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

a reply to: mc_squared

Just to follow up a bit on my last post referencing the numerous observations and graphs – that example circles back to the original premise of this thread, and everything that was wrong with it to begin with.

The ultimate proof for man made global warming doesn't reside in one single graph, one temperature record, or one computer model. It is laid out in the multitude of independent indicators that exist all across the board, yet dovetail into one extremely coherent and robust bigger picture.

Most skeptics seem to be incapable of putting this picture together though because they are so obsessed with zooming in on every trivial detail they like to pretend makes up some linchpin that collapses the whole thing.

That’s what happened here. Somebody found some data in Paraguay that NASA appears to have adjusted warmer, and the deniers just ran with it, no questions asked. Meanwhile applying some actual skepticism to the situation revealed there are actually valid reasons for these adjustments, and it’s just as easy to go find nearby data that was adjusted cooler.

But the point is even if this data was somehow corrupted, how does it undermine ALL the other data? Beyond the NASA record there’s also NOAA, Hadley, JMA, Berkeley Earth, the Satellite records from RSS and UAH, and then all the natural world indicators like rising sea levels, melting glaciers, seasonal blooms, migration patterns, etc – all independently audited and ALL broadly consistent with a long term warming trend. If the corruption was as massive as the skeptics want to pretend it is, then this would be easy to prove everywhere else. But they can’t seem to do that, so instead they just cherry-pick some random thing and blow it way out of proportion, screaming scandal while reminding us for the 10 billionth time how they feel about Al Gore.

This happened with climategate and continues to happen with every single phony crisis the oil industry shills get paid to exploit. And most armchair skeptics are right there – ready, willing and able to be exploited over and over again because they are so unwilling to look at anything past their own confirmation bias.

A previous comment suggested the whole global warming thing just doesn't pass the smell test. But the key to seeing the truth here is to use your brain and not your nose. The evidence is all out there, but don't confuse skepticism with cynicism - because that will get you nowhere except sitting around all cranky and ignorant.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

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

Not how science works.

Using evidence from that graph AND known facts of chemistry, which conclusion is MORE justified from the known observables:

a) As global CO2 atmospheric concentrations increase, the partial pressure of CO2 in oceans increases as more CO2 is absorbed because of the imbalance in chemical potential from atmosphere to ocean

b) The ocean is emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, the human emission of tail pipes is being magically sequestered, the the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing but actually there's less of it in the ocean despite what it looks like because the world is warming on its own on account of some magic mechanism that nobody can find but certainly is not human changes to the atmosphere or greenhouse effect. you see, it's elementary chemistry!

A is the science position, B was your position.

Perhaps this is a reason why most online forums in the US have more than their fair share of human induced climate change deniers:

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

originally posted by: mc_squared
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?

1. I'll tell you what makes sense to me. Environmentalism is a heavily socialist movement. I run into more obnoxious socialists/collectivists hell bent on furthering their various causes when any kind of environmentalism is being discussed than I do any other time. This movement is literally infested with them. It makes perfect sense to me that these people can subvert and exploit anything, as they have always been known to. They are always hiding behind some kind of seemingly rational and good cause. Feminism, gay rights and civil rights are just a few examples. Which is not to say that none of those things were ever valid concerns. Rather, than were thoroughly co-opted by the socialist left. This is not even in dispute.

2. I'm not going to do anything whether "global warming" is real or not. I don't feel like I owe the future of humanity anything. None of us asked to be here but while we are, our only obligation is to ourselves and sustaining our own lives. When I kick the bucket, that's all she wrote for me. I'm just being honest. I'm not going to wear myself down to a nub worrying about people who haven't even been born yet.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Failed in logic and guilty of tainting the issue when you tied environment conservation to socialism.

Regardless if you believe in global warming, are you going to deny that we are responsible for the 120ppm+ and counting increase of CO2?

a reply to: grey580


Isn't this just a way to make one thing sound like a series of threats in order to ramp up the concern and indignation? I mean the whole idea of global warming and climategate are the same thing. There are a few other euphemisms and I am sure they'll be trotted out as separate issues too. Boy, nobody can say these oil and gas magnates are not powerful. In fact, for all practical purposes, they own the world. They got you too.

originally posted by: jazz10
a reply to: grey580
Apparently they were all adjusted here's a link provided by SuspiciousObservers on the youtube channel.

