|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: lonestar2004]
#7759123 - 12/14/07 04:36 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said: Ignorance??
Its amazing that the Global Warming idiots think that normal and ongoing climate change is materially being made harmful by human activities and that humans can alter the climate back to someone’s idea of an ideal status.....
His ignorance is in thinking that the climate is not actually getting warmer, contrary to what even the most skeptical of scientists have said. BTW, these global warming "idiots" include every nationally and internationally recognized scientific organization that has commented on the matter.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7759154 - 12/14/07 04:45 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said: I love how if I were to link the following...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
... & say, "See, this is proof 9-11 was an inside job!", then I would rightly be ignored. But "think tanks" whose principle financial contributor is ExxonMobil are somehow considered a valid source on info. on climate change. There's probably a few here who still believe the "scientists" who took money from Phillip Morris saying there's inconclusive evidence linking smoking cigarettes to lung cancer & emphysema. Hell, they probably are in denial that human activity is responsible for increased acidity of rainwater in places or that human activity in the form of releasing CFCs has a negative impact on the ozone layer.
To be fair, there are credible, respectable scientists who are not in the pockets of oil companies who still doubt anthropogenic global warming. There are also credible, respectable scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS. You don't tend to hear too much from those people.
--------------------
|
Silver Jay
Stranger
Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 56
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: moeburn]
#7759716 - 12/14/07 07:08 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
harper is the anti-christ
|
bodynotdead
TrichodermaCultivator



Registered: 05/10/07
Posts: 271
Loc: U.S.A
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Silver Jay]
#7760003 - 12/14/07 08:19 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
this will all go away just like the last global cooling fad.
 we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat New York Times front page read.Quote:
scientists say we must melt ice sheets.
-------------------- "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Lord Acton,
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic



Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: bodynotdead]
#7760123 - 12/14/07 08:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I can't actually post pdfs and I don't have a webserver, but I'll paste the important bit of an article I found in Nature
Although this minimized the short-term effect on CO2, we note that the removal of respired DIC from the deep ocean would have caused the CO3 (2-) activity there to increase, deepening the lysocline; such deepening has long been recognized as a potential mechanism to deplete the oceanic alkalinity inventory and, hence, decrease global CO2 solubility. Thus, the removal of respired DIC from a large fraction of the deep sea would have caused an additional, long-term increase of pCO2 (ref. 32), helping to propel the climate system into the interglacial period.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Silversoul]
#7761198 - 12/15/07 09:00 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No reasonable person who has spent much time looking into the science of this will put up much of a fight denying that the earth surface temperature station results seem to indicate there has been a slight rise in the surface temperature of the earth over the last century or so. There is, however, considerable reason to doubt the validity of a heck of a lot of the data from a heck of a lot of those stations -- especially those in the developed world. The thing is, if it can be shown that enough of those stations are producing bogus data, then scientifically speaking the data they contribute must be discarded.
Discarding the data of the surface stations then leaves us with temperature data solely from weather balloons and satellites, neither of which are anywhere near as definite about the warming of the earth. As a matter of fact, in the case of the most accurate global data (that from satellites), every year or two or you will come across an article somewhere reversing the previous understanding of what the satellite data shows -- one year it is that the data shows a very slight decrease in temperatures over the last thirty years, a year or two later someone claims to have found a flaw in the analysis and says the data shows a very slight increase, then that gets reversed again a year later, etc. The last I heard on the subject, the general opinion was that there has indeed been a very slight increase, but that the increase is well within the bounds of statistical error -- as have been all the previous flip flops on the satellite data.
The weather balloon data likewise shows at most a very slight increase over the last fifty years, but weather balloon data (especially in developing countries and over oceans) is scantier than surface station reports, and not as accurate as satellite reports.
Bottom line -- no one can honestly say with scientific certainty that the Earth is on average even a fraction of a degree warmer today than it was on average a hundred years ago.
