• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jimmy Leeds

The Global Warming Fraud

78 posts in this topic

oh tut, tut biff.. lets retire to the conneticut mansion for some tea and crumpets... leave the commoners to their gluttony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just thought about this the other day, but why is Global Warming adapted as such a strong POLITICAL issue. its like the liberal point of view is it exists, and the conservative point of view seems to be it does not. but in reality, what is either party gonna do about it, whether it exists or not? Why will conservatives defend it so strongly- like what part of it offends them? And why do liberals take offense to it, and what makes them special to say that its their idea to try and fix it.

.. because as sad as it is, if it is a true theory, this world is too late and it does not have enough motivation to actually turn it around, or slow it done. its sad but true

Well there are traditional political alignments on issues of environment vs. economic activity. And those are at least somewhat consistent with the sides' other political beliefs: free market Republicans being against detrimental government interference with the economy, and progressive Democrats feeling that noble enough causes deserve legislation. So this isn't something that's out of left field, it's fairly predictable really. So all of the emotion probably comes from the debate over what to do being right around the heart of the political sides. The scientific debate is another matter, and it really is a shame that all of this political wrangling interferes with that.

My understanding: I was under the belief that most meteorological scientists agree that water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) levels are higher than they have been in many millennia and that this does have a significant effect on the atmosphere and retaining heat. Also, most scientists on the ground agree that most of the increase in the gasses came from human activities (destroying forests, burning fossil fuels, etc.). Where the most uncertainty and debate exists in the scientific community is over all of the feedback mechanisms that would determine the long-term effect. For those who don't know, feedback is when a change in one factor (greenhouse gas, temperatures) affects another factor (sea ice, plant growth rates) which then affects the first factor. So if positive feedback dominates, that could be the "catastrophe" that Manta was referring to, where the loop runs away out of control. However, if negative feedback dominates, then most of the effects of human activity on climate would be temporary. But there are so many factors, that is difficult to know which way this will go.

If I made a serious error above, I want to know (no sarcasm there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fishiness (at least from my perspective) of global warming awareness is that virtually all economic activity in some way results in CO2 emissions (even breathing). This is a backdoor means of restoring the command economy under the guise of environmentalism. Even anti-smoking advocates have latched on to this as exhaled cigarette smoke releases green house gases.

In my unscientific opinion, you can't pump CO2 into the air as much as the human population does without having some effect. However, the global warming alarmists haven't seemed to make a concrete prediction, other than to point to seemingly out of the ordinary weather events and say, "see I told you so." (While at the same time dismissing periodic cold weather as aberrations).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

Clearly a man who ditched the bullsh!t that is actuarial science. :evil:

I appreciate what you all have to say, i do.

I also have a former undergrad here who loves to justify his smoking with the fact that statistically speaking he probably will not die of lung cancer... so that makes smoking OK and all these laws are just nonsense cooked up to kill the tobacco industry. The public at large has just been duped.

Most MDs I know say - yeah -- my smoking probably will contribute significantly to my (future poor) quality of life if not to the specific length --- but I'm doing it anyway.

I can accept the MDs honesty over the dopey kid from Virginia spouting off an argument he got from some pro-tobacco article.

again -- not a straw man -- an analogy -- and an analogy born from Jason's disapproval of cancer research.

They are all using the same rationale - and hopefully some of you can kind of get the true relationship between the research, the results and the counter arguments.

The solution is to climate change is to decrease the surplus population, in keeping with the literary seasonal situation :evil:

it's too late anyhow so wtf! :)

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like the Nazis found Scientist to prove that the Aryan was superior to all and other groups were scientifically inferior and or the how Scientist spoke of the world being flat and those who questioned either group or any science were punished.

Politics has entered this debate and they have created a deritivates markets in the form of carbon offsets and carbon taxes much like the Catholic Church had a scheme to pay off your sins several hundred years ago. Funny how the Warmers resort to name calling or churlish straw man. Scientist have an agenda and or are useful idiots in this scheme. There are other scientist who in fear of being blacklisted don't chime in. There are vocal scientist on the other side as well. I haven't formed an opinion on this matter because I'm still waiting for the Global Cooling to come that was predicted in the 1970's. I also notice the rebranding of the issue to say "I told you so" from Global Warming to Climate Change whatever happens. AT This point, I just see people seeing a way to make money and create a new revenue stream and more market intervention by governments and the UN. Firms like Goldman Sachs has alot of energy contracts based on higher energy prices in the future and a way to get there is cause or false/inconclusive science. Green Energy, check your PSEG bill to see what "Societal Benefit" costs along with higher rates you are already paying for S recs credits and group think social engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like the Nazis found Scientist to prove that the Aryan was superior to all and other groups were scientifically inferior and or the how Scientist spoke of the world being flat and those who questioned either group or any science were punished.

