| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analys is-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-cl imate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101 -video-simple-experiment/ | ||
| Fahren |
Oh FFS! Do you have any idea how boring an unedited film of a process like an experiment is? Who cares if they made the process look better for the video?!!! If you think the world is in fine shape, that the earth's exploding human population and huge development of a consumer society in Asia and elsewhere are not stretching our natural resources beyond a level we can sustain, that it wouldn't be a great idea to develop alternatives to oil dependance so we can give the finger to foreign oil-rich countries in the middle east and stop instigating wars over there that get good Americans killed, then you should go on being a global warming denier. Me, I don't care if it's caused by man, by sunspots, by normal earth cycles, or by Mickey Mouse or a vengeful God in Heaven Above. I just know it's tragically typical of human beings to ignore problems until they are critical or beyond. Example: Look at our government: how long will they continue in denial that we have an economic crisis on our hands and we can't just keep printing money to pay off the debts? Ignore and abuse Mother Earth at our peril. Nitpicking over details of video editing - that blogger needs to get a life! | ||
| Sifo |
Do you have any idea how boring an unedited film of a process like an experiment is? Who cares if they made the process look better for the video?!!! It's not that it was edited. It's that it was faked. It's bad science anyway, delivered by a charlatan. It's no wonder we tend to miss the important things when we have this kind of crap to take out eye off the ball. | ||
| Davegess |
anyone who thinks the world is not getting warmer has their head in the sand. We can argue all you want about causes but we do need to think about what to do. Oceans rising by several feet will be a very costly disaster for the US and many other places. The science is pretty convincing. | ||
| Sifo |
Oceans rising by several feet will be a very costly disaster for the US and many other places. How many centuries for "several feet" of sea level rise? I can only assume that means more than a couple. Someone's been drinking the Gore KoolAid. | ||
| Hootowl |
The sea has stopped rising and has gone down the past two years. Irrelevant, as it has been MUCH higher and MUCH lower in the past, just as temperatures have, just as atmospheric CO2 levels have. Historically, temperature increases have led CO2 increases, not lagged them. Gore's theory doesn't hold water. Is the Earth warming? Sure. Ice cores show conclusively that the Earth has been warming for centuries, and that it underwent cooling before it began warming, and that it will do so until the red giant phase of the sun starts to scour away the atmosphere in about a billion years. If you think the doubling of a trace atmospheric gas that has a logarithmically lower effect on heat retention is the cause, you've been duped by Big Green. | ||
| Nobuell |
Fahren You may not care but I do. How can it be a tragedy if warming is caused by normal earth or solar cycles. What do you propose we rush out and do if it is only natural cycles? That video is typical of the global warming religion. Distort the truth and resort to trickery. Science be dammed. | ||
| Danger_dave |
And someone's been drinking the Anti-Gore KoolAid. The subject is like physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite.... Just depends who you want to believe. | ||
| Aesquire |
First, I don't mind that the film was completely faked. Watching a thermometer is like watching shadows move in the sun. Boring. If the experiment actually has been performed, and the representation in accurate as to results & methodology, then a dramatization is expected and accepted. So noting in the credits would be honest, But I don't expect that from the Gore/Mann/CRU crowd, by past factual experience. Dave, who told you it was a hotter place? Where did that data come from? Does the chart have the LCO ( medieval warm period )? Is the computer model showing accuracy in prediction out a century within a tenth of a degree? Did that same model correctly predict last year? Oh, and thanks to the President of the United States, the seas have lowered. No worries. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12910/Planet-Healer- Obama-Calls-It-In-2008-he-declared-his-presidency- would-result-in-the-rise-of-the-oceans-beginning-t o-slow--And-By-2011-Sea-Level-Drops | ||
| Sifo |
I get a kick out of the "missing heat" theory. They put so much faith in their computer models being right that they are now trying to find where all the heat has gone. You would think the computer models would tell them that. Of course the models had the heat in the atmosphere. Now they are changing the models to put the heat in the oceans. "Missing" Global Heat May Hide in Deep Oceans One big problem with that idea (other than the unlikely physics involved) is that all that heat in the oceans should cause them to expand and cause sea levels to rise. The damned physical world just wont cooperate with the models! Yep, the science is settled... Again!  | ||
| Fahren |
On one side you have the Gore Kool-Aid. On the other side, you have the Koch brothers Kool-Aid. Hundreds of millions spent by oil and gas billionaires to pay for research to refute the reality, accepted by the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community, of man-made global warming. Hundreds of millions to fund their science projects and also to fund the propagation of those scientists' views in the media - a drop in the bucket investment for these ace money-makers. No ulterior motive there. Nothing to see here - move along. Yes, the seal is laughing. For now. | ||
| Sifo |
I hate to break this to you Fahren, but it's NASA satellites that aren't agreeing with the models. No need for funding by "big oil". The heat just isn't there. | ||
| Nobuell |
Fahren I find it hard to believe that private industry can provide more funding for counter research than the combined governments of major world powers are dumping into current research. Please provide your statistics. | ||
| Sifo |
Fahren I find it hard to believe that private industry can provide more funding for counter research than the combined governments of major world powers are dumping into current research. Please provide your statistics. Don't forget the huge amounts of money dumped into the kettle from literally thousands of environmental groups. It's been years since I've seen the numbers, but the amount of money put into studies that go against the grain are a tiny fraction of the financial pie. If you want funding you play the political game of the day. It's just that simple. | ||
| Slaughter |
I can't believe that I blundered into another Religion thread My bad, I'll move along now. | ||
| 99savage |