However, it doesn't really matter. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Earth really is almost a degree centigrade warmer on average today than it was a hundred years ago. It's not at all unlikely that it is, even if we can't prove so absent reliance on sketchy surface station data, so let's just take the worst case scenario, assume that the weather ballon data is wrong, the satellite data is wrong, but the surface data is correct -- the Earth was almost a degree cooler a century ago.
How does this piece of data show the rise in temperature over the last hundred years is due to humans burning stuff? Answer -- it doesn't. Every legitimate scientist working in the field must admit that the proxy records of past Earth surface temperature show repeated increases (and decreases) of far more than a degree in far less than a century. And that these temperature swings have been occurring on a more or less regular basis for eons longer than humans have been burning stuff.
There is as well the inconvenient fact that legitimate scientists working in the field must admit the proxy records show the increase in carbon dioxide levels has historically come after a rise in surface temperature -- usually several hundred years after. Zap has pointed this out several times, only to be ignored by the true believers here. Correlation does not equal causation.
As well, it has been pointed out that even though the atmospheric CO2 levels were reported as increasing at an almost steady rate over the last century or so, the average surface temperature of the Earth dropped from the 1940s to the 1970s. Three decades of rising carbon dioxide levels coinciding with three decades of dropping temperatures, yet we still have people insisting the reason the Earth started warming up again in the 70s was due to humans burning stuff. Hmmm.
The problem with the whole "the earth is getting hotter because humans are burning stuff" argument is that it cannot explain the hundreds (probably thousands) of times in the past where the Earth has become warmer with no help from humans. Yet the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) acolytes are unruffled by this -- "That was then, this is now. Yeah, humans burning stuff had nothing to do with the first two thousand warming cycles, but this time it is caused by humans, not by whatever caused the first two thousand."
And we don't even know that the reported increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is the result of human activity. Again, the proxy record shows many times in the past where CO2 levels rose to a far greater degree than they have in the last century -- with no help from humans at all. But again, the AGW acolytes chirp up "That was then, this is now. Yeah, humans burning stuff had nothing to do with the first two thousand or so increases in C2 concentration, but this time it is caused by humans, not by whatever caused the first two thousand."
In essence, the entire AGW argument rests on some pretty flimsy foundations:
-- greenhouse gases help keep the Earth's surface warmer than it would be without them -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- when humans burn stuff, CO2 is produced
--> therefore, the reported rise in Earth's average surface temperature over the last century is due to humans burning stuff.
No consideration of other factors known to have an effect on surface temperature -- solar radiance, mean distance from Earth to sun, percentage of atmospheric cloud cover, mean height of atmospheric cloud cover, axial precession, volcanic activity, surface albedo, atmospheric concentration of other greenhouse gases (including water vapor), magnetic field reversals, tectonic activity, and more. Nope -- it's just "Humans burn stuff, so the recent reported warming of the Earth must be due to that."
That's not science, my friends. Not anywhere close.
Phred
--------------------
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Silversoul]
#7761352 - 12/15/07 10:31 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: I'd be interested if any global warming deniers can produce a single article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports their claims. There's certainly an abundance of such articles supporting the contrary position.
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
carbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Phred]
#7761356 - 12/15/07 10:32 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Duh, Humans burn stuff, duh, stuff thats burnt is hot, so humans are heating the earth cuz they burn stuff, duh
You cant be serious. This discussion board is an elaborate game you like to play? You pretend to be a die hard skeptic, and never let anyone in on it.
-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
carbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: carbonhoots]
#7761372 - 12/15/07 10:39 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh yes, of course,
Burning stuff gives off greenhouse gases which trap the sun's heat.
-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: carbonhoots]
#7761436 - 12/15/07 11:09 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Duh, Humans burn stuff, duh, stuff thats burnt is hot, so humans are heating the earth cuz they burn stuff, duh
Burning stuff produces CO2, therefore (according to the AGW acolytes), the Earth has warmed over the last century because humans produced CO2 by burning stuff. The heat produced at the moment the stuff is burnt isn't even considered in their argument -- their argument concerns itself strictly with the addition to the atmosphere by humans of carbon dioxide.
Quote:
You cant be serious.
