"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

UCDVet

zenno wrote: »

As i already said, How on earth can anyone possibly believe a corrupt fraudulent organisation like the IPCC after all of it's manipulations of the climate data. Man-made they say, is it mans fault that volcano's erupt more Co2 over long periods of time ?

Is it man's fault for having to breath out Co2 ? millions upon millions of animals farting every second of the day, man's fault again. Sounds like the IPCC would like to kill off the human race and all animals and plug volcano's from releasing this deadly poisonous thing called Co2 by the sounds of it.

The climate has been changing naturally, long before we became a technologically advanced species, it also enjoyed it's levels of Co2, well the plants love it

To be fair - there isn't any money to be made passing laws that regulate volcanos. There is, however, a lot of potential money and power to be had if you can regulate businesses.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

As i already said, How on earth can anyone possibly believe a corrupt fraudulent organisation like the IPCC after all of it's manipulations of the climate data. Man-made they say, is it mans fault that volcano's erupt more Co2 over long periods of time ?

Is it man's fault for having to breath out Co2 ? millions upon millions of animals farting every second of the day, man's fault again. Sounds like the IPCC would like to kill off the human race and all animals and plug volcano's from releasing this deadly poisonous thing called Co2 by the sounds of it.

The climate has been changing naturally, long before we became a technologically advanced species, it also enjoyed it's levels of Co2, well the plants love it

Since you decided to ignore the actual findings given in the link here you go. Oh and you are still saying things that show you aren't reading anything that might change your mind (the plant comment shows that).

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes....

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

Since you decided to ignore the actual findings given in the link here you go. Oh and you are still saying things that show you aren't reading anything that might change your mind.

They all have their own agendas regarding this fraud. Some are just fools forced to believe in such fairy tales.

In time, the global warming/climate change crowd will be shown to be a laughing stock in regards to the biggest manipulation of data and of falsely misleading the public on a grand scale.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

They all have their own agendas regarding this fraud.Some are just fools forced to believe in such fairy tales.

In time, the global warming/climate change crowd will be shown to be a laughing stock in regards to the biggest manipulation of data and of falsely misleading the public on a grand scale.

Good bye to you, I like adult discussions on things with people giving evidence for opinions and stances etc......
I have no time for your no no no no la la la fingers in ears kinda stuff. Enjoy your day.

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

Good bye to you, I like adult discussions on things with people giving evidence for opinions and stances etc......
I have no time for your no no no no la la la fingers in ears kinda stuff. Enjoy your day.

Another misleading tactic from the global warming crowd. Nasa finds so-called global warming data completely wrong again.

28 Jul 11 - (Excerpts) - NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

Akrasia

zenno wrote: »

Another misleading tactic from the global warming crowd. Nasa finds so-called global warming data completely wrong again.

[/LEFT]

The journal article you just linked to was so poorly written that the editor of the journal resigned out of embarassment that he allowed it to get published

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Editors resignation letter wrote:

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

Another misleading tactic from the global warming crowd. Nasa finds so-called global warming data completely wrong again.

[/LEFT]

Sorry debunked. Google the title and authors of papers before citing them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

Edit, Acknowledgement Akrasia got there first.

Corkfeen

zenno wrote: »

Amazing. It was 17 degrees celsius yesterday, and today it was 11 celsius, this is astonishingly dramatic climate change, we must do something fast to stop this climate change from happening :rolleyes:

The climate has changed all on it's lonesome, day in, day out, for millions of years, and this global warming (they had to change the name of that recently) climate change is the scam of the century, what a scam indeed, it's all about the money as per usual.

Can we not just let the natural climatic cycles do it's thing naturally without trying to damage it and our pockets please.

Okay, so you think we'd be damaging a natural climate cycle by reducing our Co2 emissions? Gotta question your knowledge on the subject when you make a post like that. Have any global warming deniers backed up assertions with peer review articles yet?

King Mob

zenno wrote: »

They all have their own agendas regarding this fraud. Some are just fools forced to believe in such fairy tales.

So Zenno, do you think that oil companies have absolutely no agenda at all in this issue?

Do you think that they have no power to prevent or hinder the introduction of carbon taxes?
Or do they simply just not care about their profits?

Why have they just sat around doing nothing while the green conspiracy takes over?

BurnsCarpenter

Rubeter wrote: »

Sorry debunked. Google the title and authors of papers before citing them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

Edit, Acknowledgement Akrasia got there first.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can bury their head in the sand. People don't like hearing negative news, they don't want to change their habits, maybe they have a negative view of environmentalists in general. So they will latch on to one article like that which contradicts the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion. And when that article is shown to be discredited, they still won't change their views.

Akrasia

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how people can bury their head in the sand. People don't like hearing negative news, they don't want to change their habits, maybe they have a negative view of environmentalists in general. So they will latch on to one article like that which contradicts the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion. And when that article is shown to be discredited, they still won't change their views.

I've been following this topic in discussion forums for years and I've noticed that there are a few categories of people who do not accept climate change

1. People who don't follow the topic closely

These are people who take a casual interest in the area through reports in the media and general discussion with friends and colleagues.

