Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

Heh, once again I must repeat myself. Didn't the previous climate gate show that global warming is real? And that is from the actual scientists studying it.

This is just another for profit cause. Carbon taxes are big money once you start trading them and that's what it's all about. I love mother nature but to point the finger at humans for warming the planet... No.

Yes, I believe they are fabricating data at this point since their attempts at alarmism have failed. They are also trying to push through legislation and measures that nobody supports but they claim are necessary. I ask you, does it feel warmer? In the Northeast, the answer is No. They said we'd have droughts and terrible hurricanes and we haven't. Yes, parts of the west and southwest have had droughts and lesser intensity heat waves but that's been offset by cold snaps and harsher winters elsewhere. And that's only here in America. Some areas of Europe have had harsh winters and wet periods, others have had warmer stretches. There hasn't been one trend towards warmer or cooler temperatures. What we're seeing is in all likelihood normal, we just haven't been recording temps and weather patterns long enough to make any kind of assessment.
It comes down to money being the key goal and reason for any kind of climate response. If I said we all had to start wearing sunglasses to prevent UV damage from a more hostile sun I'd want to own a sunglasses factory and have the government make everybody buy them.

Are there any scientists out there studying natural climate change and using the historical weather cycles? How come we don't hear patterns or theories from them? Obviously Earth's climate has gone through many major changes in the past. It has been proven other planets are also warming.

In other news apparently where I live is going to become the new north pole because we've broken hundreds of cold weather records during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall 2014... the supposedly hottest year ever recorded.

a reply to: marg6043

I am surprised that you see the climate problem as a way to scam people into paying more taxes.

The evidence is overwhelming about the increase of CO2 which will trap more energy into the earth system. The ones with the most to lose dealing with the CO2 problems are also the wealthiest people in the world, the Oil oligarchy. If we take measures to clean up our act, they will lose out. The common person will not have to pay extra. We have the technology for alternative energies. The oil industry is known to buy patents and hide technology that threatens their profits. They also have the resources to employ shills and play the psy-ops game in hopes of manipulating public opinion, which they are doing a good job of it in the US.

This thread is 14 pages now, many of the replies being full of junk science and logic fallacies that many fail to see.

originally posted by: mc_squared

www.pmel.noaa.gov...

This is a good graphic.

If you do not believe in human induced climate change, then please kindly debunk this chart using proper logic/science.

a reply to: jrod

I love historical facts, history specially the history of earth before the now been pushed global warming shows, that we as a planet has spend more time warmer than cold, life thrives in warmer cycles.

Earth has been going through changes for millennia's and cold cycles and warmer cycles are not new.

The problem is that manipulation, propaganda, scaremongering and profiteering is using earth newest Cycle as we are at the end of the last mini age cycle to push agendas, tax the populations, create Ponzi schemes and scam the people.

Is that really so hard to see?

Before all this newest trend toward profiteering earth and surviving species of past warming and cooling cycles made it just fine.

We either survive like our ancient ancestors survived the last ice age or die away like the dinosaurs.

Earth will do what earth has always done, it will recycle itself with human interference or not, but I be darned if I will allow a whole bunch of vermin profiteers take away my hard earned money for them to fill their fat wallets.

a reply to: cenpuppie

Carbon taxes and selling carbon credits will not help population it will only allow big polluter with a lot of American investments like China to keep polluting more.

Already In EU some people has been caught in the scam with newest way to make fast money and that is without legislation, when laws are passed and you will see the next Wall street bubble in the making.

Carbon credits are looming as one of the next big financial misselling scandals as regulators warn some of the investments offer poor value and are sold with high pressure tactics.

The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has already warned some carbon credit advisers offer misleading information and are driven to make a sale because they are paid high commissions.

The FSA feels some carbon credit schemes are similar to land banking cons and boiler room share scams, so buyers need to check the details of any investment before parting with any money.

One key point to watch for retirement savers is sales people are suggesting carbon credits are good investments for self-invested personal pensions (SiPPs), but many ‘verified’ deals may be worthless.

“Investors need to be careful because they could lose money on their investment by not being able to sell, or at least get a competitive rate, when trading a small volume of carbon credits,” said an FSA spokesman.

Industry insiders suggest some of the more dubious schemes are based in the Middle East.

Nigel Green, chief executive of the deVere Group said: “A worrying large number of companies are selling bogus carbon credits, particularly in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and the Far East.

- See more at: www.iexpats.com...

We just have to be careful.

We have to be careful to not confuse one issue, carbon credits, with man made global warming.

Scientists, most of them in the world, are telling us that man is causing a global warming cycle that is taking place now, outside of any of the natural cycles that the earth goes through. One solution to help mitigate or get us throw this is the carbon tax. I hate all taxes and think this is a stupid idea. However, irregardless of how I feel about that, I have to listen to science and scientists and scientific organizations and scientific papers and articles and research.

Yes?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

Dude, seriously?

What holds more gas, a hot ocean or a cold ocean? Look it up, do not take my word for it. Check the science.

(it's not quite held as gas, carbon is held as carbonic acid)

As oceans warm, they release co2 that is stored in them. This is not my hypothesis, this is simple physics.

