Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

How does that prove that this isn't natural. The world isn't the warmest its been since modern man has existed. When it was warmer do you think these same effects were not seen?

www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by sy.gunson


My friend, you are simply ignorant of facts. I'm so sick of going into long detailed debates with skeptics that 100% of the time lead to nowhere. I'm just over it.

The fact is, we are screwed. If you disagree, that is your right, but it is not your right to pull facts out of your ass (well I guess it is your RIGHT, but it isn't going to get you to an informed opinion is it?).

The facts speak for themselves. I am simply a messenger.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Your post is what is known as recycled denial because it has been repeated over 9000 times and debunked over 9000 times. It's like you are not capable of doing any research yourself, or something. It's part of the reason why I don't usually argue with deniers, they are mostly incapable of making coherent arguments on the subject, and instead repeat the same lies again and again and again and again.

Of course the climate will change and will continue to change with and without man-kind, that does not imply that we are not in actuality having a significant effect on the climate either nor does it imply that what we are doing now won't have a very large negative effect. Get it right.

Also previous climate change events can be studied in great detail - we can look at what caused these past climate changes and examine the effect they had. By deducing what caused these climate change events we can find the effect that man-made emissions will have on the climate - warming. This is actually a fundamental part of modern climatology. Previous climate changes, therefore, merely reinforce the notion that our emissions are and will adversely change the climate.

There's also plenty of instances where oil companies have obscured climate science. Given measures to cut back on CO2 measures are inevitable, it makes sense that these same companies would also promote measures that benefit themselves. Oh, and I searched "ENRON global warming" the first result was from Cato Institute who are known to spread disinformation, and who could be considered a competitor to Enron.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Bigoted because you will only entertain one side of the argument and dismiss facts pertaining to the other side completely out of hand, treat the posters who do not belive that man made global warming exists with contempt and derision, and essentially spout off that your belief is correct and everyone who disagrees is retarded. I am getting quite sick of your argumentative manner. That is what I'm talking about Libby. I will mark the day 2 years from now in my calender and will be contacting you about it, this should serve as a warning to prepare your excuses well in advance.

reply to post by The_LiberatorI will take you up on that bet.

Let's see what happens in the next few years and if the temperature will rise by 2 degrees as you predict.

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Bigoted because you will only entertain one side of the argument and dismiss facts pertaining to the other side completely out of hand, treat the posters who do not belive that man made global warming exists with contempt and derision, and essentially spout off that your belief is correct and everyone who disagrees is retarded. I am getting quite sick of your argumentative manner. That is what I'm talking about Libby. I will mark the day 2 years from now in my calender and will be contacting you about it, this should serve as a warning to prepare your excuses well in advance.

edit on 4/12/2010 by Mez353 because: (no reason given)

Please do. I will enthusiastically apologize if I am wrong and I will beg your forgiveness....but I am not wrong. In fact, I am going to PM you my private email address so that in the even that I am no longer on this board, you can still contact me. But the bet goes 2 ways. Same with Nathan.

You say that I only entertain one side of the argument, but that is simply not the case. I have looked in detail at every single argument put forth by the denier community and NOT ONE holds up to any kind of objective scrutiny.

Not one.

You say that I treat those who disagree with contempt and you are correct. However, it is not because they disagree with me, it is because they keep citing the same easily debunkable myths over and over and show a blatant inability to objectively weigh the evidence.

Please present one argument that says global warming is a hoax that cannot be easily dismissed. I challenge you. You will not be able to do it....it is not possible. But I challenge you to try, and I will carefully consider whatever you say and will only use verifiable facts to dispute you.

reply to post by The_Liberator


How is the fact that scientists were caught redhanded tampering with the "evidence" of global warming, in private emails to each other not relevant. Who knows what other numbers they tampered with and were not caught. How do you expect people to believe any of the research coming from these people, when they were caught messing with the data?

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Im not even going to attempt to argue this again. I just want to say that everyone and anyone that actually believes humans are changing the climate need to go read a history book explaining how the earth changes climate throughout history.

You raise an interesting point and one reason why people believe in AGW is because of history.
When you read those history books, can you point out where in that long history have humans numbered in the billions, have removed millions and millions and millions of tonnes of fossil fuels and burned them releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide that was, as history shows us, once sequestered in the ground, removed vast tracts of carbon sinks(forests) and burned them too. Cleared vast tracks of land for livestock, redirected rivers, damned rivers, increased desertification, soil salinity and erosion etc etc.
It is because our activity is historically unprecedented that scientists note that current trends in climate are significant and we are able to attribute us as a cause, because historically, they know what natural trends look like.

