Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

Politicians squashed GW before they realized the fascist ways a CO2 number can be used to change everything and tax or regulate anything they want.

[herbivor]

He is not detracting from the topic. He makes a very good point about the political biases inherent within the global warming debate. What he is saying is right, and it makes this WHOLE discussion worthless.

If there is any political biases in a scientific debate, I can assure you, it will come from politicians, not scientists. And even if there are a few unethical scientists being "paid" by industry or government to achieve a political agenda, it does not make ALL of the scientific data worthless.

You guys are looking at this whole topic from the 30,000 foot level and trying to form an opinion. Come down to the ground and get your hands dirty in the actual evidence and see for yourself what is really happening. It is all available for free, without biased opinions. It's not easy reading for those that do not enjoy science and math, but the evidence is available. Until you see for yourself, you are really just talking out of your ass.

[Fusion]

What is happening down here on the ground is higher electricity bills due to over-subsidized solar farms, eco-tax on cars older than 2004, denied entry for older cars into cities (which has been proven to have had zero effect on air quality), mandatory % of bio-fuel rising each year, grown on fields where food should have, thus raising food prices and fuel prices, factories having to buy emissions credits and reflecting that in end cosumer prices, soon taxes on the sale of homes with low thermal insulation, regulation of tire efficiency standards and marking raising their price... I can go on.
All of which is based on and justified with AGW propaganda.

[gwb72tii]

Would you care to comment on the other scientists and their data that has produced similar results as Mann's 1998 analysis? What is your opinion of the Wahl-Ammann 2007 study as compared to the 2004 McIntyre critique? What is your opinion of the different statistical techniques used in each study? What are your opinion of the climate analysis when you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites? Have you analyzed those results with the same conclusion you have of Mann's analysis. What are your opinions of the NOAA's Paleoclimatological evidence in recent years, and the fact that they produce similar results without the bristlecone pine data included in Mann's study? Please do tell us specifically how those studies are statistical anomalies as well. And don't worry, you can be as detailed as possible with your calculations to show me the flaws in the statistical techniques used, I'm intelligent enough to understand them.

you haven't even ansered my main complaint
are you saying mann is correct?

[gwb72tii]

Come down to the ground and get your hands dirty in the actual evidence and see for yourself what is really happening. It is all available for free, without biased opinions.

Fail

[gwb72tii]

what is happening down here on the ground is higher electricity bills due to over-subsidized solar farms, eco-tax on cars older than 2004, denied entry for older cars into cities (which has been proven to have had zero effect on air quality), mandatory % of bio-fuel rising each year, grown on fields where food should have, thus raising food prices and fuel prices, factories having to buy emissions credits and reflecting that in end cosumer prices, soon taxes on the sale of homes with low thermal insulation, regulation of tire efficiency standards and marking raising their price... I can go on.
all of which is based on and justified with agw propaganda.

qft

[herbivor]

you haven't even ansered my main complaint
are you saying mann is correct?

READ!!!!

The answer is yes and because there are about a couple dozen similar hockey stick graphs based on different types of data sources that essentially say the same thing as Mann's graph. Mann's graph had limited data at the time, because it was done almost a decade ago, which is what the deniers are harping on " too much fudge factor". But continual data that followed and continues to come in confirms the graph. I actually provided a very lengthy discussion on this before and gave you all the facts, data and graphs, but as usual you don't read. So fuck off until you actually learn something new instead of repeating outdated rhetoric that you so desperately cling to and badgering those that may not be as well versed on this subject.

Now answer mine

[Q5Quint]

Again, the topic must change from the actual science to scrutinizing the people that did the study and implicating a broader 'fascist' economic/government theory.

We change the topic because we know the science is right. "Science" here being the data.

I already posted the guy that is keeping track of scientific papers pro/against the AGW. How many good peer reviewed legit papers are pro and how many are against?

Of course if you say that the data is falsified then you never have to believe anything unless you want to either way.

I see two social theories here:

One that the 'skeptic scientist' are paid by the fossil fuel industry to falsify data so that it looks like global warming is not real.

And two that the 'pro-AGW scientist' are paid by the gubbment to falsify data that agw is real so that they can control our pollution/tax/something more.

Perhaps even both are going on? I am sure that you could assemble the list of papers pro/against and find out who funded the research and decide on a 'funding source bias'.

But again we are changing the subject and adding in the human elements of greed/corruption/miscaclulation etc etc to the question of

'Are our emissions causing a global rise in temperatures?'

We would need to define what naturally makes the temperature change. What trends in temp fluctuations have been going on for the last measurable time frame. And finally, if the added emissions from us burning old dinosaur blood, tires, cows, asphalt, diesel, etc etc add to that.

Greenhouse gasses: a quick check to the all-knowing wikipedia tells me that the major greenhouse gasses are:

water vapor (H2O)
carbon dioxide (CO2)
methane (CH4)
nitrous oxide (N2O)
ozone (O3)

I am fairly certain some of those shoot out of my tail pipe. Now how much have we increased their levels from the 'natural' amount.

Gas -Preindustrial level -Current level -Increase since 1750
Carbon dioxide 280 ppm 396 ppm 116 ppm
Methane 700 ppb 1745 ppb 1045 ppb
Nitrous oxide 270 ppb 314 ppb 44 ppb
CFC-12 0 533 ppt 533 ppt

Wow that is a shitton more than occurs naturally.




My question for the 'skeptics' is this: How much of these greenhouse gasses do you think we can add before it will affect the climate? Or is your argument that greenhouse gasses don't actually have an effect on the climate?