Politics has entered this debate and they have created a deritivates markets in the form of carbon offsets and carbon taxes much like the Catholic Church had a scheme to pay off your sins several hundred years ago. Funny how the Warmers resort to name calling or churlish straw man. Scientist have an agenda and or are useful idiots in this scheme. There are other scientist who in fear of being blacklisted don't chime in. There are vocal scientist on the other side as well. I haven't formed an opinion on this matter because I'm still waiting for the Global Cooling to come that was predicted in the 1970's. I also notice the rebranding of the issue to say "I told you so" from Global Warming to Climate Change whatever happens. AT This point, I just see people seeing a way to make money and create a new revenue stream and more market intervention by governments and the UN. Firms like Goldman Sachs has alot of energy contracts based on higher energy prices in the future and a way to get there is cause or false/inconclusive science. Green Energy, check your PSEG bill to see what "Societal Benefit" costs along with higher rates you are already paying for S recs credits and group think social engineering.

Bad science is bad science. The things you mentioned above have been rejected because...well...it was sh!tty science. This global warming topic is a very complicated issue and there is evidence to support a side. The unfortunate issue is the involvement of politics in something that really should not have an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad science is bad science. The things you mentioned above have been rejected because...well...it was sh!tty science. This global warming topic is a very complicated issue and there is evidence to support a side. The unfortunate issue is the involvement of politics in something that really should not have an agenda.

It's still garbage science since there is evidence that data was manipulated to further an agenda. Science may be neutral or fact, Scienctist are men/women and have their biases.

We are witnessing bad science since it has been politicized and there is a clear agenda. If the Nazis win, the myth of their science would be taught as that, science. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can say these things now looking back 60 years later.

We live in a propanganda world and in that vortex of Climate Change talk and the conference in Durban, SA at the moment. People are referred to Climate Deniers akin to a Holocaust one and the difference is the side that is pushing this agenda is acting as if the debate is over. Carbon tax credits and offsets galore. It's a non starter and irresponsible of government or anyone to act if this is settled within the community.

Edited by FloyddGondolli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

I don't consider myself an expert on this topic either but I think the issue with this period of climate change is that it is rising much higher than previous periods of increasing temperatures, so the debate is over whether or not humans are exacerbating it.

The fishiness (at least from my perspective) of global warming awareness is that virtually all economic activity in some way results in CO2 emissions (even breathing). This is a backdoor means of restoring the command economy under the guise of environmentalism. Even anti-smoking advocates have latched on to this as exhaled cigarette smoke releases green house gases.

In my unscientific opinion, you can't pump CO2 into the air as much as the human population does without having some effect. However, the global warming alarmists haven't seemed to make a concrete prediction, other than to point to seemingly out of the ordinary weather events and say, "see I told you so." (While at the same time dismissing periodic cold weather as aberrations).

There are also the people who say things like, "It was 60 degrees in December so global warming is a myth." Whether you believe in it or not, pointing to any one isolated incident is the wrong way to go about it, we are talking about trends taking place over decades here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself an expert on this topic either but I think the issue with this period of climate change is that it is rising much higher than previous periods of increasing temperatures, so the debate is over whether or not humans are exacerbating it.

correlation (especially weak correlation) does not equal causation.

This applies to global warming, cancer, whatever. The climate is an extremely complex open system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has backed out of the Kyoto Protocol:

For Canada, the cost of either meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, or failing to do so, was too much to bear.

On Monday, the country became the first signatory of the landmark climate treaty to back out of the deal, citing the huge potential cost of legally binding commitments.

Confirming the move, environment minister Peter Kent said to meet its obligations under the accord Canada would have to take every single vehicle off its roads.

"Every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car," he elaborated in a media briefing, before giving another equally unpalatable option of closing down the country's entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, building and factory.

If the country failed to do so, Kent said taxpayers would have to give $14 billion to other countries "with no impact on emissions or the environment."

And further down in the story, they talk about the new Durban Platform:

The new deal, agreed Sunday, brings in major emitters of greenhouse gas emissions including the United States, China, India and Brazil. For that, it was hailed a success, although critics still argue that the timetable is too loose.