Became aware of the possibility of "man made global warming" sometime in the mid-60's. (Turns out the model was wrong but ignore that for now.) Been asking this question since then & never got an answer. What is bad about a warmer planet? - Longer growing seasons, higher yields (especially if more CO2 present), increased commerce as we transit the long sought North-West passage. The seas rise a tad & Babs Streisand has to move out of her Malibu beach house & locate on higher ground while the rest of us gain employment building dikes around NYC What's not to like? (Message edited by 99Savage on September 28, 2011) | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>What's not to like? << Ask a Pacific Islander. | ||
| Fahren |
Look - everyone doing research needs funding. And both sides with agendas fund research. Some do it very openly and in very direct ways, while others, not so much. http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/behind_the_s mears.cfm There's a lot to read in there, especially if you follow the links. I also apologize - I wrote in haste above, without going back to check my data - it is more like tens of millions by the K_ochs, for research funding, as well as political activism and think tank "scholarly" works to add to their spin, but, as you can see in the link above, certainly in the hundreds of millions spent by Big Oil and Big Polluters and Deforesters to fight not only global warming science but also any attempts at environmental stewardship and alternative clean energy solutions. There's too much money involved for these companies not to work their hardest to sway public and government officials' opinions their way. They are not just funding the studies, but also funding lobbying, funding think tanks that write papers about the studies funded from the same sources and who put commentators in front of whatever TV cameras they can. The thing is, you have to dig deep to find the connections between funders such as the K_ochs and the recipients of those funds. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There is no money in no problem. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Remind me again, which data has been proven to have been falsified? | ||
| Xbduck |
FYI Don't for a minute think that just because the K_och family holds their business privately they haven't any influence. The conglomerate they have built has Exxon quaking in its shoes. They are massive on an epic scale. No one knows just how big they are because if you work for them and they catch you crunching numbers to see, you will no longer have a job. It has been said they are 2-3 times larger than Exxon. I don't remember just how much Exxon made last year but I do remember it was significant, in the Billions I think. P.S. Just a few years back they bought Invista (Duponts fibers division) and Georgia Pacific paper products back to back with-in a year or so. I used to work for Invista. They paid cash for both. (Message edited by xbduck on September 29, 2011) | ||
| Boltrider |
Maybe the heat left, as in radiated out into space? | ||
| Boltrider |
The so-called solution has always boggled me. Suppose for once that we go along with the carbon credits and everything else. What exactly is the goal after that? To hold global mean temperature constant? Or to reduce it? How on EARTH do you do either? I just don't see how a plan of transacting carbon credits leads to control of the Earth's temperature. I understand greenhouse gases and trying to lower gas output, but what I don't understand is the control aspect. Just the thought of controlling or manipulating the temperature of the Earth seems VERY dubious. But that's the implication I get with carbon credits, and I can't make sense of it. And please, no volcanic eruptions. That might throw the numbers off.  | ||
| Aesquire |
It's very simple. Mann lies. Lots of evidence. No LCO in hockey stick graph. E-mails detailing the fraud. Change the data to fit the theory. Not science. The CRU lost the raw data, and now nearly everyone uses their "adjusted" data. GIGO. Al Gore bought a house in Malibu, on the Beach. The Seas will not rise. He is sure of it, and all the rest is lies. He put his money where the truth is. And he's made hundreds of millions on the fraud. The oil companies suck.... and don't now or ever paid me to buy their crap. I have, unlike Gore, taken college level courses in Meteorology, and have followed Climate Change studies since the Ice Age was the problem. ( climate change is a big part of my tech history interests ) It Still is. | ||
| Sifo |
The reason you don't understand carbon credits is because you are trying to understand how it controls CO2. It doesn't. It's designed to control money between nations. It's a wealth redistribution plan on a global scale hidden inside the green watermelon. Farhen, I've tried to not attack your sources on things. As a rule they tend to be very dubious. The link to fightcleanenergysmears.org is just way over the top though. Sorry pal, but just looking at their "sources" of information made me laugh. Anyone want to discuss the science? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/09/29/ Gore won't, and Can't discuss the science. I'd be happy to. Looks like Ice age coming to me. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Think about using large amounts of bio-fuels and also taking large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. I'll be back later. G | ||
| Hootowl |
"accepted by the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community" That's not right. The vast majority think it is bunk. The global warming adherents are a small minority. Here's 10,000 researchers who believe data is being manipulated to fit a political agenda, and are demanding a return to scientific integrity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6178213.stm The articles you'll find that say 'majority of scientists agree', if you read carefully, actually say 'majority of scientists polled agree'. Big difference. | ||
| Sifo |
The articles you'll find that say 'majority of scientists agree', if you read carefully, actually say 'majority of scientists polled agree'. Big difference. The real question is what do they agree on. If the question is will more CO2 in the atmosphere cause higher temperatures due to the greenhouse effect, then you should get pretty close to 100% agreement. Very few agree with the Al Gore scenarios however. Huge difference. Water vapor has always been the key. The claim has been that a slight increase in temp caused by CO2 will be multiplied by an increase in water vapor. They came up with values for this positive feedback from experimenting with computer models, not from gathering evidence from the real world. The assumption was that when they got the models telling them what they wanted that the assumptions on water vapor feedback must be pretty close. This issue has never gone away and has been a point of contention for decades now. They are finally beginning to take actual measurements with new satellites in the past few years. The data coming in is showing that their assumptions of water vapor being a huge positive feed back are not only wrong in magnitude, but that the sign may actually be wrong. That is a huge error on the most critical part of the equation! Of course who could ever have known that on a hot sunny day it is a bit cooler when a cloud passes overhead? The most current climate change hoax is fast coming to an end. This same hoax has played out many times in world history. | ||
| Sifo |
Think about using large amounts of bio-fuels Coal, oil, NG... all bio-fuels.  |