Altered Data......all of them

Makes you wonder if the reason for the data manipulation is to have grounds for carbon tax.
Cue the introduction of a new energy technology perhaps.
Out with the old in with the new?

Even if all of the whole "climategate" conspiracy was true, there are lots of credible arguments that we have everything to gain by taking measures to switch to more renewable technologies, be more sustainable, reduce air pollution, etc.

Even if it was true that climate change is not anthropogenic, the research is more than conclusive that human activities are most definitely negatively harming the environment, causing specie extinction, disrupting the biosphere, etc.

So again, if we take real actions across the board to be sustainable, we win either way. If we don't, in some way we lose no matter what, whether that is climate change, or even if not, definitely accelerated and continued environmental destruction.

Hence, we only have one responsible choice.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: network dude

Agreed which is why I posted.

Why would you need to alter data?

It is very simple MONEY. The idiots in charge want "climate change"
and CO2 to be a big issue and if the scientists want to be funded
they have to follow the party line.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I would agree wholeheartedly with what you said.

However, look into the "green" industry. Not at renewable resources and all that, but at all the other green crap that is jumping on the bandwagon.

One thing you will find, if you dig deep enough, is that much of it is not green at all or, at best, so marginally green that it is debatable.

Classic example, for me, are those blower hand dryers that claim they are saving trees, or whatever. BS. More energy is used to dry your hands than it takes to make a dozen paper towels. In addition, trees are a renewable and sustainable resource. Chances are that electric hand dryer is being powered by the burning of fossil fuels. How green is that? There are other examples of bs green "stuff" that is just "green" to satisfy the ignorant and gullible. Electric cars are another example: unless your electricity is primarily supplied by wind mills and nucler plants your electric car is less carbon friendly than a decent mpg 6 cylinder vehicle.

I am all for eliminating plastic shopping bags, styrofoam etc and reducing all kinds of pollution including sound pollution. There is no doubt we are harming the invironment...

Ok i am in full fledged debate as a professional environmental scientist with others of my ilk. My meteorological skills aren't the very best but I help create pollution forecasts with the help of real meteorologists one of them that sits right next says it IS MAN made and significant even though we all know it was way warmer and way colder on the planet in our history. Many of the other scientist (Environmental Engineers in this case) in my office agree with me. I have to say that I do see the difference in the monthly data sets provided here. Woah! I will use this in my debate. One of them keeps saying people like Dr Gray , Joe Bastardi and the others with PHd's don't count because they aren't being published in the journals when I believe that I have clearly been able to prove the manipulation of the editors of these Journals by Dr Mann and others. The "ocean data shows latent heat there" is not satisfactory for me, period.

I will try to report back what a warmer meteorologists says after Monday the 9th of Feb 2015.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I would agree wholeheartedly with what you said.

However, look into the "green" industry. Not at renewable resources and all that, but at all the other green crap that is jumping on the bandwagon.

One thing you will find, if you dig deep enough, is that much of it is not green at all or, at best, so marginally green that it is debatable.

Classic example, for me, are those blower hand dryers that claim they are saving trees, or whatever. BS. More energy is used to dry your hands than it takes to make a dozen paper towels. In addition, trees are a renewable and sustainable resource. Chances are that electric hand dryer is being powered by the burning of fossil fuels. How green is that? There are other examples of bs green "stuff" that is just "green" to satisfy the ignorant and gullible. Electric cars are another example: unless your electricity is primarily supplied by wind mills and nucler plants your electric car is less carbon friendly than a decent mpg 6 cylinder vehicle.

I am all for eliminating plastic shopping bags, styrofoam etc and reducing all kinds of pollution including sound pollution. There is no doubt we are harming the invironment...

Well two things, one being there is technology that uses magnets that can be shown to do physical work by tapping the magnetos, which as many of you do know, are moving while the magnet itself is sitting on a table top. This I feel is being suppressed just as well as there are several Hydrogen power cars using solar to split the water molecule that have been proven over and over to work. For one good one, I "googled" the information from a Dr. Cliff Ricketts who drove one such car all the way across the USA within the last 15 months. Al Gore most certainly ignores the proof. I have sent him many articles and got crickets for my response from him and his people. He is a crook who strip mines his dad's land for an ore, no environmentalist there at all IMHO.

