Global warming is a fact.

reply to post by Kali74

As the proponents of a new theory, it is the responsibility of those pressing the theory to prove it. They have not done so, IMO. Their calculations are concealed, their models are hidden, their predictions have failed to happen, and their political agenda is clear. When Einstein introduced Relativity, it was not up to everyone else to re-prove Newton; it was up to those who believed the theory to prove it, which they finally did.

I am not disagreeing with the possibility that the planet is warming, although I remain unconvinced; I am disagreeing that it could be warming because of present carbon dioxide levels. I also agree with you that the whole concept of carbon credits is ludicrous. If you want to talk about heat island effects, the possibility of earth changes affecting climate, actual pollutants (nitrates/nitrides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, or even carbon particles), I'll be right there with you. These are problems that need to be addressed.

Ironically, though, it is the very concept of AGW theory that is preventing actual pollution from being addressed seriously. As long as the scientific *cough* community is fixated on carbon dioxide, everything else takes a back seat.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


You are willfully ignoring all links disproving your claim.
Plenty of proof have been available to you. You not being willing to take part of these facts, clearly showing a real global warming taking place right now and escalating in an alarming rate, means your position is faith based and futher reasoning is pointless.

reply to post by TheRedneck

As the proponents of a new theory, it is the responsibility of those pressing the theory to prove it. They have not done so, IMO. Their calculations are concealed, their models are hidden, their predictions have failed to happen, and their political agenda is clear. When Einstein introduced Relativity, it was not up to everyone else to re-prove Newton; it was up to those who believed the theory to prove it, which they finally did.

Incorrect. AGW is the accepted theory on the rise in the overall temperature of the Earth, therefor it is up to those that decry it to prove why it is incorrect. The models and calculations are not hidden, their predictions have not failed to happen, they are happening and at a rate faster than predicted. Einsteins Theory of Relativity was proven correct less than a year ago... during the time in between it became the accepted theory and scientific fact, any other theory had challenge Einsteins.

reply to post by Summerian

You are willfully ignoring all links disproving your claim.

I prefer the term "dismissing"... I'm not ignoring anything.

I proceed based on certain tenets, one of which is that belief does not equal reality. So the fact that someone believes something, scientist or no, does not automatically equate to that something being true. It only indicates that perhaps the theory should be examined.

So it follows that if the theory is not backed by transparent, reproducible data, it is difficult at best to examine the theory and therefore the theory is not reproducible and cannot be examined. All that is left as a fact is that so-and-so said such-and-such.

I dismiss such facts.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Kali74

AGW is the accepted theory on the rise in the overall temperature of the Earth, therefor it is up to those that decry it to prove why it is incorrect.

Accepted is not proven.

The models and calculations are not hidden, their predictions have not failed to happen, they are happening and at a rate faster than predicted.

Pray tell, can you direct me to a source code for the model used in IPCC predictions? Or perhaps you could steer me toward the actual calculations (not conclusions) used by James Hansen to support this model?

Maybe you can at least tell me how many feet of water now cover Florida and Louisiana. If sea levels are rising "faster than predicted", it should be all over the news about those two states being submerged. I somehow must have missed it.

How about the drastic increase in the number and frequency of hurricanes? The last time I checked, there had been no such increases, but I realize it is completely possible I missed the story.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity was proven correct less than a year ago

So, let me get this straight... the Ives–Stilwell experiment which confirmed time dilation predicted by Special Relativity happened less than a year ago? So you maintain that we are living in the year 1939? Franklin Delano Roosevelt is President?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


You know what? I've actually put some efforts into my posts, I've tried to and have provided information you asked for. You claimed no peer reviewed papers on AGW existed, I proved you wrong. I've provided links that contain data supported world wide. I feel like no matter how much I work I put in you are going to keep asking for more. It's fine if you don't want to accept 97% scientist consensus, that is your choice... but maybe you could stop condescending to those that do.

As for the source code, you can ask them yourself with an FOIA request. If you're so sure that you're a better scientist than the 97% of climatologists I think you probably should do just that.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.[17]

Wiki on CRU

Your condescending citing of Einsteins Theory as proven? I didn't see that you had specified his Special Theory of Relativity. I was referring to his General Theory.