The package includes the first contributions to a $100 billion Green Climate Fund to help developing countries to invest in clean energy and adapt to climate change. An Adaptation Committee will be formed to co-ordinate adaptation activities worldwide with agreement on a "Technology Mechanism" to smooth the way.

Maybe it's because I don't trust anyone involved in these global political attempts to save us from ourselves, but this looks like more of the same "prevent developing countries from developing until they can do it expensively ... er ... I mean cleanly" stuff that earned previous policies the label of imperialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also the people who say things like, "It was 60 degrees in December so global warming is a myth." Whether you believe in it or not, pointing to any one isolated incident is the wrong way to go about it, we are talking about trends taking place over decades here.

Yes, I understand that. However, global warming advocates do the same thing, just in reverse. Hell I once saw a bumper sticker that says "Remember Katrina, Fight Global Warming."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one abides by any of these agreements, not Europe, not anyone. They're all pretty meaningless. It's all lip service - that's why I don't get why you all get so head-up - no one IS doing anything.

No one is getting rich off of green energy. As for PSE&G they offer Green energy as an option -- you don't pay for it if you don't elect to. Whatever fee it is you think is for green energy is indeed a lie -- you are correct. It’s the existing damaging energy provider profiting off of a trend. It’s not some Green Energy company founded by Al Gore sneaking in a cut of PSE&G’s profits – why is that even being held up when it’s the CURRENT ENERGY PROVIDER PROFITTING OFF OF A LIE. You’re damaging your own argument holding that up as some proof our current paradigm is fine as is. That IS the current paradigm. And if they’re putting up windmills – really why do you give a fvck about it? Do you know what other sh!t they’re doing? Do you give a fvck what every other little bullsh!t fee your paying for is going to? what else is new in the corporate world?

Also I get no indication you all have read anything of the real research but rather just the op-eds denouncing it. If you don't give a sh!t then don't waste time finding ways to deride a hypothesis you haven't even researched yourself. It's hard work to look at the science, to understand the science -- it's too hard for me to get into the real science of it. I’ll be honest. I just discuss with interested scientists who do understand the research and results published - but I get lost trying to retain it all. 732 (EDIT: 731 haha! I made you a step above yourself) and Triumph are so much more patient about retaining stuff…

There IS a debate in meteorology/climatology - but it's far more subtle than the dufus stuff posted here. It’s too deep for me. Basically what I hear is: OK all signs point to the sh!t hitting the fan NOW -- and if man caused it or not there is nothing that can be done now. ALL agree that it would help to cut carbon emissions – the debate is: would it ease the transition? Could species stand a greater chance of surviving through adapting? Climate change is real and we’re fvcked or we’re not. THAT is the debate. It’s quite cynical and humorous. You guys are actually far more in the Al Gore scientific camp as far as outlook goes. They’re all positive and kind of “let things coast and we might be OK!” But when push comes to shove consensus is pretty much ‘what hell - we’re fvcked.’ The science you guys spout disproving global warming is actually the “We are soooo fvcked” camp from what I gather. :lol: Ah me… I hate it when I get amused/bemused :( I really don’t feel that patronizing.

It would be a very interesting debate if we all got on the real page -- but you're all consumed with the politicizing of it. It reads like no one cares about anything but that it must be wrong and there must be a political and economic reason to claim climate change is real and significant to our near-term existence, much less man's responsibility therein. :unsure:

Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious? You can make a few bucks here and there appealing to a special interest group but that's not where the big money is. Ingenuity takes investment - inherent risk - there is no immediate monetary gain directly attributed to controlling carbon emissions. Why do you guys seriously think that's even a mildly logical argument... oh wait i know... BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT INTO IT! DUHHH????? I mean duh? THIS is why I can't respond to the inanity. Mind-blowingly stupid... and the fact you think I'm THAT stupid... no wonder I think you all are inane -- seriously? You know... I mean I want to hold back and be respectful but seriously... with that position... you can' even take ONE STEP onto the debate forum... you all think your coming from some original place when you are so clearly being manipulated – and you tell me I am? Just --- how can I even respond to that – THAT is what I’m talking about. That is why I cannot respond – you have just GOT to be kidding me!

“There's a burglar in the bedroom while you're fiddling in the parlor!”