But I am serious. Dead serious.
Quote:
This discussion board is an elaborate game you like to play?
Nope. No game. The "solutions" the AGW acolytes propose to the "problem" of human-produced CO2 are incredibly destructive to human prosperity, hence to human survival. That ain't no game, sparky.
Quote:
You pretend to be a die hard skeptic, and never let anyone in on it.
I have no idea what this non sequitur translates to in English, so I'll let it sit with no further comment.
Phred
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Phred]
#7761471 - 12/15/07 11:21 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Correlation does not equal causation. Phred
Exactly
PEOPLE, we have been warming up since the last ice age!!!!!
Dumbass people coming up with Horseshit ideas from observations of 20 years of climate data over a lifetime of 4.5 Billion years of climate fluctuations
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
Edited by lonestar2004 (12/15/07 11:34 AM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: Phred]
#7761724 - 12/15/07 12:49 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 05:00 PM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: lonestar2004]
#7761734 - 12/15/07 12:53 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 05:01 PM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7761769 - 12/15/07 01:11 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 05:02 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7762000 - 12/15/07 02:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
hummermania00
Strange Son of aBitch



Registered: 04/07/07
Posts: 327
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
#7762360 - 12/15/07 04:19 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/1.html
Well I have to agree with zappa here. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4 http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=571597
Check out the liks on global cooling in the next 12-30 years. Yes CO is increasing, but temperature is a distict entity dependant entirely on the sun. Even with cooling as propsed in the links, we will still have CO.
-------------------- You are a fortunate person indeed, if you can begin each day accepting the fact that during that day there will be ups and downs, good breaks and bad ones, disappointments, surprises, and unexpected turns of events. When you have solved all the mysteries of life you long for death, for it is but another mystery of life.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
#7762405 - 12/15/07 04:31 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 05:03 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7762531 - 12/15/07 05:06 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You continue to labor under two separate but distinct fallacies. That there is a consensus among scientists that humans are causing globull warming and that consensus connotes fact. I linked a specific page in the junkscience link. You would do well to actually read the junkscience short judo course. He gives quite a few examples and explains why they were junk.
Biased? Facts aren't biased. The UN is, though.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20071213.DC09846&show_article=1 Lone Voice of Dissent Censored by United Nations
Quote:
CHICAGO, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.
The ICSC is a group of scientists from Africa, Australia, Europe, India, New Zealand, and the U.S. who contend sound science does not support the outrageous claims and draconian regulations proposed in Bali.
--------------------
|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 11 hours
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
#7762988 - 12/15/07 07:28 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Heres a list of anti=global warming organizations and who funds them. If you site from any of these, you need to think twice, or three times, I'm looking at you d33p.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 11 hours
|
Re: Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks! [Re: zappaisgod]
#7762994 - 12/15/07 07:32 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No Zappa, your coalition is in Exxon's pocket:
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets "So. Here I am at the climate conference in Bali where Exxon's team seems to be very busy trashing the science whilst the rest of the world is trying to solve climate change.
We have all sorts of groups turning up - but it seems the main lot is the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) which has received $US 542,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
It got $US 70,000 just last year.
Also here is the International Policy Network which has received $US 390,000 from Exxon since 1998.
My colleague Kert has already blogged about the Heartland Institute's behaviour early in the week...
But as the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boers, said the other day "The sceptics have had their hey day". This is abundantly clear. Nobody's questioning the science any more.
CFACT's little tricks here are verging on the hysterical - walking around the press centre abusing journalists, and offering free massages in the hope that people will come and listen to their ranting. Nobody is taking them seriously. In fact many journalists I've spoken to just want to write about how much money they get from Exxon.
They have launched the International Climate Science Coalition - a group set up by a New Zealand sceptic lot - interestingly, Brian Leyland from New Zealand is leading the CFACT delegation - despite denying any connections to Exxon money.
Meanwhile the NZ delegation seems to be taking a positive role, supporting a range of 25-40% cuts for industrialised countries. Doesn't look like Mr Leyland's having much of an effect."
|
|