Yes, I know that.

And right now, the oceans are taking in more CO2 AND warming at the same time, these are experimental facts.

Why? Because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going UP from an independent mechanism than the ocean: us. Therefore there is a driving force in the chemical reactions upward, because there hasn't been time to equilibrate between ocean and atmosphere because we're emitting additional carbon so much faster. Temperature governs properties of the reaction. The fact that you are hung up about is that in equilibrium, all else being equal and static, a system of ocean + CO2 in atmosphere will equilibrate to a carbon concentration in the ocean which decreases as the temperature increases. And this fact can be true and simultaneously the experimental evidence be true that carbon in both ocean and atmosphere is currently, and simultaneously, increasing. And now you can consider what the known facts of the solubility equilibrium implies to future evolution.

Do you honestly believe you've discovered some hidden "TRUTH" which has eluded physical and chemical oceanographers for decades?

If ET came with a phaser and vaporized every human on Earth, what would happen geophysically? Since apes don't yet know how to mine coal, there would be a complete cessation of fossil carbon inputs to the atmosphere. Nevertheless there would still be increased CO2 in the atmosphere and more global warming for some time (many decades). In that circumstance, the ocean would start to release carbon and you'd have your natural global warming from the ocean's dissolved CO2, where you see less carbon in ocean and more in the atmosphere with time. Over an even longer time, the CO2 in atmosphere would start to go down, very slowly. There would be photosynthetic algae growing in the oceans taking in carbon, and if they died and as they fell to the ocean floor, if they were not ever eaten, or decomposed and fell down into an area even without bacterial decompositon, then they would take that carbon out of the carbon cycle (for a long time) and become raw materials for future 'fossil fuels'.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Are there any scientists out there studying natural climate change and using the historical weather cycles?

Of course.

How come we don't hear patterns or theories from them?

Have you been listening or reading? It's only been a major subject for 100 years or so since the beginning of modern geophysics.

Obviously Earth's climate has gone through many major changes in the past. It has been proven other planets are also warming.

Indeed, it is a major subject. The fact that Earth and other planets changed climate in the past does nothing to obviate the importance of human influence through increasing greenhouse effect. By contrast, past study helps confirm the mechanisms of climate change.

In other news apparently where I live is going to become the new north pole because we've broken hundreds of cold weather records during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall 2014... the supposedly hottest year ever recorded.

Globally the number of new high records is increasing over time, and the number of new low records decreasing in time.

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech

originally posted by: Entreri06

You couldn't get 97% of the worlds scientific community to lie..... It's a math issue really. Co2 holds more heat then O2 or nitrogen. So more CO2= more heat. Every year has gotten hotter then the last. It's insane to think adding elements to our planets "system" won't have an effect.

It's crazy to think all the worlds science communities are in a vast conspiracy to pass a carbon tax in America...

Now saying that a carbon tax won't help and will be squandered and stolen is 100% fair probubally 100% accurate!!!

But that doesn't change the math.... Nor does it change the massive conspiracy it would take to fool 97% of the worlds scientists.

We Americans always think we are so special. Aka all the worlds media outlets are in a massive conspiracy to discredit American conservatism and Fox News... It's laughable.

The 97% of scientists bit is a lie itself.

No it isn't. I was personally at a lecture with one of the authors of that study. He said that his team not only checked all the abstracts, but then confirmed their interpretation (positive or negative) directly with the authors themselves. It's difficult for me to imagine the 3%.

And how would this hoax work? It would have to start well before 1965.

www.dailyclimate.org...

Roger Revelle. Was he, one of the greatest oceanographers in history, a complete scamming lying fearmonger for some future banker to come long after he was dead?

a reply to: marg6043

Yes we are being manipulated. However the rise of CO2 is a global problem that is being caused by our species and it is in our interest address the CO2 problem is a rational way.

The Carbon Credit scam is a distraction. While we debate carbon credits, the Oil cartels keep destroying this planet for profit, and we keep pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is not just CO2 that is a man made problem on this planet.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
Yes, I believe they are fabricating data at this point since their attempts at alarmism have failed.

There is no evidence for fabrication, but yes emissions are continuing unabated. And it is not the scientist's fault but thinking of people who think as you do.

They are also trying to push through legislation and measures that nobody supports but they claim are necessary. I ask you, does it feel warmer? In the Northeast, the answer is No. They said we'd have droughts and terrible hurricanes and we haven't. Yes, parts of the west and southwest have had droughts and lesser intensity heat waves but that's been offset by cold snaps and harsher winters elsewhere. And that's only here in America. Some areas of Europe have had harsh winters and wet periods, others have had warmer stretches. There hasn't been one trend towards warmer or cooler temperatures. What we're seeing is in all likelihood normal, we just haven't been recording temps and weather patterns long enough to make any kind of assessment.

The people who do this for a living, quantitatively, disagree.

Even a previously Koch-funded skeptic.

www.nytimes.com...

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

It comes down to money being the key goal and reason for any kind of climate response. If I said we all had to start wearing sunglasses to prevent UV damage from a more hostile sun I'd want to own a sunglasses factory and have the government make everybody buy them.