I did come across this from NASA and GISS. I'm not 100% sure if these are what is currently used but if you have the programs in which they can be opened you should be able to read some source codes there, I believe this page has been available for several years.

There's also this which, far as I can tell, is what is used to provide data to IPCC, IGCMG.

I found those links from this page which has many more links but I tried to find the most relevant links. This page is dated from 2009.

reply to post by Kali74

The point I have been trying to get across is that all your links are conclusions, not evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. At one time, the scientific consensus was that the planet was flat and sat on the back of a giant turtle. There was obviously no evidence of this; it was simply what all scientists believed. At one time, it was believed the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around it. Scientists spent untold hours developing more and more complex models to explain observations in light of the geocentric theory. Finally, enough scientists started to question it.

Point being, scientists are human too. They sometimes get things wrong... and that's all scientists. That's the whole purpose of peer review and the Scientific Method: verify, re-verify, examine, question, then verify again. The AGW Global Warming theory ignores the Scientific Method: your own snippet calls for transparency in the models used for the conclusions. AGW supporters decry any questioning of the conclusions, in direct contradiction to the Scientific Method.

Peer review, by the way, is not something that happens in scientific journals. It is really nothing more than making the data available to others who wish to check out the theory and try to replicate the results. Journals are one method to do this. You can peer review any theory or hypothesis you have the ability to understand. So can I. So can anyone as long as the information used to develop the theory is available. If the information is not openly available, no peer review can happen by definition.

I'm not going to file a FOIR for the model used in a theory; it is a junk theory if I have to do so, and I have better things to do with my time. If you want to, sure, go ahead... I'd be interested to see your conclusions regarding the physics and mathematics used. What I am not interested in is hearing your conclusions based on someone else's conclusions based on someone else's work which is not even openly available.

Your condescending citing of Einsteins Theory as proven? I didn't see that you had specified his Special Theory of Relativity. I was referring to his General Theory.

0957 + 561 A, B - Twin quasistellar objects or gravitational lens, verified gravitational lensing predicted by General Relativity, published May 1979.

TheRedneck

This thread has been an interesting read. I'll preface this statement by admitting I'm an AGW skeptic. I don't claim to be an expert on the issue, but I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of it's existence.

The posters attacking The Redneck for dismissing their links are the same ones dismissing numerous other links in here and on this site that say global warming ended 16 years ago and that the Antarctic sheet is in fact growing! So it's hypocritical to call The Redneck out on that and flippantly complain about his condescension, when those posters display the same traits.

Likewise, this notion that reports like the MET report were sponsored by the oil companies and so they have an agenda is equally as hypocritical. What is the agenda of a research institution? To attract grants. And when they are commissioned by a government trying to implement a new absolute bunk revenue stream they've termed "carbon credits", the skin in the game is no different.

I want facts. Not manipulated data. And all those emails and flawed studies a couple of years ago did was to equally add as much distrust I feel towards your side of the argument as your side does to mine. It is sad that science has become an agenda-driven entity anymore because statistical data can be manipulated to any conclusion that their Sugar Daddy says fits, but that's where we are. I don't trust the scientific community. And both of my parents were scientists!

Money, it seems, continues to be the root of all evil. Including in these reports. And until that changes, your links providing studies proving AGW are no more relevant than the links my side provides disproving it.

I want proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We haven't gotten that, and many predictions have failed. So I have as much right to remain a skeptic as you do to remain a believer.

reply to post by Jubilation T Cornpone

The posters attacking The Redneck for dismissing their links are the same ones dismissing numerous other links in here and on this site that say global warming ended 16 years ago and that the Antarctic sheet is in fact growing! So it's hypocritical to call The Redneck out on that and flippantly complain about his condescension, when those posters display the same traits.

Personally I don't like the implication that I'm a moron because I believe what certain scientists say is correct, I was offended and reacted thusly. I never once implied that anyone else is a moron for believing different scientists. I disagreed with claims of hidden models and that the peer review process hadn't been engaged and I proved my disagreement was correct but the ante kept being upped and I don't think it was wrong or hypocritical or condescending to point that out.

Originally posted by kozmo

This is a pile of muck! Please keep this pointless drivel off the boards - unless you want to discuss the conspiracy of WHY IPCC is lying through its teeth to create a crisis that does NOT exist in reality!

They cant discuss that, you know. They have to keep the faith.