2nd the Solara and other green power infrastructure failures simply are crime of THEFT and need criminal charges. They took money as they closed the doors and KEPT the money. Our famed FBI needs to move on them ASAP or we all lose. They have let people think it is not financially possible. Shame abounds here.

originally posted by: SubSea

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: network dude

Agreed which is why I posted.

Why would you need to alter data?

It is very simple MONEY. The idiots in charge want "climate change"
and CO2 to be a big issue and if the scientists want to be funded
they have to follow the party line.

At this point would anyone think that gold is not the thing wars are waged over?

a reply to: Justoneman

The magnets? I hope you are not referring to something akin to, derived from, associated with perpetual motion.

On the other hand, an electric motor may be described loosely that way as well, and also a transformer.


What I am getting from your remarks seems more leaning towards a type of perpetual motion. Those are not being suppressed, but rather just do not work and violate the laws of thermodynamics. Once classic example was a car design. As described it was a perpetual motion machine... the company declared bankruptcy, leaving investors high and dry and feeling cheated....very strongly so. The company is being investigated.

Do not fall for claims that technology that violates the laws of thermodynamics is being suppressed. It never truly existed in the first place.

Gawd this thread just continues to be littered with misinformation and memes. It never ends...

Stuff like this:

Classic example, for me, are those blower hand dryers that claim they are saving trees, or whatever. BS. More energy is used to dry your hands than it takes to make a dozen paper towels.

Hey whaddya know - another unsubstantiated, hand-wavey claim with nothing to back it up. You'd think you would have learned after the first 736,342 times these casual remarks were beat back with factual evidence - but I guess the urge to demean others as "ignorant and gullible" is just too much fun. Meanwhile:

Paper towels least green way of drying hands, study finds

Next:

Electric cars are another example: unless your electricity is primarily supplied by wind mills and nucler plants your electric car is less carbon friendly than a decent mpg 6 cylinder vehicle.

Not. Actual research dictates that any electric vehicle sourced from natural gas or cleaner is already better than internal combustion:

We’ll be nice to internal combustion engines and say they get 40 miles to the gallon. Similarly, we’ll be conservative and say electric vehicles get only 40 miles to every 10 kWhrs.

A gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 when burned in a vehicle (EPA vehicle emissions). Producing the equivalent of 10 kWhrs of electricity, including the total life-cycle from mining, construction, transport and burning, emits about 9,750 g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000 g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550 g from solar, but only 150 g each from wind and nuclear (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006).

Source

And 83% of the U.S. supposedly falls into a category where EVs outperform gasoline already:




And nobody's pretending green technology is all perfect or complete or infallible in every way, but it's certainly on the right path. Electric vehicles are only in the infancy stage of a much more comprehensive solution where they will not only feed off a clean energy grid, but actually help manage and balance it by becoming integrated storage and peak-level dispatch.

Vehicle-to-grid

originally posted by: Justoneman
2nd the Solara and other green power infrastructure failures simply are crime of THEFT and need criminal charges. They took money as they closed the doors and KEPT the money. Our famed FBI needs to move on them ASAP or we all lose. They have let people think it is not financially possible. Shame abounds here.

Remember the Solyndra "Scandal"? Those Loans Are Now Making Money For American Taxpayers

Deny ignorance

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Failed in logic and guilty of tainting the issue when you tied environment conservation to socialism.

Regardless if you believe in global warming, are you going to deny that we are responsible for the 120ppm+ and counting increase of CO2?

The AGW alarmists always demand coerced solutions by government, and therefore AGW alarmism is, almost by definition, socialist.

Increased CO2 is also caused by increased temperature. Warmer temperatures cause more metabolic energy to be used for growth. When the organisms die and decay, increased CO2 is produced from the increased biomass enabled by the warmer ambient temperature.

Given the natural warming since the little ice age, more CO2 in the environment is reasonable.

Assuming that all of the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels is not reasonable.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Justoneman

The magnets? I hope you are not referring to something akin to, derived from, associated with perpetual motion.

On the other hand, an electric motor may be described loosely that way as well, and also a transformer.