And some a$$hole is going to pluck out one out-of-context sentence I write here and expound on it with stupid little condescensions peppered here and there -- and then …resume his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than usual. :argh: Why would I even respond to such crap?

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand that. However, global warming advocates do the same thing, just in reverse. Hell I once saw a bumper sticker that says "Remember Katrina, Fight Global Warming."

I know, just pointing out that it happens on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to quote PK's latest post lest I give it any more credence than it should be accorded.

You can't get rich off of green? How much money was thrown at Solyndra on the pure hope that it would produce a viable product when all signs pointed to it being a failure (oh but if you are connected to the president and a big donor you can rob the taxpayers for $500 million). They would have gotten another huge loan had the whistle not been blown on it. Hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars for a bad business idea just because it is green! Try doing a little research on some of the companies Al Gore is connected to. Dig a little deeper into what is the truth out there before making insane statements like "nobody is getting rich off of green energy".

How absolutely hypocritical of you to accuse others of just reading biased op/eds but then one paragraph later you claim you understand the real arguments but the actual papers are too deep for you. Huh? So you don't understand them yet claim you understand them? What the fvck? Do you read what you write? At all?

How condesending is this : It would be a very interesting debate if we all got on the real page. Oh, if only us stupid people could just agree that you are so very right. What a joke.

God knows what points you are trying to make in the last two paragraphs. Do you really believe that "there is no immediate monetary gain directly attributed to controlling carbon emissions" or are you disagreeing with that statement. I just can't tell what you are writing.

I gave you a simple challenge PK which should be simple since you claim to have read and understand the issues much more than those of us you "just read op/eds" and are being manipulated. One challenge that you have refused to address multiple times since I have asked you this before in previous threads:

Show me the study that proves that CO2 emmissions are a leading indicator of global temperatures. That is a fairly simple basic step in determining if global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 goes up then temps go up. Pretty f'n simple.

As for population and waste, yes I agree both need to be addressed. How do you propose addressing population growth. Do you have any ideas or shall I just wait for those pearls of wisdom to drop down from your ivory tower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this escaped your notice:

Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious?

You have no interest in CO2 publications. A challenge for me? Give a paper to someone who proves time and time again he doesn't know how to read - the fact that my writing the significant profit is to be made in the established non-renewable resources is completely avoided. The money to be made is in fossil fuels -- It's not even comparable to current green energy investments. and you wave Solyndra up the flag pole. :doh1:

For anyone actually interested in the CO2 challenge presented :rolleyes: here are a few articles -- Check out the citations/references too. There is the IPCC report which is huge and brushed aside a lot but there's good stuff in it. So -- it may not seem as cut and dry as CO2 goes up temp goes up -- but it pretty much does say that

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the study that proves that CO2 emmissions are a leading indicator of global temperatures. That is a fairly simple basic step in determining if global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 goes up then temps go up. Pretty f'n simple.

I don't have a lot of time, so I just took the first thing that I found on a Google search.

Carbon Dioxide Study

I mean, it sounds like what you're talking about. :noclue: It's a year or so old, so I don't know if this study has been disputed, refuted, etc. But is this a good jumping-off point for discussing CO2 as a greenhouse effect driver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

Of course they never ask that question. In their minds money is the root of all evil and we should live in a socialist utopia where everything is miraculously paid for and people work for free without any incentive. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of time, so I just took the first thing that I found on a Google search.

Carbon Dioxide Study

I mean, it sounds like what you're talking about. :noclue: It's a year or so old, so I don't know if this study has been disputed, refuted, etc. But is this a good jumping-off point for discussing CO2 as a greenhouse effect driver?

Thanks for making an effort.

The article you cited has the following conclusion: "It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

No mention of whether the study shows it to be a leading indicator. It does conclude that warming and CO2 levels are directly linked. While CO2 increases appear to coincide with temperature increases, does the former increase slightly before causing the latter or are both symptoms of another input to the complex system. The correlation vs causation argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has these grand plans to save the earth, save the poor, save the 99%. They never ask "At what cost?" though, do they?

When one of the world's principal advocates of global warming, Britain's University of East Anglia, was found to be withholding data that wasn't favorable to their cause... well, that says everything. Scientists aren't supposed to do things like this. This is something that politicians do!

Hey Jerry - here is a really articulate article on what that scandal is really all about. I'm not going to shout you down or say you're wrong. I like how you articulate your opinion as you know whether I agree with it or not.