They have not invested much time in the topic and genuinely believe that there is uncertainty on this subject (because every time the topic is mentioned in the media, it is accompanied by a 'debate' between a denialist and a scientist/academic and the debate is never ever resolved.

in the 5 minute tv or radio slot, both sides make a few statements that contradict each other and the listener has no way of knowing that the statements by one side are completely misleading and false, while the scientist or academic is trying to give an honest account of the best available evidence.

Ironically, because the scientist/academic is trying to be honest, he/she includes the usual scientific disclaimers about ranges of confidence and uncertainty, while the denier is able to make statements that are much more strident and give the impression that they know the truth.

2. People who have absolute conviction that the Free Market is the solution to any problem anyone can possibly think of

These people believe in 'Freedom' and hate 'Big Government' and 'Taxes'

They hate these things so much that everything the government ever does is a conspiracy to reduce our freedom and increase our taxes.

This position is so entrenched that they will refuse to entertain any evidence to the contrary. Any evidence that suggests that their position is wrong can not be trusted because it has been tainted by some association with 'big government'

Their position is summed up as follows "I don't like the implications of this, therefore I don't believe in it"
Climate change requires global reductions in CO2 emissions. This requires international cooperation, and regulations on CO2 emissions. Regulations are bad, therefore Climate change is not real.

3. Conspiracy theorists

This group of people are the type of people who like to think that they're 'Sceptics'

They 'question everything' and take the contrary position on most things.

This group are also quite paranoid. They think that they would be living in paradise if only everyone wasn't out to get them all the time.

To this group, all disease would have been cured if it wasn't for the Big Pharma conspiracy who have the cure but are keeping it secret

They believe that the US government deliberately attacked themselves on 9/11 so that they could increase surveilanance on their own citizens and invade other countries at will

They believe that we are being poisoned through our own drinking water and through chemicals released by commercial planes as they fly

And they believe that global warming is a conspiracy organised by 'the evil IPCC' so that governments can increase taxes and control our lives.

Wierdly, they also believe that the oil companies have been suppressing the secret of free energy but have no problem with accepting the oil companys side when it comes to global warming.

4. The fence sitters
These are people who demand to have proof presented to them on a guilded plate that meets the standards handed down to them from the Gods.

They claim to be agnostic on the subject of Global warming because the evidence is not conclusive.

This group of people are experts at every kind of science, they're super phds at atmospheric science, geology, astrophysics. They will be able to glance at any scientific paper and instantly know how wrong it is and how it could have been improved. They are absolutely qualified to ask question after question and will demand answers.

Unfortunately, they are not qualified to understand the answers and when they're still left personal gaps in their knowledge even after being presented with the best available evidence, the only possible conclusion is that the science is incomplete and until science can explain to their own satisfaction the answer to every one of their questions, they will never accept that global warming is real and always assert that we should wait for more evidence before acting.

Turtwig

This thread would be rather funny if it wasn't for the fact that this is a global issue potentially seriously affecting future generations of humans.

I'm just going to say this as it's being said before on this thread so many times. Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.


Stop staying they do, because it's false and totally and ignorantly wrong on so many levels.
One can reject the AGW hypothesis without such blatant errors.

KyussBishop

And to put another nail in Dr. Roy Spencer's coffin, he is part of this oil and gas industry front group:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_C._Marshall_Institute

Pretty obvious that someone is only desiring to spin their agenda and engage in soapboxing, when they don't give the slightest toss about the quality of their sources, just that those sources agree with them (even when they have blindingly obvious conflicts of interest).


I've had a brief look at the long-term consequences of global warming, and while it will affect a huge amount of the worlds population in a negative way, I think that the people powerful enough to profit from it now, while preventing anything from pulling back emissions (which would harm their profits/power) - I get the impression they have the money/power for them and their descendents, to not be affected by it significantly at all, and have no reason to pull back until the oil runs out.

Many of the most relevant/culpable corporations, are ones that are so intertwined with US politics and foreign policy, that they have (for most of the last century, if not longer for some) been harming countries and significant portions of entire continents, for corporate/economic benefit through US military power (both overt and covert), such that they already have displayed that they don't give a toss about the well being, of most of the worlds population (or probably of many people, beyond themselves and their own elite).

KyussBishop

Oh...and well, never thought to click the link to his name; here are some more nails:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

zenno

Akrasia wrote: »

The journal article you just linked to was so poorly written that the editor of the journal resigned out of embarassment that he allowed it to get published

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Interesting, it sure got me who would have ever thought i would be hit with a frying pan on the side of the head. There again, you could say he was threatened into this acknowledgement.

zenno

Jernal wrote: »

This thread would be rather funny if it wasn't for the fact that this is a global issue potentially seriously affecting future generations of humans.

I'm just going to say this as it's being said before on this thread so many times. Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.
Volcanos don't and won't produce more C02 than mankind has in this century.


Stop staying they do, because it's false and totally and ignorantly wrong on so many levels.
One can reject the AGW hypothesis without such blatant errors.

