The worst attempt to justify Global Warming... Ever

reply to post by Justoneman

You will NEVER EVER understand what is happening if you are not willing to study and PROPERLY consider this thing I feel is fact.

I can absolutely 110% guarantee you I have PROPERLY studied this whole subject much more than any other so-called "skeptic" on here. I have considered both sides with actual critical thinking instead of with a pre-determined outcome, and thanks to that I've managed to uncover time and time and time again that all the common contrarian arguments in fact turn out to be bull# deliberately peddled by a calculating denial industry who stand to lose unfathomable amounts of money from global warming legislation.


Don't believe me? Where do you want to start?

Your paragraph is a mish-mash of the very memes these spin artists have been employing to confuse people, and I'm sorry to tell ya, but they obviously sucked you right in.

You want to learn the truth, then YOU need to apply the exact same sort of scrutiny and skepticism you're preaching to these very things you apparently "feel" are fact.



The hockey stick controversy:

The hockey stick was thoroughly critiqued by proper, peer-reviewed studies like this one that found the data to be completely robust.

Meanwhile, it has also been confirmed and verified by so many different, independent data sets from all over the world that the National Academy of Science had to publish a 160 page book on them:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years



The emails:

"Climategate" turned out to be little more than a manufactured controversy and a total smear campaign orchestrated by the very deniers who are behind the REAL conspiracy here. Go have a look through the plethora of links I laid out in this post for example - there's like 9 million different ones I have amassed on this issue, not to mention my own investigations (aka reading the emails myself) that distinctly reveal how much it was all based on out-of-context quote mining designed to skew the facts and elicit knee-jerk emotional responses out of people who don't understand them.



And last but certainly not least, this:

There is only one truth here and that is global temperature averages NORMALLY go through tremendous highs and lows over millenia, period.

This is the absolute, unequivocal, #1 reason why so many people - like yourself evidently - don't understand the absolute basics of anthropogenic climate science, and thus get so easily thrown off by the mass propaganda designed to derail it.


Let me try to make this absolutely clear. Please just listen carefully because how you respond to the next few paragraphs will determine whether you are an actual true, critical thinking skeptic - or just another confused ideologue only interested in their own version of events:

Ready?

There is absolutely NOTHING about anthropogenic climate change that says the Earth *hasn't* gone through natural climate changes in the past. This is a ridiculous non-sequitur. It's an absolutetly BLATANT red herring that I'm just astounded at how many people become so easily side-tracked by. The fact that you seem to think "there is only one truth here" - like it has to be one or the other, "period" - shows me that you are victim #896437567326.

Anthropogenic climate change is based on the physics of the Greenhouse Effect. This has been studied for almost 200 years now. In fact, if you read up a bit on the history of the science, you would see that the entire potential for man made warming was discovered by studying the role natural variations among greenhouse gases played in determining ice ages and other climates of the past. This is consequently why rising global temperatures as a result of our own increased emissions were PREDICTED over a hundred years ago.

Mastadons and Medieval Warm Periods have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's simply in the physics. We know GHG's trap heat. We even know how much. This can be verified in at home experiments you could do yourself if you wanted to:



So trying to trivialize this by making the "well, duh" observation that climate changes is insanely myopic and downright absurd. It's like arguing that your HVAC system can't be real because seasons change so obviously any temperature change inside your home must be natural.

There is a complete, well-established, physical science basis for anthropogenic warming that the deniers and the oil-funded shills can't even come CLOSE to debunking. So instead they want every one of you to just ignore it by constantly changing the subject to Al Gore, fake controversies, and the contents of a Mastodon's stomach.


Your post is unfortunately just another textbook example of how much this confusion campaign is working, and you really need to figure that much out before you go lecturing other people on how they will apparently...

NEVER EVER understand what is happening

Originally posted by mc_squared


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mind of a stage 5 climate denier:

Anytime someone presents some real scientific evidence that destroys your nonsensical argument apparently it's just "lies", and can "easily be debunked". Even though you've NEVER - not once - actualy been able to show this.

Meanwhile when someone like me makes some claim about climate deniers like you - you manage to come right back and prove it in your own posts. Here's the latest hilarious example:
...

Are you kidding me?... First of all you posted some made up video made by some environlunatic no one knows, second of all, and like always you decide not to believe ANYONE who disagrees with your religion.

Where is your proof that that man was paid off to deny?... I guess anyone who works in any sort of field that uses oil cannot be trusted, because according to some lunatics EVERYONE is getting paid by big oil to deny the AGW religion...

What about Chriss Landsea?... Are you also going to find something to claim he cannot be trusted?... Maybe he bought new tires last week and that would be YOUR EXCUSE to not listen to him...

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.
...

www.climatechangefacts.info...

How about any of the several scientists who were IPCC authors but have come forward trying to warn people about the lies from the IPCC?...

How about any of the thousands of scientists, and hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers all which demonstrate that AGW is a lie?... But of course not, cause the mcsquared wants to keep his religion alive...