This is from 2009 - the article above from Nature Geoscience out earlier this month is getting closer to confirming the consensus view that anthropogenic warming is speeding things up - his final conclusion is a little more certain -- maybe.

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

What's important with all of these articles, opinion and scientific, is the level of certainty a scientist holds himself to vs an entertainer like a Rush Limbaugh before pontificating. This guy writing for PM is a professor of geochemistry from Columbia yet says he's not an expert in the field. This is the level of minutia scientists get down to in terms of refuting stuff. It's not just sophist blustering -- it is EXHAUSTINGLY HONEST. Right down to the RIP dude's gripe about the use of the word incontrovertible.

I find that a lot of stuff put forth against these really nearly debilitatingly honest men and women (if applied to normal conversation/understanding) is so far from the truth. What East Anglia did is just wrong on so many levels. But headlines put out by CNN and Fox News are just not even close to the target. So what a scientist would ref to as "strongly inferred" regular news would call proof positive OR an total lack of proof depending on the side you're on. You can't have a discussion between those two camps - a rational give and take - when one side is painstakingly detailed and the other is beyond broad brush strokes even -- they're a bucket of diluted stain thrown in the general direction of the actual issue.

I feel like a lot of blustering by people on this forum like this thread's title - clearly let it be known they do not hold themselves to any standard of truth. The truth is not even being sought. It does make people seem like they have no idea what they are writing about nor do they care. They dont want to read squat from me, why even pretend? They challenge because they have some pat response all set up based not on the kind of facts which they are demanding but the blustering one liners etc they've pre-planned or ripped from Entertainment News personas not any scientist, not even a Big Oil rep, not even a politician. Guys who cackle "global Warming is a Hoax" don't even question why they're being given a message to spout, only say Al Gore is telling pro-green people what to say --- Not giving an ounce of thought to exactly WHO is telling THEM what to say what they ARE saying loud and happy. They never ask why, never seek out really WHY they're being lead to crack smartass quips to the world.

hey -- ahh... I'm editing here - hope I'm not pre-answering anyone's comments to be posted after.

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this escaped your notice:

Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious?

You have no interest in CO2 publications. A challenge for me? Give a paper to someone who proves time and time again he doesn't know how to read - the fact that my writing the significant profit is to be made in the established non-renewable resources is completely avoided. The money to be made is in fossil fuels -- It's not even comparable to current green energy investments. and you wave Solyndra up the flag pole. :doh1:

For anyone actually interested in the CO2 challenge presented :rolleyes: here are a few articles -- Check out the citations/references too. There is the IPCC report which is huge and brushed aside a lot but there's good stuff in it. So -- it may not seem as cut and dry as CO2 goes up temp goes up -- but it pretty much does say that

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

I am truely sorry that I read your comments and tried to understand them. From your post I am guessing that your comment regarding there is no money in green initiatives was meant to be that there is more money currently in non-green initiatives. Big difference. I certainly wouldn't argue that current fossil fuel engergy is a larger part of the world's economy than Green is. Never said that. If there was a green technology out there that could compete with fossil fuels on a cost per joule or whatever energy unit you want to use, I would fully support it. Further if there was a more efficient green source out there, it would beat fossil fuels (Nuclear does that but for other risks out there, it is not as prevalent as I think it should be). But that's not what you said. Your myth comment again mystifies me as do most of your posts as you rarely make more than 2 or 3 coherent sentences without degrading to some rant or emoticon stream.

I don't understand why you don't think I have any interest in CO2 publications. My posts have inidcated the exact opposite. So something might have escaped your notice......

In summary:

Fossil fuels make more money than green initiatives- wow captain obvious. Thanks for pointing that out

Something about an easy way to control population with a myth of global warming. No idea what you are trying to say there.

I have no interest in CO2 publication. Not true at all

I don't know how to read. Not true at all but if the litmus test is understanding your posts then perhaps there is a sliver of truth in that

You finally came up with some sources in response to my request but already admit that they don't answer my very basic question.

Now on to your articles (interesting, despite the allegation that I am unable to read and am not interested, I did read them. I wonder if you did)

Article #1 has the following quotes:

Page 3:

GHG and surface albedo changes are mechanisms causing the large global climate changes in Fig. (1), but they do not initiate these climate swings. instead changes of GHGs and sea level (a measure of ice sheet size) lag temperature change by several hundred years [6, 7, 23, 24].