That says something about your character. Fortunately the world is morally superior, and engaged in an international protocol to lower the emissions of substances which were creating the problem.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: mbkennel

Sugar I was born in the 60s, already went to school and college and raised two children, yes I lived during the Ace age scaremongeringthat one didn't stick for the profiteers, obviously telling people that they are going to died of heat and pollution is sticking better.

What actual scientists thought in the 1970's:

journals.ametsoc.org...

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

When you get older and look back to what goes around you like I have now, you will understand how profiteers and scammers duped good hard working people like you.

Where is the evidence of the scam? Who do think makes more profit? Fossil fuel producers, or geophysical scientists? How did the scam start in 1965?

I grew up in LA in the 1970's. Was that smog thing all an entirely invented scam by the platinum producers and Japanese car companies too?


I don't even see any arguments now, just totally unsupported assertions.

Earth isn't warming! Man isn't the cause! It's a scam!

It's an emotional reaction against something they don't want to believe and don't want to take responsibility for.

yeah the circular argument:

there's no global warming -> it's a natural cycle -> it's not man's fault -> you forgot the sun -> algore on a plane!-> negative feedback!
-> warm is good for us -> it's a scam! -> l-> it's too late to do anything about it! ->
the bankers who stole your pension! -> It used to be hotter -> U.N. globalists!!! -> It snowed in Minnesota! -> I'm old, listen to me and I say horseswaggle!! -> Mars is warming too! -> it does not make sense, you must acquit! -> they're measuring everything wrong -> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is Chewbacca! -> If Chewbacca lives on Endor, there's no global warming! ->

a reply to: jrod

I am just going to remark from strictly a logical viewpoint.

There is nothing in particular to "debunk" about the graph.

However, the graph and data presented show a correlation, but as we all know correlation does not equal causation.

There is nothing else presented that shows cause of any kind. It's a graph that shows correlation between co2 and temperature. I could show you a graph from 100 kya that looks incredibly similar.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jrod

I am just going to remark from strictly a logical viewpoint.

There is nothing in particular to "debunk" about the graph.

However, the graph and data presented show a correlation, but as we all know correlation does not equal causation.

There is nothing else presented that shows cause of any kind. It's a graph that shows correlation between co2 and temperature. I could show you a graph from 100 kya that looks incredibly similar.

It equals causation because of chemistry. Partial pressure of CO2 in ocean + concentration of CO2 in atmosphere interacting with ocean.

a reply to: mbkennel

And the cause, solely using data from the graph is.......

a reply to: bbracken677

That graph is just one piece of the puzzle. There are many other graphs that complete the picture fully and completely.

First and foremost is the unavoidable fact that CO2 levels have risen dramatically out of whack since the industrial revolution. You can argue all you want that correlation does not equal causation, but it still requires some serious mental gymnastics to just look at these and pretend there’s nothing fishy going on:





Nevertheless if you want more explicit empirical evidence, there are several other independent channels. This set of graphs sums up two more:


Source

It shows rising CO2 (top) versus changing carbon isotope ratio (middle) and declining oxygen (bottom).

The change in isotope ratio is consistent with the unique carbon content of fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle has a consistent mix of C12, C13 and C14. Fossil fuels however have been buried away in the ground for millions of years, so their makeup is different. All their C14 has decayed away for example (this is the same premise that radiocarbon dating is based on). The burning of fossil fuels is not only changing the amount of atmospheric CO2, but also its very composition. Because of this we can see the actual man made “signature” in that changing composition. In the case of the graph above, you can see the natural signature decreasing in step with the rise in anthropogenic emissions.

Then you also have the corresponding decline in oxygen. Burning hydrocarbons only explain where the ‘C’ in CO2 comes from. Combustion requires oxygen, so the ‘O2’ is pulled straight out of the atmosphere (i.e. not the ocean). We are witnessing an overall atmospheric flux perfectly consistent with man-made combustion – rising CO2 and a running parallel decline in oxygen.

The evidence is everywhere. It is not constrained to one graph.

originally posted by: Entreri06


It's crazy to think all the worlds science communities are in a vast conspiracy to pass a carbon tax in America...

Is it?

I don't find it all that hard to believe that if people have been conspiring and working together towards a common goal for long enough, they could accomplish just about anything they set their minds to. Especially while 99% of the world's citizens are sleeping.

Yes. It sounds a little silly. The Holocaust sounds a little silly. It seems pretty obvious that things that don't sound like they could happen actually can and do.

Frankly, I don't know what their end goal is but I know something stinks. I'm not prepared to say it's all about a carbon tax or whatever. But it's about something. And it's probably about something they couldn't do without manipulating us.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

And this makes more sense to you - that all of the world's scientists are in on this big conspiracy to clean up the planet - rather than a small but very powerful group of people have created a fake backlash to keep you from doing anything about a real environmental problem that severely affects their profit margins?

If you don't understand the end game behind the second option - then maybe go have a look at this thread.

Bear in mind it was written during the aftermath of the financial crisis, and right when the original climategate story broke, but the point should be even more clear now than it was back then.