"Global Warming" is a HOAX. Perpetuated even now by the major religions of the world,
they must lead the sheep by sight of faith, not by science.

The Chief Rabbinate of Isreal, The Palestine Court of Sharia Law, The WAQF, and leaders of all Christian Churches in Jerusalem all united in agreeement,
however, its not concerning religion, it is to unite for the cuase of Climate Change.

This council represents the highest religious authorities of the Holy Land: the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Palestinian Ministry of Religious Affairs (Waqf), the Palestinian Court of Sharia law and all leaders of Christian Churches in Jerusalem. The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land in Jerusalem brings together the leaders of the three religions to jointly promote coexistence, to deal with extremism and find solutions to social problems.Holy Land Declaration On Climate Change

Since the failure at Copenhagen, the IPCC Scandals, the leaders of the religion of Climate Change have
fought hard to keep the "threat of climate change" as the New Terror.

Global Warming Hoax Perpetuated As A Means Of Weath Redistribution

A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admits the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth The Climate Cash Cow

A Joint Declaration by Christians, Jews and Muslims is to be presented in Jerusalem on 25 July, in which religious leaders will be asked to get involved in the fight against climate change

The Joint Declaration is titled Holy Land Declaration On Climate Change

A document entitled The First Global Revolution
which is " A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

www.archive.org...

We must remember: Redistibution of the worlds weath is no small matter, and when the three religions join united this common cause only then can we see the size and scope of this conspiracy.


vaticaninsid er.lastampa.it

reply to post by Kali74

Those are definitely FORTRAN source files; thank you! This is the kind of information I have been looking for for literally years. It will take me some time to go through them, even to verify they are complete, but at least I can hopefully see what these models are actually calculating.

While I'm here, allow me to address something else:

Originally posted by Kali74
Personally I don't like the implication that I'm a moron because I believe what certain scientists say is correct, I was offended and reacted thusly. I never once implied that anyone else is a moron for believing different scientists. I disagreed with claims of hidden models and that the peer review process hadn't been engaged and I proved my disagreement was correct but the ante kept being upped and I don't think it was wrong or hypocritical or condescending to point that out.

It was not my intention to imply anything of the sort; my apologies if it was taken that way. I have researched the various information sources surrounding AGW theory for several years now, and the information always goes back one single source: the IPCC. The 'skeptics' (I don't like that term, as it implies an unscientific approach) have had research cited from numerous independent sources.

The source codes you linked to (assuming these are authentic and complete) are the first time I have been able to find them, after years of searching. Proper procedure is to publish all relevant data for peer review, but it is now what? 15 years? since the initial IPCC reports.

I urge you to study carbon dioxide properties, black-body radiation, and thermal dynamics. The information concerning these have been around far longer than the IPCC, yet it contradicts AGW theory at every turn. Sea level rise predictions have been based on both an refusal to account for atmospheric absorption due to increased temperature and on 100% ice melt, a situation that is certainly not happening in the Antarctic and may or may not happen in the Arctic. There is no explanation how a temperature difference of a few degrees can cause ice at sixty degrees below zero to melt. There are a myriad of problems with temperature sensors used to calculate planetary global temperatures. There is data indicating that historical warming that coincides with higher carbon dioxide levels precedes those levels. There is recent historical evidence that cold periods are harder on the human species than warmer periods. Photosynthesis, the major natural carbon dioxide removal tool of nature, is typically discounted out of hand in these discussions and in papers. And the whole theory is based on the black-body radiation of the planet being at odds with observed temperatures.

And of course, any scientist who wishes to advance any of the above information is subject to loss of job and/or grants. Anyone else is just belittled and ignored.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I appreciate that and you're welcome for the links. Keep us up to date on your findings.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Summerian

You are willfully ignoring all links disproving your claim.

I prefer the term "dismissing"... I'm not ignoring anything.

I proceed based on certain tenets, one of which is that belief does not equal reality. So the fact that someone believes something, scientist or no, does not automatically equate to that something being true. It only indicates that perhaps the theory should be examined.

So it follows that if the theory is not backed by transparent, reproducible data, it is difficult at best to examine the theory and therefore the theory is not reproducible and cannot be examined. All that is left as a fact is that so-and-so said such-and-such.

I dismiss such facts.