Of course not, instead mcsquared will continue believing the liars of Mann, Jones, et al, and World Life Fund, alongside the policy makers of the IPCC, and the UN because they want a One World Government to combat the problem they call "Climate Change"...

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobbys regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

online.wsj.com...

Or how about any of these scientists, which are only some of the long list of scientists who do not believe in the AGW religion?

...
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Of course not...

How about nature itself? nope, the mcsquared and the league of anthropogenists know what's best even for mother nature...

Originally posted by mc_squared

I can absolutely 110% guarantee you I have PROPERLY studied this whole subject much more than any other so-called "skeptic" on here. I have considered both sides with actual critical thinking instead of with a pre-determined outcome, and thanks to that I've managed to uncover time and time and time again that all the common contrarian arguments in fact turn out to be bull# deliberately peddled by a calculating denial industry who stand to lose unfathomable amounts of money from global warming legislation.
...

Riiiight....

Is that why you posted all those lies from "skeptical science website"? Every one of them can be debunked quite easily...from the claim that mankind is more powerful than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, and the Universe, to the claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing 30-50 years ago, to everything else in between.

In fact you proved that you are behind on the topic by at least 9 years.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


reply to post by ElectricUniverse


And herein lies the big problem with global warming and/or climate change. A large portion of the 6 billion or so humans on this planet fall into one of the following categories:

1) Pro-climate change. Self-proclaimed defenders of what is science and what is not.
2) Anti-global warming. Self-proclaimed revealers of a tax conspiracy (me included).
3) Hungry people. The vast majority. They couldn't give a monkey's f... what some self-proclaimed defender of the earth has to say. They just want to earn, eat, and provide.

But I digress...

To a huge number of people, the simplest explanation will always be the most likely, and as long as there's a Sun in the sky that delivers the only source of heat to the planet, then that's the most simple.

High School physics...

Sol: Variable G-class star.

Variable.

reply to post by boyg2004


For all you carbon-cause protagonists, this is a read I'd like to see debunked:

Our variable sun.

It can't be real science, though, because it disagrees with the agenda.

Predictably yet another AGW-topic descends into madness and vicious insults. I'm going to try and elucidate the situation hopefully without adding fuel to the fire. Let's begin with the AGW theory itself. Some skeptics have argued that the concept of back-radiation which underpins the AGW theory is not possible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which I believe states that heat must flow from warmer objects to cold objects and never the other way around. From my own consideration of the laws of physics, from a pure physical standpoint, conceptually, I can see nothing wrong with the theory of back-radiation that the theory of AGW is based upon. It is a fundamental tenet of physics that all bodies above absolute zero emit radiation into their surrounding environment and the earth's atmosphere is considered to obey this rule. Furthermore since the greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere emit IR-radiation omnidirectionally some of that radiation will make it back down to the surface and lead to real surface warming, however unimaginably small that might be.

So, as a concept, the AGW-theory seems to me to be based on well-established physical principles. The objection that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes from a misunderstanding of the law which basically says that the net flow of energy must always be from a warmer body to a colder one. Also the fact that the earth is an open-system and is continually receiving new radiant-energy from the Sun means it is not required to heat itself by its own radiation as it would be required to do in a closed-system. Hence the idea of back-radiation appears scientifically valid in my eyes.

However the AGW theory begins to part company with reality soon after. The IPCC use a logarithmic equation for converting CO2 increments into radiative-forcing increments and from that equation they use a feedback-enhancement formula which is T = 0.75C/RF. This formula takes the initial increment of radiative forcing produced purely by the CO2-greenhouse and multiplies it by the constant 0.75C. Therefore if the radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial baseline of 280ppm is 3.7W/sq.m as the logarithmic equation implies then the feedback-enhancement formula pushes the temperature up to 2.7C. Combined with the temperature increase from CO2 by itself which the IPCC says is about 1C we get a total temperature increase of about 3.7C. Of course the aforementioned climate-sensitivity formula above does not necessarily have to be 0.75C. Hansen's projection for climate-sensitivity derived from paleo-reconstruction was between 0.5-1C.

Still I see a few problems with the IPCC's feedback formula. First the formula implies that constant increments of radiative forcing should produce correspondingly constant increments of global warming irrespective of the initial surface temperature. But the Stefan-Boltzmann law deems that regular increments of radiative forcing should produce progressively diminishing increments of temperature increases because of the 4th-root power between radiance and absolute temperature. In other words the relationship between ∆RF and ∆T under no circumstances can ever be linear. IPCC-apologists argue that the formula is only meant to apply within a fixed temperature-range and is an approximation only but this fixed temperature-range is not specified by the IPCC. Also, an 0.75C increase on a baseline temperature of 15C requires an extra radiative forcing of 4W/sq.m by the Stefan-Boltzmann law instead of the 1W/sq.m that the formula implies is required.