1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Further evidence warming is nanufactured

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by dogtowner, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The inevitable result of politicizing science and making pop stars out of scientists. It didn't take long for climate science to become hollywood and reality to go right out of the window and the tendency was to do what hollywood does...just make it up as needed.

    I posted another thread that actually looked at regional temperatures across the globe for the short and long term and oddly enough, when you look at individual regions, there is no "global" warming. There is some small bit of regional warming and a good bit of cooling. "Global" warming only shows up in the highly manipulated global data base.....just making it up as needed.

    On the topic of just making it up, I saw recently that mikey mann has refused to provide his data to the court in his lawsuit and is facing contempt charges... That will pretty much kill the hockey stick once and for all and every study that used his fabricated, upside down data...and open the door for actual criminal prosecution since he was on the public payroll when he perpetrated his fraud.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  3. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Yeah, nothing new here. You covered this in far greater detail elsewhere but just a scientific peer reviewed analysis for warmers to try and deny.
    You can't claim science as justification when science is crumbling the con.
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can't help but notice how few are willing to even try to argue the pro manmade global warming side of the argument any more. Only the true wackos and their arguments have become so far out there that even they know that they sound like kooks. The wheels are falling off the AGW crazy train and now with the coming of red/blue teams examining the government science, I would't expect it to be to long before the whole scam blows up and then the wackos can move on to the next "the sky is falling" topic.

    Can't help but wonder what it might be...population exposition is dead what with the falling birthrates in the industrialized world..anything to do with climate is an invitation for further disaster for them...renewables is turning out to be a very expensive joke for those nations foolish enough to put any appreciable number of their eggs in that basket....
     
  5. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Well worldwide population is unsupportable but as you say in the third world. Water and food both are a problem. Be interesting to see if PRC tries to deal with it or let it slove some of their problems. Will hit muslims hard.
     
  6. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have often suggested you actually read the source you intend to use, and you never do. Thus your ignorance is multiplied the more you post. If you had taken the time to get your head out of your ass, and read the study, you would have seen on page 29 a reference to satellite data, and its introduction in 1979. You then would have read this:

    "Only the satellite data have a sufficiently regular and global spatial coverage to claim a temperature measurement unencumbered by UHI and other complicating issues"

    And below that you would have seen a graph that shows even the satellite information shows rising temperatures, just not as high, or sharp, as that from surface temperatures.

    But, it is like you say "If the data won't support your claims, jiggle the data"
    .
     
  7. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The believer argument has always been that the climate is changing more and more rapidly than it has in the past and that was evidence that man is causing it...no one is arguing that the climate isn't changing...or that it isn't getting warmer. This is an interglacial and history tells us that it will continue to get warmer till it starts cooling. The satellites show that the warming we are experiencing is neither unusual, nor unprecedented. There is no distinction from natural variability.

    That is the whole point. If we are not causing the warming, why waste a penny on prevention since we could do nothing about it anyway?
     
  8. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Where is your proof that we are not CONTRIBUTING to the warming with our pollution of the air, the ground, the water, the oceans, etc.? I realize you are one of those who will not believe we are in a drought until all native species, and thus any other species, dies off. However, countries like Saudi Arabia are out of groundwater, the US has seen water tables drop 3-6 feet. And the list goes on.

    So, at what point do you admit that dumping coal sludge in rivers, or on land, is not healthy for the environment?
     
  9. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since what we are seeing is the same as natural variability, what sort of proof do I need? You are the one claiming a problem...you are the one suggesting a costly solution...you are the one who believes that we are contributing...the burden of evidence falls on you. At this point the evidence says that if we are contributing at all to the changing global climate, that change is indistinguishable from natural variability.

    Yeah...we had the drought discussion already...refer to the drought map...where are all those terrible droughts you were fretting over now? Answer...gone....because there was no drought...there was only the natural variaiblyt of the regions in question.

    As I have said before, I am all for imposing draconian, bankrupting fines in addition to prison sentences for polluters...fines and sentences so terrible that only the most stupid would even take the chance of trying to skirt the regulations. But there is a difference between pollution and CO2 emissions. Our CO2 emissions are not altering the global climate and the more data we get, the more obvious it becomes. And the more we spend on the CO2 global warming scam, the less there is to spend on actual environmental issues like dumping sludge..
     
    dogtowner likes this.
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Pollution is bad, co2 is not.
     
    palerider likes this.
  11. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, you need to prove that the current change is "indistinguishable from natural variability". I have often offered proof for my beliefs. Time for you to offer something for yours.

    No, they are still there. You just don't want to see them, and have this fantasy belief that because certain areas had an above average rainfall that the groundwater reservoirs were filled, and everything is back to normal:

    https://www.drought.gov/gdm/current-conditions

    Problem here is that the two are tied together. One cannot explain the dangers of pollution without the explanation of the increase in greenhouse gasses including CO2. Afterall, what is the damage of dumping CO2 if one discounts the excesses of CO2?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_impacts_of_coal
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    OK..how about a gold standard temperature reconstruction of the past 10,000 years from above both the arctic and antarctic circles.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    How many do you want to see? Looking at temperature graphs of the past 100 years is nothing but cherrypicking for effect. If you look at the bigger picture, you don't see anything but business as usual.


    Nope...no drought...simply the natural variability of the various areas...drought is a word that has an actual definition, and that government site has strayed from that definition in favor of posturing for effect.


    No...the actual environmental issues are eclipsed by the AGW scam. The increase in greenhouse gasses is bullshit...You can not show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data which shows that an increase in so called greenhouse gasses (other than water vapor) has any effect on the global climate...not a single piece.

    On earth, there is no such thing as an excess of CO2. Earth has seen CO2 levels in excess of 7000ppm with no catastrophe..and the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of began with CO2 levels close to 1000ppm. If you don't have actual observed, measured data supporting your belief that CO2 is altering the climate, then you have nothing but an unsupported belief.
     
  13. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83

    CO2 kills if you have an amount that cannot be absorbed.
     
  14. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And I don't see anything about the causes of those increases in temperature.

    Not sure how you can say that when crops are failing all over the world due to lack of water. And, contrary to your "definition", it has nothing to do with "native crops" even though we have shown you where native forests are dying off due to lack of water.

    drought
    [drout]

    noun
    1.
    a period of dry weather, especially a long one that is injurious to crops.
    2.
    an extended shortage:

    drought in Science
    drought

    (drout)
    A long period of abnormally low rainfall, lasting up to several years.

    The eons in which CO2 reached your 7000ppm level were times when life was not present in its current form, and the earth was forming.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

    Now, lets get on to the negative effects of pollution, and, in spite of your offhanded comments, you do support pollution:

    "The increase in greenhouse gasses is bullshit...You can not show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data which shows that an increase in so called greenhouse gasses (other than water vapor) has any effect on the global climate...not a single piece.

    On earth, there is no such thing as an excess of CO2."
     
  15. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    So is water but we are lightyears away from it. As PR observed we have had massively higher levels.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page