Then when you're done with that go look at other planets and watch as theyre heating up too.

Do you know how many bodies there are in our solar system?
The solar system consists of the Sun; the eight official planets, at least three "dwarf planets", more than 130 satellites of the planets, a large number of small bodies like comets and asteroids.
Please point out a trend in warming then.
For all of these.

Im done with trying to give facts to people that simply dont want to listen. All this boils down to is people not wanting to admit they were scammed. So if you wish to continue to cling to this idea that humans are bad and were causing all this then just go give all your money to al gore and save us all from ourselves.

Did you mention facts?
Were?
On the scam thing, who has been scammed?
Point out who is being scammed.
Do you know how much your Government spends on reducing the cost of fossil fuel power so that people will use it.
These are called subsidies and they would normally be revenue that Governments would use on other projects or taxes collected on fuels that the Government would have as income or investments that would go to other projects but all aid one industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually around the world.
The result of this behavior is that innovation is crippled, efficiency is not sought and societies become addicted to artificially cheap fuels.
The subsidies then become essential to maintaining the system.
That is the scam.
What most people fail to realize is that countries cannot simply remove subsidies, but they still need a method to reduce the use of fossil fuels, as well as generate a tax base to invest in alternatives whilst we transition from a fossil fuel based society and economy.
Because fossil fuels are fundamental to our society, a solution to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels will automatically be an economic and political solution.
I see many people getting confused over economic and political policy in relation to environmental problems, but the fact is our societies economic system, which is fundamentally supported on fossil fuel consumption, is causing the problem.

I think this is worth considering, especially as it is based in reality. We only need to look at ourselves to see how dependent we are on Oil, Coal and Gas.
All of it has been artificially cheap for a long time.
A new tax will simply reflect the true costs now on end users, instead of simply removing subsidies which will have far more dramatic effects on economies.

reply to post by TKDRL


And that data was deleted as it was not 'required anymore'. I wok in the pharma industry, if we did that we'd be shut down.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

How is the fact that scientists were caught redhanded tampering with the "evidence" of global warming, in private emails to each other not relevant. Who knows what other numbers they tampered with and were not caught. How do you expect people to believe any of the research coming from these people, when they were caught messing with the data?

The so called "Climategate" non-scandal that you are referring to has been put to rest. The scientists were exonerated on multiple occasions. After further investigations no wrong doing was found and the quotes were taken entirely out of context from the emails.

www.crikey.com.au...

I asked for evidence that cannot be easily debunked. That means that before you post something as evidence, you have to use Google to make sure that indeed what you are saying is fact.

This is exactly what I was talking about in the above thread. I"m still waiting for one single piece of evidence that disproves anything I am saying. You won't find it, but you can keep trying if you like.

reply to post by Mez353


Mez, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Could you post a link?

I'm still waiting for evidence that supports the "other side of the argument", which you maintain I am unwilling to hear. Remember, you must first Google whatever evidence you are going to point to to make sure it hasn't already been debunked.

I can save you some time by telling you that you aren't going to find such evidence as it does not exist, but if you wish to discover this for yourself, please be my guest.

There is only one side to this story....that is the side backed up by facts and evidence. Deniers have neither.

reply to post by The_Liberator


I assume Mez is referring to CRU discarding a set of archived data they were holding (when they moved building, IIRC). The data was simply a copy of the original data held by the Met office.

I'm sure the FDA wouldn't give a fig if Bristol-Myers deleted a copy of a dataset, as long as the original was available. Indeed, it's more analagous to a case of Bristol-Myers discarding a copy of an original dataset held by the FDA.

Only in the La-la land of denial is discarding dataset copies a big issue.

What I am referring to, and need no help with thankyou, is the "accidental" deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that "renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless," and the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

And also review of the evidence was poorly conducted (see here),...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

And in addition, calls for bipatisan monitoring and review of findings and proof of unaltered data in the future...

www.rsc.org...
Of course, Pilling says that he 'would be very unhappy if this were to take place', as it would undermine the way in which academics operate. Wofsy points out that direct political involvement in research has sometimes been less than benign in its intent. 'There are instances of political interference in the scientific process that are highly egregious,' he said. 'Fortunately there are actually few such major incidents.'

