Reply
Male 4,099
The Roman and Minoan warming periods were still way warmer. Even if you believe the most biased data we are still only as warm as the Medieval warming period.

MEANING WE ARE STILL IN A 3500 YEAR COOLING TREND!!!
0
Reply
Male 339
winter here in Louisiana are getting colder its a fact.
0
Reply
Male 17,512


That`s no echo chamber squrlz, that`s fact. You need to quit listening to chicken little, the sky isn`t falling.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Andrew,

Citing the Daily Mail or Fox News on a science topic quite rightly invalidates your point. They lie, knowingly. Same applies to citing Delingpole in the Telegraph.

I`m not sure what you mean by `alternative` news sites but if it means the same as `alternative` medecine, then yeah. It`s worthless.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Climategate? Seriously? Still?

`Climate Skeptics` is way too generous.

0
Reply
Male 1,284
winter here in Canada are getting warmer its a fact.
0
Reply
Female 254
what`s with the Ad Hominem b.s.? sigh... the ice caps are melting... no way around it... record high and low temps have been reported all around the world...
0
Reply
Male 329
They need to fake the data in order to force their agenda. Pay yet another tax in the form of a cap and trade system. It`s about taking more money from you. Always has been.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

Yeah, it`s real. But until India and Chine get on board nothing we do in the west will help.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Andrew155:

"That`s what they have about Climategate. The deliberate falsification of data and science."

No, Andrew, they DON`T have that and never did. Not one, not two, not five, but EIGHT separate committees have investigated the skeptic accusations and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

But you go right ahead beating that dead horse. It`s how the echo chamber of the climate skeptics works.
0
Reply
Male 683

0
Reply
Male 2,578
"They have had some successes. Climategate, the November 2009 hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia`s Climatic Research Unit, is the most notable case. Skeptic groups claimed the hacked emails showed evidence that scientists were overstating the human influence on climate change, and they received nationwide media attention for their accusation."


That`s what they have about Climategate. The deliberate falsification of data and science. And after that paragraph, they so cavalierly move on to the next topic, just brushing this crime of science off. Why would anyone feel the need to fake data if it`s real?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
This is another funny thing. If anyone on any internet site dares to post the Dailymail, Wall Street Journal, Foxnews, Forbes, or any number of Conservative, Libertarian, or alternative news sites, they will be heavily criticized. Their point is immediately invalidated by the very fact of using one of those sources that do not have the progressive stamp of approval.

And then the critics turn around and post from the far-left Guardian or MSNBC.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: Climate Skeptics Launch Disinformation Campaign[Pi [Rate Link] - Ahead of the next IPCC report due on Sept. 27, climate skeptics are going into overdrive.
0
Reply