My response to Mr Fusion is this: All those items you described happen due to natural supply/demand resource scarcity. You try to blame it on your straw-man solar panel subsidy argument but with energy sectors posting record breaking profits it makes me wonder if they finally realized they have us by the balls and we don't have a choice how much $$ we pay for fuel and for electricity. They can charge what they want because where else are we going to get it from?

[gwb72tii]

my argument has been about CO2 and man's annual contribution to this trace element.

and mann manipulating data that allowed his models to predict doom. the guy is a fraud.

and herb, yes, others may have produced similar results with actual data, but that doesn't excuse mann and his methods.
and the fact you can't bring yourself to realize that is puzzling. i mean, if you actually cared about AGW, you should be leading the fight to discredit the guy, but instead you excuse him.
and somehow being a skeptic is bad. LOL

[cale]

Being a skeptic is great, knowingly promoting inaccurate information or choosing to remain ignorant because reality conflicts with your priorities is not. You have in this thread and this forum shared what you believe to be facts and hold to them despite being shown your errors. You're just as guilty of that as the so called profiteers of AGW.

[herbivor]

my argument has been about CO2 and man's annual contribution to this trace element.

and mann manipulating data that allowed his models to predict doom. the guy is a fraud.

and herb, yes, others may have produced similar results with actual data, but that doesn't excuse mann and his methods.
and the fact you can't bring yourself to realize that is puzzling. i mean, if you actually cared about AGW, you should be leading the fight to discredit the guy, but instead you excuse him.
and somehow being a skeptic is bad. LOL

Tell me how Mann manipulated the data exactly and what errors he made statistically. If you throw out his "manipulated data" which he had good reason to manipulate at the time, it would effect the outcome of the graph by 2%. Do you even know the details behind the analysis to judge him for being a fraud? Also, you never answered my previous questions. Still waiting.

[Fusion]

Back to dinosaur diarrhea if you like

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018211003063

Truth be told, the dinos must've had pretty huge cars with massive engines.

Tell me how Mann manipulated the data exactly

That's hard to say when the "scientist" refuses access to his data.
Care to tell us why a scientist, who is just gathering data for a scientific study, refuses to show anyone his data/procedure? What the hell kind of science is that?

[Q5Quint]

Truth be told, the dinos must've had pretty huge cars with massive engines.

So what you are saying is that during one of the warmest period in our planets history when there was a mass extinction where half of the worlds species went extinct we had a whopping 1000-2000 ppm of co2? Cool~ we are about to hit 400 now... should we continue on to 1000 and see if that happens again?

Are Dino-Cars where all the murcury is coming from too? (notice the man-made % column)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...48969709008043



All this Mann talk is interesting~ there have been plenty of scientific mishaps, miscalculations, outright lies and funded bias. I find it strange you pay so much attention to a single fellows work (or miswork) when you can easily find data about the consensus. Should we list out all of the authors so you can attempt to discredit all of them too? I haven't looked through Mann's stuff so I can't comment either way.

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

This was for 928 papers. Are you prepared to discredit 928 papers that do not share your view?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full


And more fun co2 numbers:

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

It is like we are time traveling back into a mass extinction climate, and doing it in just a hundred years instead of tens of thousands.

“The human population is 6.8 billion and growing every second. The sheer force of our numbers is dominating the planet to such a degree that geologists are contemplating renaming our era the ‘Anthropocene’: the epoch where the human species is the dominant factor affecting land, air, water, soil, and species."

Is another mass extinction event on the way?

And the bigger issue here is that the man-made climate change is not just about CO2, it is not just about Nox and Sox and mercury and pollution~ it is about the combination of all that doing bad things to our environment. Somebody asked for the kids and mercury sources. Here is one for the nation

A recent analysis of the impact on children’s health of
industrial Hg emissions calculated that 316,588–637,233 US
babies are born each year with cord blood Hg levels>5.8 mg/
L. [Trasande et al., 2005] These infants suffer mercuryrelated
losses of cognitive function ranging from 0.2 to 24.4
IQ points.

[Fusion]

This was for 928 papers. Are you prepared to discredit 928 papers that do not share your view?

As I've stated before, I am not negating this, rather doubting the process and interpretation of the data.

You write

there have been plenty of scientific mishaps, miscalculations, outright lies and funded bias

yet you don't hesitate to take a firm stance on the subject. This means you aren't fully accepting the empirical side of this, rather the ideological belief.

And the reason Mann is mentioned most often is that he's the best known alarmist, who's data is the basis for Gore propaganda and the questionable and corrupt steps taken world wide. Its obvious why he doesn't want to reveal his faulty (purposely or not) data, because shit would hit the fan so hard, even meteorologists would probably be "denied".

But again, let's say it's all true. Than why for example are the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses not taxed and promoted to be replaced like old cars, instead a ponzi scheme called carbon credits is created? How can people invest in the Amazon forest to "create" madeup carbon money?

The closest thing to carbon credits are the indulgence scandals in the Middle Ages.
Besides the bullshit, propaganda, data clusterfuck, corrupt legislation, corrupt subsidizing, money spent for questionable studies, ponzi schemes, etc., WHAT is being done to effectively solve anything?

[nando]

the idea behind carbon credits is you assign a dollar/economic cost to carbon emissions. You create scarcity by releasing a limited amount of credits. Thus creating an economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions, or an alternative (buying credits from others who are more efficient) if one isn't able to reduce emissions enough. It's not a ponzi scheme, even if you don't understand how it works at all. It was actually an idea that started in the USA but for whatever reason we've rejected it (the harcore right, I guess).

Unfortunately from what I understand they've effectively "printed" far too many carbon credits, so they're nearly worthless and the economic incentive to reduce emissions isn't really there.