Oh, by the way, in the Pharma industry you can have as many copies of data as you like as long as they are unaltered from the original and the original is clearly defined as the original, approved (containing 'wet' signatures or via ERES verified systems) and retained for the appropriate period of time. Procedures point to where the original data can be found and the storage location is always the same for that type of data (Batch records stored together by QA for example).

While the term “trick” can be used to denote a sophisticated mathematical method, it can also denote something as simple and unscrupulous as deleting adverse data. It is necessary to investigate the facts of the matter and the context. In the example of interest, the Climategate correspondents did not use a sophisticated mathematical method; they simply deleted data that didn’t accord with their expectations. The “investigations” ought to have denounced/renounced such methods and their failure to do so is to their shame.

climateaudit.org...

And it seems other scientists were at it with their West Antartic data .....

climateaudit.org...

and also on the same page, maybe this is why it's hard for us man made deniers to find info to actually research ...


In their refusal, UEA stated:

The fact that the IPCC has clear protocols for what information is to be in the public domain also points to the implicit assumption that, as the requested information is outside those protocols, it has never been intended to be publicly available.


Enjoy!

If you are just going to post copypasta from other sites, you might want to use external quote tags.

Otherwise, like Wegman, you might fall into the sloppy scholarship plagiarism trap.

I suppose when I say 'I wonder if there's trick to cutting onions without crying', that means either I'm trying to be deceptive or looking for a complex mathematical method?

Or perhaps it might just mean a knack or skill. A neat method/approach.

References are clearly stated in English by the terms see here and read more and by the links provided, so this is obviously not plagarism and therefore no quotes required thankyou. Splitting hairs now are we, I thought it was your job to back up Libby's debunk? Oh wait, he hasn't spoken yet has he so that renders you clueless so all you can do is attempt to fault find. I'm sure when he feeds you your tidbit later you'll wag approvingly.

For future reference I will number each quoted piece of information and detail the references at the end of my post, just like a solid scientific article should be, but I may wish to delete, obscure, twist, edit or redact any data that I like in the process, just like your friends at the UEA. Sound fair?

Originally posted by Mez353
References are clearly stated in English be the terms see here and read more and by the links provided, so this is obviously not plagarism and therefore no quotes required thankyou. Splitting hairs now are we, I thought it was your job to back up Libby's debunk? Oh wait, he hasn't spoken yet has he so that renders you clueless so all you can do is attempt to fault find. I'm sure when he feeds you your tidbit later you'll wag approvingly.

I did notice. But the external tags are available for a reason.

You might have noticed I did actually post more than giving advice about using external material.

I noted that you claim that CRU discarding met office data was a problem is BS. It's not even their data.

I also noted that your parroting of denial memes about the use of the term 'trick' is more BS. It has a very common usage as a clever method/approach.

Indeed, the fact that 'climategate' was little more than misrepresentation and quote-mining of personal emails shows how inane the manufactroversy was. Nothing more than a PR exercise. Which is the only remaining tactic of the denial machine (they are not even in the same ballpark in the science domain).

For future reference I will number each quoted piece of information and detail the references at the end of my post, just like a solid scientific article should be, but I may wish to delete, obscure, twist, edit or redact any data that I like in the process, just like your friends at the UEA. Sound fair?

That's just your smear. One that you failed to provide evidence for.

CRU use data from national meteorological agencies. Archiving their original data is not the responsibility of CRU. They do archive the processed data (i.e., their original material).

reply to post by Mez353

...Oh, by the way, in the Pharma industry you can have as many copies of data as you like as long as they are unaltered from the original and the original is clearly defined as the original, approved (containing 'wet' signatures or via ERES verified systems) and retained for the appropriate period of time.

Yes
Anyone with experience in proper lab protocol and Statistics cringes if they read what CRU has done.

OH OH hear that LOUD sucking sound? It is the banksters preparing to siphon off most of the revenue from the "carbon" taxes!

Anyone who has not figured out that big oil and the banksters are behind the scam are willfully niaive or disinfo agents.

Google Maurice Strong and Ged Davis (shell oil exec)

Look at the references provided! I am not disputing the data source in any case. I am saying that they manipulate the data to fit the policy. It's not a smear, it's a fact. Don't you just love 'em?

In case your thick skull is having some more difficulty processing what I'm saying without Libby's prompting then I'm talking about the removal of the Medieval Warm Period from the calculations. It's like writing a history of Germany to prove that they're a saintly nation and removing the years 1939 to 1945.