What I am getting from your remarks seems more leaning towards a type of perpetual motion. Those are not being suppressed, but rather just do not work and violate the laws of thermodynamics. Once classic example was a car design. As described it was a perpetual motion machine... the company declared bankruptcy, leaving investors high and dry and feeling cheated....very strongly so. The company is being investigated.

Do not fall for claims that technology that violates the laws of thermodynamics is being suppressed. It never truly existed in the first place.

I taught lab classes while a grad student in college . The first day of lab classes we gave the kids a bar magnet and a compass where we were able to demonstrate the field. Wherever the pointer moved when theyset it in a new location they were to draw a dot at that location the pointer revealed. That was clear example of where the magneto's were traveling (real work but how to tap into it is the story? I know.) . The idea being that the field has hidden affects that we were actually teaching freshmen. I sure feel that the magnetic field has been shown to do real work is why even dare to bring this up. And even more compelling for me, after college i met a man in his 70's who must have read about the Joseph Newman device. Because of what i witnessed i will spread my observations about magnets. Ford had just paid him 1,000,000 for his 'generator'. I saw the prototype and he was set for the rest of his life and all his family had moved trailers on his land (that is what brought me there, as I went in as a professional environmental specialist at that time, to deal with the raw sewage that his greedy family members created for him, I issued a notice of non compliance to correct that when I saw the device run.) The old guy was originally attempting to make and anti gravity device which he did not do that but made his windfall discovery.

A little more fair look at old Joe Newman here:

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: Justoneman
2nd the Solara and other green power infrastructure failures simply are crime of THEFT and need criminal charges. They took money as they closed the doors and KEPT the money. Our famed FBI needs to move on them ASAP or we all lose. They have let people think it is not financially possible. Shame abounds here.

Remember the Solyndra "Scandal"? Those Loans Are Now Making Money For American Taxpayers

Deny ignorance

So your telling me that by taking grants and pocketing the money while the company filed bankruptcy worked in our favor? How could that
possibly be? Bankruptcy is normally the end of the line for the companies ability to pay.

"Cant get blood from a turnip"

originally posted by: mc_squared
Gawd this thread just continues to be littered with misinformation and memes. It never ends...

Stuff like this:

Classic example, for me, are those blower hand dryers that claim they are saving trees, or whatever. BS. More energy is used to dry your hands than it takes to make a dozen paper towels.

Hey whaddya know - another unsubstantiated, hand-wavey claim with nothing to back it up. You'd think you would have learned after the first 736,342 times these casual remarks were beat back with factual evidence - but I guess the urge to demean others as "ignorant and gullible" is just too much fun. Meanwhile:

Paper towels least green way of drying hands, study finds

Next:

Electric cars are another example: unless your electricity is primarily supplied by wind mills and nucler plants your electric car is less carbon friendly than a decent mpg 6 cylinder vehicle.

Not. Actual research dictates that any electric vehicle sourced from natural gas or cleaner is already better than internal combustion:

We’ll be nice to internal combustion engines and say they get 40 miles to the gallon. Similarly, we’ll be conservative and say electric vehicles get only 40 miles to every 10 kWhrs.

A gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 when burned in a vehicle (EPA vehicle emissions). Producing the equivalent of 10 kWhrs of electricity, including the total life-cycle from mining, construction, transport and burning, emits about 9,750 g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000 g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550 g from solar, but only 150 g each from wind and nuclear (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006).

Source

And 83% of the U.S. supposedly falls into a category where EVs outperform gasoline already:

And nobody's pretending green technology is all perfect or complete or infallible in every way, but it's certainly on the right path. Electric vehicles are only in the infancy stage of a much more comprehensive solution where they will not only feed off a clean energy grid, but actually help manage and balance it by becoming integrated storage and peak-level dispatch.

Vehicle-to-grid

Any study that takes AGW as a given, and includes it in the calculations is bogus.

The AGW collectivist politics are what killed the electric car in the first place, during WW1, when the entire economy was nationalized. The economy will never be what it could have been.

The best possible economy is the best solution to any climate problem. AGW alarmists can only see what will give them more power, to the cost of everything else.


Being able to leave the restroom without touching the handle -- priceless

a reply to: Justoneman

I could try explaining to you how venture capital/investment/risk works, but somehow I think I'd be wasting my time. I'll just leave you with your communism conspiracy theories or whatever, thanks.