If you have read my comment regarding volcano's, it said over long periods of time, in other words volcano's were spewing out tons of Co2 over a long period of time before we/humans invented combustion engines. The amount of Co2 ejected from all volcano's in say, the last 500 years would have produced more Co2 than we have produced in our short time, technologically speaking.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

Interesting, it sure got me who would have ever thought i would be hit with a frying pan on the side of the head. There again, you could say he was threatened into this acknowledgement.

By one of the climate scientists maybe.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

If you have read my comment regarding volcano's, it said over long periods of time, in other words volcano's were spewing out tons of Co2 over a long period of time before we/humans invented combustion engines. The amount of Co2 ejected from all volcano's in say, the last 500 years would have produced more Co2 than we have produced in our short time, technologically speaking.

Volcano produces x amount of CO2, we produce y amount of CO2, total amount of CO2 = x+y
Just think about that a little.

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

By one of the climate scientists maybe.

No, i was joking. I have to say though, i thought that article was legit, but thanks for pointing this out, but even though it seems the article was flawed.

One flawed article compared to the many from the IPCC is not much, the IPCC has been shown to do the same, if not worse, in their manipulative flawed data models, so it's not a big deal when you find one data flaw in relation to that link i posted.

They are both at it, but for the IPCC, they have done a lot worse and everyone knows this, as we have all seen the manipulated data models and e-mails, that speaks for itself.

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

Volcano produces x amount of CO2, we produce y amount of CO2, total amount of CO2 = x+y
Just think about that a little.

Y amount of exhaling and flatulence ? is this what you are trying to say, or the amount of Co2 we started to expel the day technology was invented to expel it on a larger scale ?.

Turtwig

[latex]\]
Volcanoes\; emit \; about \; .3 \; Gigatonnes \; of \;CO_2\; each\; year.\; Humans\; produce\; almost\; 30\,Gt\; a\; year\; and\; rising! [/latex]
[latex]It'll\; take\; a\; lot\; longer\; than\; 500\; years\; for\; volcanoes\; to\; catch\; up\; if\; humans\; were\; to\; cease\; emissions\;.[/latex].

darkpagandeath

Jernal wrote: »

[latex]\]
Volcanoes\; emit \; about \; .3 \; Gigatonnes \; of \;CO_2\; each\; year.\; Humans\; produce\; almost\; 30\,Gt\; a\; year\; and\; rising! [/latex]
[latex]It'll\; take\; a\; lot\; longer\; than\; 500\; years\; for\; volcanoes\; to\; catch\; up\; if\; humans\; were\; to\; cease\; emissions\;.[/latex].

Earthquakes tsunami's and so on anything that can disrupt the crust can release massive amounts of stored Co2

_Redzer_

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Earthquakes tsunami's and so on anything that can disrupt the crust can release massive amounts of stored Co2

That's just stupid and grasping at straws to downplay our obvious CO2 emissions

darkpagandeath

_Redzer_ wrote: »

That's just stupid and grasping at straws to downplay our obvious CO2 emissions

Ah right i forgot there were no Massive amounts of stored Co2 on the bottom of the ocean Floor or under the earths crust that must have been made up then so.

_Redzer_

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ah right i forgot there were no Massive amounts of stored Co2 on the bottom of the ocean Floor or under the earths crust that must have been made up then so.

No, it's stupid to think tsunamis and earthquakes push it up in massive quantities. If that were the case CO2 levels would be through the roof because they happen all the time

darkpagandeath

_Redzer_ wrote: »

No, it's stupid to think tsunamis and earthquakes push it up in massive quantities. If that were the case CO2 levels would be through the roof because they happen all the time

Like they are now ?

_Redzer_

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Like they are now ?

So that was all the earthquakes and tsunamis, and it's just a coincidence that levels started to skyrocket when we started burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels annually?

Tsunamis and earthquakes are around nearly as long as the earth, yet this wasn't happening until now, but ok, yeah, it was the tsunamis and earthquakes...

enfant terrible

Since the scientists seem to be putting a lot of faith in their computer models, does anyone know how accurate they have been in predicting future temperatures?

Did most of the computer models predict the temperatures changes correctly in say the last five or ten years?

darkpagandeath

enfant terrible wrote: »

Since the scientists seem to be putting a lot of faith in their computer models, does anyone know how accurate they have been in predicting future temperatures?

Did most of the computer models predict the temperatures changes correctly in say the last five or ten years?

Nope they were way out hence they revised them

COYVB

Jernal wrote: »

[latex]\]
Volcanoes\; emit \; about \; .3 \; Gigatonnes \; of \;CO_2\; each\; year.\; Humans\; produce\; almost\; 30\,Gt\; a\; year\; and\; rising! [/latex]
[latex]It'll\; take\; a\; lot\; longer\; than\; 500\; years\; for\; volcanoes\; to\; catch\; up\; if\; humans\; were\; to\; cease\; emissions\;.[/latex].

unless you think the world is 100,000 years old, it's mankind that's got a long way to go to catch up in the overall total