TheRedneck

Well then I'll just take the right and "dismiss" every link you post from this point on.
I have more than 97% of the scientific community on one side and you and a few on the other.
Just take a guess what side I pick.
I get reports of ocean acidification - this not happening?
I get reports of arctic ice melting and rupturing. All reporters in on a conspiracy here?
www.nrdc.org...
Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world.
www.time.com...
ice the size of small states calve from the disintegrating Arctic and Antarctic
Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it.
And also - Big oil fund the scientists who think global warming ain't happening!
That's where the 2,5 - 3% is - bought scientists.
At some point you just picked the wrong side on this one and now you just can't let go.
You're wrong - reality says so. I'm sorry if you have a problem with reality.
You a wikipedia fan?
en.wikipedia.org...
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.
...Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, sometimes split along party political lines, especially in the United States.
The science is in. And the whores for big oil just don't like it, reality, so they think they can talk their way out of this one!
What else can be said? Global consensus among the brainiacs and some rich people who don't like the findings.
If they have a problem with evolution and what not - why not also make a fuss about global warming?

reply to post by Summerian

I get reports of ocean acidification - this not happening?

Yes it is... from sulfur emissions, not from carbon dioxide. Ships are allowed to burn fuel with enormous sulfur concentrations and a plot of shipping lanes versus acidification, taking into account prevailing currents, shows a strong correlation.

Carbonic acid is also fairly weak, especially compared to sulfuric acid.

I get reports of arctic ice melting and rupturing. All reporters in on a conspiracy here?

Arctic ice is melting... but it is due to water temperatures, not air temperatures, and is a localized phenomenon. Ergo, it is likely the heat is coming from the water, not from the air. Water has a specific heat many times that of air, and can thus melt ice many times faster than air than. Plus, heated air tends to rise away from surface ice, while heated water tends to rise toward the surface ice. Maybe, just maybe, the volcanic activity under the Arctic Ocean could have more to do with this than a small increase in trace gas concentration?

The Antarctic is not decreasing. Ice melt along the edge is normal.

And also - Big oil fund the scientists who think global warming ain't happening!

Just like big government funds the ones who say it is.

You a wikipedia fan?

For certain things. Wikipedia is good for mathematical formulas and physical constants. Political issues not so much. They are a good source for links to research further, however.

Your quote is political.

What else can be said? Global consensus among the brainiacs and some rich people who don't like the findings.

You still are couching this is political terms: "I have more 'votes' on my side, so I win." Science doesn't work like that. One cannot revoke the law of gravity, no matter who gets elected. One can introduce a bill in Congress to force the sun to rise earlier and set later; it's a waste of time. Heating and cooling cycles will continue based not on what anyone says, but on physical characteristics of the components of interacting materials.

All of the above have been documented in detail earlier, for anyone who wants to search and actually understand the physics of global temperatures and observed phenomena.

TheRedneck

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Sea levels rising far faster than we thought, warns latest study to raise the alarm over runaway global warming

www.commondreams.org...

At the current rate, as a result of subsequently inadequate provisions of Kyoto, global average temperatures could rise by three to five degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) this century -- far greater than the two degrees Celsius originally targeted, said the UN.

www.climatesciencewatch.org...

What happens when one industry has too much power? Politicians become pawns. Laws are created and prevented. Regulations are bypassed. Information is controlled. Dissent is stifled. Our climate changes. And people die.

www.cbc.ca...

The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences.

Carbon Dioxide...You have to laugh


Sorry,did I read that right?

0.039%

Four hundredths of one percent?

I have an idea....all the people who think that allegedly global warming has anything to do with humans should hold their breath.Forever.

Originally posted by Ericthedoubter
Carbon Dioxide...You have to laugh


Sorry,did I read that right?

0.039%

Four hundredths of one percent?

I have an idea....all the people who think that allegedly global warming has anything to do with humans should hold their breath.Forever.

Well that was constructive.
Good for you. You always think like that?

May I recommend the book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert".

Laframboise's book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert” calls the expertise of the authors of the original IPCC into question.

The book names nearly half a dozen lead authors involved in the IPCC’s reports over the years who were barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change.

Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Therefore, these IPCC staff were following an agenda.

This is my favourite global warming quote.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event"

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

www.independent.co.uk...

That was 12 years ago.

And yet it still comes and brings the country to a halt.