Page 5:

Pleistocene atmospheric CO2 variations occur as a climate feedback, as carbon is exchanged among surface reservoirs: the ocean, atmosphere, soils and biosphere. The most effective feedback is increase of atmospheric CO2 as climate warms, the CO2 transfer being mainly from ocean to atmosphere [27, 28].

Page 6 to be fair I've included this but I have to call out that there is no citation/reference for this statement and it includes a very curious choice of words- "surely" which implies an assumption not science:

Between 60 and 50 My ago India moved north rapidly, 18-20 cm/year [50], through a region that long had been a depocenter for carbonate and organic sediments. Subduction of carbon-rich crust was surely a large source of CO2 outgassing and a prime cause of global warming, which peaked 50 My ago (Fig. 3b) with the Indo-Asian collision.

So I've read the first article and any direct causation of CO2 to temperatures doesn't seem to be supported by your reference. In fact quotes #1 and #2 appear to assert that CO2 levels LAG temperature changes.

I'll look at the second article later.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We both know that no study shows absolutely conclusively that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are definitively linked to a specific increase in temperature. A scientist will always use terms that imply assumption because until the deed is done your outcome is assumed. We've gone over this when you tried to make a big deal about a respected Nobel laureate resigning from RPI over the word incontrovertible. That's my point in my post to Jerry above.

When that is definitively proven... it's too late.

You can't prove at what temperature water boils until you've boiled it. A scientist will only suggest a probable outcome based upon mounting evidence. This isn't something we want scientists to say "I told you so" about.

So..you have set up something akin to a straw man and this is why I choose to ignore you. Fatal outcomes can be proven on a small scale -- This is massive scale and cannot be reversed once completely conclusive results are provided. You don't want the proof your asking for. That's what's so inane.

But there are people who might get confused with the point you are trying to force - so I posted two articles for them. and then a third

Just for you that I could put in a PM but I dont want you to get the wrong idea: You know and understand everything I write well enough. You're not a total idiot and you know I'm not. I'm not going to waste time with that. You're smart - feel a little more smart than you are :uni: but that's neither here nor there... and that's fine. Just so you're not confused, I don't find you personally compelling - sometimes people get confused and it colors their responses. I find the topic compelling and I find a lot of the opinions and conclusion here compelling. You dude, are pretty obvious.

DiG - that's not so obvious and I don't want to shaft him out of information to make you happy. When I ignore you, you win because the real info isn't even out there. When I respond some people may just not read what I post and cackle at your quips and you know - I've decided so what. Whatever dude. Knock yourself out. You can win because it's just not on my agenda.

The first is an old article, not about the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (as you obviously were hoping I thought) but about how we know CO2 effects the atmosphere and it's filled with a lot of conjecture. That doesn't make it inaccurate - just not incontrovertible :evil:

The second is the most recent published paper on the relationship between CO2 and BOTH anthropogenic and natural warming. You can absolutely assert this is gobbledy gook and proves nothing which I'm sure the mere fact the title itself says inferred you will have a field day with. But as I wrote above to Jerry people not familiar with the research shouldn't let the extremely careful choice of words cloud the issue as you would have them.

Man this crap along with all the publications and patents I'm dealing with in real life right now ... I just want a nap. The holiday break can't come soon enough. My friend keeps looking up hen I start clacking away "What are you doing?" Heehee -- all my scientist friends want me to just let it go here :giggle: So what do you all say? Should I stop and let you be already? Is anyone learning anything helpful? PM me and I'll keep it up -- if not I really have better things to do - but I care! and it so... I just dont grasp how intellegent people with no agenda don't understand. If you understand you can't disagree -- unless you're a kind of out there scientist -- then it's kind of col and I'd love to read what YOU have to say. No one here in the thread is like that though.

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pepperkorn,

I understand your "What if I'm right?" argument. But the science is not ironclad enough to shape public policy. Emissions trading and government subsidies of green businesses are shams and scams. Producers of green products should work tirelessly to persuade Americans that they need their products, and they should work to make their products less expensive. But not surprisingly, liberals don't want to compete in a free market. They want the iron fist of government. I'm pushing against that every time.

Edited by Jerrydevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe models predicted a massive rise in C02 coupled with a flattening of temperatures for the last decade. IF CO2 forces temperature rising then an 8-12 year pause in warming during continued increase of CO2 seems unlikely. I know people re-did their models to explain why this pause is happening, but that doesn't mean these models are any better at predicting future events. If we can't come up with models that can predict 10 years into the future then it seems hard to believe the models that predict 100 years into the future.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0